my grandfather passed away in 2008 and he had a rossi .38 special handgun that he has had for well over 20 years and for as far as i know he has never shot it, i did clean it up as much as possible but i dont know any information about it, i would like to know about what year it was made and exactly what type of model it is and just everything someone can tell me about it, he said when i became of age it would be given to me, well im 18 now and my grandmother finally passed it down to me and i have no interest in gettin rid of it due to the fact that my grandfather owned it, but then again i dont know a thing about it and i just need some help, i can post pictures if anybody thinks they can identify it for me, thanks so much!

You know how I love to laugh at failed criminal attempts. I don’t know why this is, but there is something about catching bad people in laughable positions that makes me feel good about the universe. Natural justice, if you will. This story is a prime example of a criminal (not so much dumb as unlucky), getting exactly what was coming to him. Florida Man Tries to Pawn Stolen Jewelry at Store Managed By Woman Whose Home He Just Robbed

check out my post the title is missleading theres many things listed i want info on such as value age historical significance ex. thank you and happy shooting

I have a RG10s if anyone is intrested. Its in good shape for info or pic leave a message here

As I look through magazines, I see many ads for derringers. From .22 to 45/410, they are available from a number of manufacturers.  My assumption is, if there are a number of people making them, someone is buying them.

The question then must be asked; are people buying these for personal protection? If the answer is yes, the next question is why? Do people really think these are a good defensive option or, is it a nostalgia purchase?

Most of the derringers do not appear significantly smaller or lighter than many of the small pistols that are currently being offered. There are a number of companies making 380, 9mm, 40 and even 45 caliber “pocket pistols”. I have a Kahr P40 which, I can carry without notice in most trouser pockets. It carries 6 or 7 shots, depending on the magazine used. I ask myself; “Self, would you trade the P40 for a two shot derringer?” Cannot see a “yes” to that question.

Once again, I will throw the question out to the forum. Do any of you carry a derringer? I do not mean do you have one but, do you actually carry it for personal protection? I would be interested in knowing why you chose that option and, when you carry it.

P.S. - Since one of the purposes of a forum is to stimulate discussion, feel free to comment on any aspect of this.

I thought this would interest of lot of people, both veterans and potential employees:

We have been working with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to provide a customized job search engine for the NRD, using Google Custom Search technology. This custom search engine uses the power and scale of Google search to constantly crawl the web, looking for JobPosting markup from Schema.org on sites like simplyhired.com to identify veteran-committed job openings. An employer can easily add a job posting to NRD simply by adding that markup to their own web page. As pages are updated or removed from the web, they’re automatically updated and removed from the system, keeping the available job postings on NRD fresh and up to date.

via the official google blog

So if you are a veteran looking for employment, or if you are an employee looking would like to employ veterans, check out the National Resource Directory

One of the strengths of the American system is the First Amendment, which secures free and robust debate.  However it must never be forgotten that it is the Second Amendment that secures every other right.  In the spirit of free debate, I turn to a November 10th article published at National Review Online by Robert Ver Bruggen.

I suspect most Gun Values Board readers have been following attempts in the Congress to pass national concealed carry reciprocity.  In effect, the bill would require all states to honor the concealed carry licenses of all states as they honor the driver’s licenses, marriage licenses and similar documents and privileges granted by any and every American state.  At the moment, it seems likely that the House of Representatives will pass this bill, but with the Senate in Democrat hands, its passage there is unlikely, which will leave the status quo untouched: most states recognize concealed carry for their law abiding citizens and a somewhat smaller number honor the licenses of residents of other states. Circa November, 2011, only Illinois completely bans concealed carry for its citizens, while other jurisdictions such as California and the District of Columbia technically allow it, but in practice, only the wealthy, famous and politically connected have the slightest hope of exercising this particular right.

Mr. VerBruggen objects to the bill on states rights grounds:

Concealed carry is a good idea, and so is reciprocity when states enact it voluntarily — but this is a bad idea, as it goes beyond the proper functions of the federal government. The stated constitutional justifications for the law are to protect the Second Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment), to protect the right of interstate travel, and to protect interstate commerce, but none is even slightly convincing.

As the Supreme Court noted in its Heller decision, bans on concealed carry do not run afoul of the Second Amendment — they have a long history in the U.S., and courts have typically upheld them under the Second Amendment and state analogues. Thus, states have every right to decide the criteria by which they’ll grant permits (if they grant them at all), and to decide which other states’ permits they’ll respect. In fact, the exceptions written into the law itself — states that completely ban concealed carry don’t have to respect other states’ permits — show that no one takes this argument seriously; if carrying a gun in a state where you’re not licensed to carry is a Second Amendment right, why does it stop at the borders of the most anti-gun states?

While the Supreme Court has recognized a right of interstate travel, surely it doesn’t protect carrying items you’re not licensed to carry in the states you’re traveling to. And while Congress is notorious for abusing the Commerce Clause, I’m not seeing how concealed-carry permit holder’s not being able to carry while traveling “substantially affects” interstate commerce.

The only other justification for the law I can even think of is the ‘full faith and credit” clause, which requires states to respect each others’ ‘public acts, records, and judicial proceedings’ — but this case would seem to fall under the ‘public-policy exception.’

And the Constitution aside, this is just bad policy from a conservative perspective, as it tramples on states’ rights. It’s almost an inverse of the Defense of Marriage Act — rather than allowing states to make their own laws and disregard licenses granted by states with different policies, it informs states that out-of-state travelers don’t have to play by their rules.

I’m generally a supporter of state’s rights, particularly in areas where the Federal government—through incompetence, sloth, corruption or politics (but I repeat myself)—fails in its duty.  The states enacting immigration laws such as Arizona are a good example of this, particularly where their laws essentially mirror, rather than exceeding or overshadowing, parallel federal laws.

For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll assume that the Mr. VerBruggen supports the notion that men have a natural, inalienable right to self-defense.  One might assume that the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions also took due notice of that inalienable right.  If they did not, it would likely have taken far more legal back bending than usual to hold that the Second Amendment did indeed speak to an individual—not a corporate—right to keep and bear arms, and that such right is a fundamental individual right, subject to the highest judicial deference.

So.  We do have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and arms means the weapons commonly available and in common use, such as modern semi-automatic handguns and revolvers in all shapes and sizes.  We can unquestionably keep such weapons, particularly in the home—and presumably in one’s business, car, etc.—but it is the “bear” portion of the equation the Supreme Court left almost entirely unsettled and which Mr. VerBruggen essentially ignores.

A fundamental right established for the purpose of protecting life is of little value if it must operate under arbitrary geographic limits.  Is a citizen’s life of inestimable worth in one state, but worth nothing when they cross the line into an adjoining state?  Is it sacrosanct standing on Elm Street, but utterly unprotected when stepping off Elm Street onto the grounds of the Elm Street Middle School?  If my ability to bear arms using a reasonable and common method of “bearing” is limited to my own property, it is of little value, for I spend most of my time outside my home and far from my property, as do most people.  Sadly, the Supreme Court has not resolved this issue, but the majority decisions in Heller and McDonald suggest a line of logic to follow, a line which recognizes every day reason and practicality.

Entire classes of handguns are designed primarily for concealed carry.  I recently published a review of Smith and Wesson’s .380 ACP bodyguard pistol. Carrying it–or any weapon like it–openly would be impractical and silly.  It is so small as to make most conventional belt holsters impractical, so small that even openly carried, one would be prone to being accused by some of trying to conceal it anyway merely by encasing it in a holster.  In the same way that the words that comprise laws must have common and easily understood definitions, logic, practicality and reason must prevail in the application of fundamental rights.

If the Second Amendment is truly a fundamental right, how can the most common means of carrying a firearm be regulated out of existence, and how can any state—or the District of Columbia—be allowed to deny its exercise?  In short, if one cannot carry a firearm on their person when and where they choose, can they be said to truly have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, or even to self-defense, to preserve their lives?  If not, all a potential killer need do is wait until a potential victim crosses a geographical boundary into a no-arms building, zone or state to realize their evil intention.  As Mr. VerBruggen notes, even the proposed bill allows states that don’t recognize their own citizen’s right to concealed carry to deny it to all.

It seems that VerBruggen undercuts his own case in arguing the Defense of Marriage Act.  I’m unaware of any provision of the Constitution that establishes a fundamental right to marriage, or to drive a car, for example.  Yet all states routinely recognize the marriage licenses and driver’s licenses of non-residents.  Mr. VerBruggen sees this as a contradiction, but he seems to forget that such matters are privileges–not fundamental, inalienable rights–granted and revoked by the states at will.  Thus a state may choose to recognize the heterosexual marriages of all other states, but not homosexual marriages.  I make no moral claim here; I merely discuss the logical and legal issues.  By the same token a state may choose not to recognize the licenses of a state that refuses to revoke the licenses of convicted drunk drivers or those who drive without insurance.  Again, this is rational and correct because no inalienable, fundamental right is involved.

Ultimately, the case for nationwide concealed carry seems straightforward:  The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, inalienable right.  As such, the right must attach wherever the individual travels.  If it is restricted to the home or property of the individual, it is nothing more than a privilege regulated by the whim of the state.  Since concealed carry is the method of carrying a handgun most compatible with public order and the suppression of crime, it follows that restricting it would be against, rather than supportive of, public safety and order. If the state’s rights argument prevails, there is no right to keep and bear arms, only a privilege to keep arms, and to bear them under some circumstances and in some proscribed manners to be determined by 50 separate states.  It would be as though the rights to speak or worship were also subject to the whims of the states.  We know how well that worked out with the right to vote.

If Mr. VanBruggen is correct, Second Amendment jurisprudence reached a dead end with Heller, and certainly with McDonald, for it is not a fundamental right at all, but a privilege granted and revoked by the states.  That’s not a principle upon which one can rely for the preservation of a single fundamental right, and certainly not their life.

I have a Winchester Model 1890 22 LR with octagon barrel.  The serial number is 821187.  I consider the condition to be good.  I would like an estimate of the value and the year that it was manufactured. 

bolt action, manufacture New Haven Conn. walnut stock, 5 shot 4 n magaz. 1 n chamber …scope is ” Bushnell Banner” condition is good.  Value??…want 2 sell it.  Ron Dixon….Niagara WI

Does anyone know the value of this Luger and its age

http://www.gunauction.com/closed/displayitem.cfm?ItemNum=10622153

In a nutshell, a woman was out walking her dog on Sunday morning, and she was attacked and raped by a man with more than 20 convictions on similar crimes. The Sheriff is clearly frustrated by the system he is part of and several times during his statement and the questions that followed, called for women to get concealed carry licenses as means of protection. His obvious frustration created quite the media buzz.

Jezebel said:

Protecting yourself is great, but really? Guns are the way to go? Guns seem so shooty, and they’re heavy and difficult to tote around. Plus, the risk of Plaxico Burressing your ladyparts seems unjustifiable. Contrary to the NRA’s wet dream, we don’t all suddenly turn into Bruce Willis circa Die Hard when we get our hands on a gun, and even though many people own guns responsibly, there’s always a risk that a less-proficient gun owner, when accosted by a criminal, may have their own weapon used against them for the very crime the gun was intended to prevent.

Now isn’t that a well researched comment!? Maybe the writer isn’t aware that not all guns are aka47’s. There are other options, and if you handle your gun with care it won’t necessarily blow off your lady parts. Plus, you don’t just go out and “get a gun” you do target practice and make sure you are familiar with your weapon, and feel assertive enough with it that it won’t be turned against you.

MSNBC ’s Craig Melvin interviewed the sheriff with some quite outrageous questions (sounded to me as if he was sucking on sensationalism).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The most outrageous question was ” If women are shooting potential attackers, aren’t they presuming guilt before innocence? What if a woman kills an attacker? Isn’t that opening another whole legal can of worms?” Well Mr. Melvin, what do you suggest we do? Let them rape us a little to make sure these are there intentions? If someone grabs me, or throws me down or advances on me in a menacing fashion, I am going to assume there intentions are not loving and good. Wouldn’t You?

I am having a very very difficult time finding a J.Stevens .410 Shotgun…..with the only real numbers or letters for date, model, or ser./pat. # being under the front grip in 3 places…..which reads both “807 LR”, and “LR 807″.  Value doesn’t concern me much, but I would CHERISH any facts, history, and/or general info. about this old shotgun.  HELP!!???!!

I never had any use for small gauge shotguns. I guess where some folks saw an increased challenge, I saw needlessly wounded animals. I can see them for small game, close in. Different perspectives I guess. Until a few years ago, I did all my shotgunning with a 12 gauge. At that point, I acquired a 20 gauge over and under because, I could not get the 12. I found that, if I do my part, it is a capable shooter.

All that having been said, the idea of hunting with a 28 gauge or a 410 never appealed to me. It seemed that, there was a certain snob appeal to them but, that did not appeal to me. My apologies to small gauge aficionados but, apparently, I was not alone. Both gauges were fading into obscurity. I cannot say that the 28 gauge has found a life preserver yet but, the 410 certainly has it’s hands on the life boat.

Reading through gun mags, I see the ads for the Taurus line of Judge revolvers. Recently, I saw that Rossi is making a lever action “rifle” for the 410. In addition to the 410, the revolvers can shoot 45 LC which, gives it some flexibility. There are othere available such as the Winchester 9410, the Rossi Circuit Judge 45/410 rifle. There may be other manufacturers with 410 models.

Self defense may be a viable use for the 410 in today’s world. As a defensive round, it has enough punch with either buck shot or slugs to dissuade a wrongdoer. Since 3 inch shells are available, you can up the power level if you wish. Most confrontations are at relatively close range so distance shooting is not an issue for a defensive round. From my point of view, the 410 makes sense in this role and may have found a whole new purpose and thus, a whole new life.

How do you feel about this? If you want to defend the small gauges, I want to hear from you.

Evil.  Most Americans will acknowledge its existence on at least an abstract level, but beyond that, discord reigns.  It may seem on first glance odd, even paradoxical those that support freedom as embodied by the Constitution also acknowledge the existence of evil—in fact and not as abstraction—but upon closer examination, their acknowledgement is rationality itself.

The history of freedom begins with the value of each individual.  In his excellent book, The Gifts of The Jews, Thomas Cahill explains that prior to the coming of the one God, people lived in a state modern progressives would surely recognize.  But God spoke to Abraham, and the reality that each human life is of inestimable value was made manifest.  From that moment forward, the absolute power of the state was broken.  Fate no longer determined each man’s destiny; he did it himself through his choices and labor.  Man was free—and responsible for himself.

Ironically, it is here, in the time before Abraham, that Progressivism is mired.  Only those who heard and heeded God have truly progressed, then and now.  Self-proclaimed progressives remain locked in the slavery of the ancient model of Statism and the worship of a god-like leader and his elite.  They accept the ancient idea that each man’s worth is measured by his utility to the state, that his destiny is to be determined by the state’s preferences and goals.  To be sure, modern progressives believe themselves to be so good, so virtuous, so intelligent that they will be somehow unaffected by the policies they intend to impose on others, yet they are nonetheless willingly accepting the chains of slavery.

How does this understanding relate to the existence of evil?  The free man, the man responsible for his choices, his destiny, must of necessity see the world as it is rather than as he wishes it to be.  He knows the fallen nature of man and accepts that utopia is not of this worldly existence.  He accepts not just the abstraction of evil as some nebulous force counterbalancing good, but as a reality that might confront him or those he loves anywhere at any time, as a threat which might destroy him or them because that is the nature of evil.  He accepts this because he knows that Satan–the source of evil–exists and he knows that all men are free to choose good or evil. 

This fundamental freedom renders the amoral preferences of the state and its god-like elite meaningless.  Above all, the free man cherishes God’s greatest gift: life.  He realizes that to ignore the reality and ever-present threat of evil, to be unprepared to meet and overcome it, is to place himself and those he loves at the mercy of the merciless, to choose to irresponsibly risk God’s greatest gift.

Not so the Progressive who looks to the state for guidance, sustenance and meaning through its rhetoric and supposed establishment of social and economic “justice,” which is not justice for all, nor the equality of all men before an unchanging, knowable body of law, but merely the ever-changing whims of those in power.  The state has no humanity, no conscience.  It constantly extols the welfare of “the people,” but “the people” are the ultimate abstraction.  The state cares nothing for the life or welfare of the individual.  Thus the ObamaCare death panels” about which Sarah Palin and others warned, and over which they were brutally vilified, have been proven to exist in the thousands of pages of the bill we had to pass before we could find out what was in it.  The aged and infirm will be sentenced to death by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats—amoral functionaries of the state—the better to establish social and economic justice for the good of “the people,” unless of course, you happen to be one of “the people,” about whom the state is not currently fond.

The greatest stealth truth of Socialism is that evil exists only in resistance to the state and its goals.  In Marxist states, resistance is rewarded with death, whether lingering torture or a bullet to the back of the head as in China, which bills the families of its victims for the bullet used to kill them.  In socialist—Marxism lite—states, there is no equality under the law, for the law exists not to secure and protect the rights of men, but to serve the ever-changing needs of the state.  Socialists may not kill those that resist Statism outright, but they will harass, slander, bankrupt and eventually, imprison them.  This is justified with the assumption that resistance is always counter to the will of “the people,” and the will of “the people” is always to be determined solely by the ruling elite who alone are qualified to lead the grateful, utterly dependent people on the glorious path of Socialism.

The logic of Socialism, such as it is, is easy to apprehend.  The needs of the individual are meaningless.  Individual lives have value and meaning only in service to the state, which reevaluates such value and meaning on a continual basis.  Barack Obama could no more disown the Reverend Wright than he could his white grandmother, until he threw Reverend Wright—and for all intents and purposes his white grandmother—under the campaign bus.  For Progressives, nothing is immutable and unchanging, except the necessity of Progressive change regardless of how contradictory that change is to all previous progressive reality.  Therefore there is no such thing as an inalienable right, a God-given right, because Progressivism cannot admit to a power greater than itself.  There can be no individual right to life, so there can be no inalienable right to preserve life, hence no inalienable right to self-defense.

The state will protect those lives it chooses to protect, yet even a democracy has no legal obligation to protect any life, and as for a moral obligation, morality is whatever the socialist state says it is at any moment.  Because the state is supreme, this cannot be a contradiction, for the state cannot be wrong, therefore, it cannot contradict itself.

Thus is the central conflict between conservatives and progressives writ large.  The foundation of Conservatism is the inestimable value of the individual who, being in charge of his destiny, is a moral being ultimately responsible for his decisions and actions.  There can be no question that such men have an inalienable right to protect their lives and the lives of others, and that this right encompasses the means to protect life, not only in the home, but wherever they are.

Progressives cannot recognize the value of the individual for to do so would be to admit that over-arching control of the state over the lives of men is illegitimate.  Men must be responsible to the state, dependent upon it for their very sustenance.  They cannot be allowed to own or use arms, for such men have the means to challenge the state and might be moved to do so.  The state must have the power—the sole power—to decide who will live or die, and the existence of any individual must always depend on their temporary, situational utility to the state.

The Second Amendment is not an anachronism, written in such obscure language that it cannot be understood by the contemporary mind (though I harbor a suspicion this may indeed be so for progressive brains).  It is not a collective right, for there is no such thing.  Collective rights are mere privileges bestowed and revoked by the state.  The Second Amendment does not bestow an inalienable right; it merely acknowledges and secures it.  It warns Progressives to keep their hands off.  Because evil is everywhere and may strike at any time, free men have the inalienable right to possess and carry—to keep and bear, in the quaint language of the Constitution—arms to defeat evil, the ultimate goal of which is the debasement and destruction of life and the soul. 

Progressives cannot abide any of this for to do so would be to utterly undermine not only the foundations of their philosophy but to undermine the necessary conditions for and the legitimacy of their rule. Ultimately, those who most loudly and dramatically beat their breasts and rend their garments on behalf of “the people” always intend to deprive them of the fundamental means to protect their lives, to continue to be part of the nameless, faceless mass of ‘the people.”  Few things frighten statists more than an armed, capable, restive populace, and rightly so, for they know that “the people” do not support them.

Evil exists and its most useful tactic and greatest accomplishment is tricking useful idiots into believing that it does not exist.  For this reason, the genuine adherence of any candidate for the presidency to the Second Amendment should be our most important consideration in lending our political support.  They that do not honestly support it and all it implies do not support the continuing existence of each of us, and in this failure, they enable evil and its eternal bloodlust for the destruction of life.

What greater, more important issue exists for free men who wish to remain free?

WTP I, serial number around or below 400, left slide marked:

WAFFENFABRIK MAUSER A-G OBERNDORF A.N.

T.-6,35

WTP II, serial number 55000-60000 on left front of slide, left slide address in block letters prefered.

WTP II, serial number 75790-76700.

Examples in any condition considered, Good to Excellent condition preferred.

I have examples of both models in Good to Excellent condition for trade if you have only one example in your collection that I am looking for and do not want give up your only one or if you would like an example in better condition.

Also looking for a:

1914 .32 caliber pocket model, serial number 463000- 468000, right slide marked Cal. 7,65, in Good to Excellent condition.

Contact:

Burgess Mason

fxdx21@hotmail.com

352-226-5815 day 352-372-4413 eves

 My name is Burgess Mason. I collect and research Mauser pocket and vest pocket models. They are also know as Mauser 1910, 1914, 1934 and WTP models. I am pleased to offer to appraisals on any of these pistols and if it is a variation I am interested in acquiring I will make an offer. In order to provide an accurate appraisal photos and a description of all markings is needed. If photos cannot be provided a detailed description of serial number, caliber, finish,all markings, condition, grip material and any damage or condition issues is a must. I look forward to your questions and being able to help you find out more about you example.

Regards,

Burgess Mason

You hear the term “assault weapon” thrown around regularly. Often it is seen in the formerly main stream press describing something that most of us “know” is not that at all. But, although they do not know it, maybe they are right!

At one time, a matchlock was an assault weapon. Back during the American Revolution, a smooth bore musket was the assault weapon of choice.  Later, it was a rifled musket. In the 1800s, the cavalry used lever actions for that purpose. So did the Russian government. By the early 1900s, the bolt action was an assault weapon and the machine gun had to be a WMD!

Today, we do not think of any of those as “assault weapons”. What is an assault weapon? To me, it is the military weapon of the time configured for full auto fire. I have trouble thinking of 3 shot burst being a “real” assault weapon. Armies spent a great deal of effort increasing their volume of fire. Our big advantage in WW II was that all our troops had semi or full auto fire while the enemy mostly had bolt actions. Now, the same bean counters who gave us a varmint cartridge as a military round have decided that 3 shot burst saves ammo. Someone ought to put them in the front line to see if they still feel that way.

Anyway, the next time one of your left leaning friends mentions “assault weapon”, you might respond with……….

Do you mean muzzle loaders? Or, maybe go back further in time. Remember, the long bow, crossbow, sword, etc., were assault weapons in their time too.

I received a notice that there had been a new comment on my “Duck & Dunk” post and I wanted to read it. When I clicked the link it said I “looked” like a virus and denied me access. It said, however, if I was not a virus to click to continue… I did and there was NOT a new comment and another email from Gun Values Board was definitely a link to a porn site. As I was typing this, my security system alerted me to an intrusion. Maybe we have an unwelcome guest among us!

Happy Trails, God Bless.   John

The Scenario: You’re out of town on business.  Your wife is home alone.  The doorbell rings.  Peering through the peephole, your wife sees two large strangers, doing their best to hide their faces.  Feeling very afraid, she retreats to the kitchen.  As she does, the men begin to beat loudly on the door.  Barely able to dial, she manages to get the 911 dispatcher.  It is now obvious that the strangers are going to break in.  The sounds of their assault on the rapidly weakening door and lock reverberate over the phone lines.

But the operator makes a mistake and assigns the call a non-emergency priority.  The line goes dead.  She tells the responding officers that the line went dead, but because of the low priority code flashing on their mobile data terminals, they don’t rush.  Arriving 10 minutes after getting the call, they don’t bother to get out of their vehicles, only spotlighting your home and asking if the resident has called back.  Inside, your wife is being brutally beaten and raped and they took the time to carefully close the door which, from the street, doesn’t look damaged.  Told the resident has not called back, the officers make a mental note to drive by later—just in case—and move on to the next call on their screens.  The criminals have never been found.

But wait a minute, you say.  This is obviously an alarmist fabrication!  This sort of thing really doesn’t happen.  As a veteran of nearly two decades of police work, I can assure you that it does happen and far more often than anyone likes to admit.  Police lore is full of all too true stories of victims whose pitiful, heart-wrenching cries for help were ignored, unanswered or simply never received, leaving them to the tender mercies of the violent and merciless who beat, robbed, raped, maimed and killed them. 

What do you do?  Your wife will recover—physically—but neither of you will ever be the same.  Do you sue the police for failing to do their duty?  No. You don’t.  In fact, you can’t and for completely rational, logical and necessary reasons, reasons the police know well, but tend not to publicize.

The Case:  In 2005 the US Supreme Court announced its decision in Castle Rock (Colorado) v. Gonzales.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court. This opinion upheld precedent long established by many lower courts in similar cases.

The Facts: In 1999, Jessica Gonzalez obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband.  Soon thereafter it was modified to allow him visitation rights for their three daughters, 7, 9 and 10 years of age.  At about 1700 on June 22, 1999, Gonzalez took his daughters while they were playing outside.  He was not allowed to see them that day and was therefore in violation of the restraining order.

She called the police at about 1930 and two officers came to her home.  She showed them the restraining order and asked them to enforce it and return her daughters.  They said there was nothing they could do and told her to call if he had not returned them by 2200.  Jessica spoke with Gonzalez by cell phone at about 2030 and again called the police who refused to do anything, again telling her to call if the girls weren’t home by 2200.  She called at 2200 and the police put her off until midnight.  She called at midnight and told the police her children were still missing.  Nothing.

Jessica drove to her husband’s apartment.  No one was there. She called the police again at 0010 and they told her to wait for an officer.  When no officer came, she went to the police station at 0050 and begged the police to make an incident report.  The officer taking the report did nothing except go to dinner.

At about 0320, Gonzalez arrived at the police station in his pickup and began shooting up the station with a handgun he purchased hours earlier.  The police returned fire and killed him.  Inside the truck they found the bodies of his daughters, murdered by Gonzales the previous day.

The Court found what many previous, lower courts have found: The police cannot be successfully sued for failing to protect any individual citizen.  They owe no duty to any individual, but only to the public at large, and that duty is generally limited to investigating crimes and apprehending criminals, not preventing every possibly crime.

Jessica Gonzales could not prevail against the police of Castle Rock, Colorado.  You cannot sue the police who failed in their jobs and who did not capture the vicious subhumans that beat and raped your wife.

Outrageous?  No.  It is, in fact, absolutely rational and necessary.  If any citizen could sue the police for failing to protect them from criminals, how could any city or county afford a police force?  Who would serve as a police officer knowing that they would be far more likely to be bankrupted by civil suits than injured by criminals? 

Most people would be absolutely dumbstruck to learn how few police officers are actually patrolling the streets of their communities, available to answer calls for help, even in suburban communities.  In some major cities, the 911 call volume is so great that many calls for help go unanswered.  Victims are put on hold, told to call back or simply ignored.  In rural areas, calls may be promptly answered, but the nearest deputy may be an hour or more away.  The simple fact is that there are always, always very few police officers, a great many criminals, and countless potential victims out there for them to prey upon.

Fact: the police love to catch bad guys in the act.  They really do live to catch criminals, particularly violent, dangerous criminals.  Few things make most police officers angrier than scum who hurt women and children.  But the police know—and so must you—that they almost never have the opportunity to catch such people in the act.  Criminals know that the police do deter crime by their presence and most work very hard to avoid the police.  Because there are so few police officers, criminals are generally very successful at avoiding the police.

Most people too have heard the familiar aphorism: “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”  Every police officer with a conscience winces whenever they hear it. They wish it were otherwise, but they know it’s true. 

The lesson, for us all, is very simple.  It is a lesson most reading this blog already know and have long ago internalized.  Now you know—if you did not before—the reasons for that lesson.  The police cannot protect you; the police are not legally bound to protect you; you are truly on your own.

This is not the most significant reason for the paramount importance of the Second Amendment, but it is certainly one of the most important practical reasons. 

Remember Jessica Gonzales in your prayers and whenever you and those you love practice with your firearms.  And remember her children, forever 7, 9 and 10 years old.  May we all take the affirmative actions required to ensure that it is never necessary to remember our loved ones in that way.