The Supreme Court has ruled more than a few times, yes more than twice, that a law enforcement officer is NOT duty bound to protect individuals from harm, but that an officer is duty bound to protect an individual’s fundamental rights. If driving is a privilege, for example, and bearing arms is a fundamental right, how then is enforcing a statute designed to regulate the privilege legitimate if such enforcement of the privilege undermines the fundamental right, especially within the context of there being no victim? Is this not conflict? Is this not state law withstanding to the Rule of Law, in light of the officer’s sworn Oath to enforce state law that is NOT withstanding to the Rule of Law (US Constitution)? Therefore, it appears to me, that without an actual, living, breathing, victim, that the enforcement of statutes designed to regulate “public safety” and privileges like driving, absent a victim, and whereby such enforcement infringes upon a fundamental right, like bearing arms, that such enforcement is arbitrary. The “public safety” argument is therefore invalid, especially in light of the fact that such “public safety” enforcement is not duty bound and that securing an individual’s fundamental rights is duty bound.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:02:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015