Petitioners correctly note that the Second
Amendment “does not require the District to stand by
while its citizens die.” Pet. at 30 (emphasis added).
Yet the city consistently fights to secure its right to
stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime.
For example, the city has successfully defended its
right to “stand by while its citizens” are raped, kidnapped
from their homes, and further abused. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) (en
banc). The city has likewise successfully defended its
right to “stand by” in the face of the worst urban
rioting in our nation’s history. Westminster Investing
Co. v. G.C. Murphy Co., 434 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
The city has even defended its right to “stand by
while its citizens die” when the perpetrator is a police
officer. Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306
(D.C. 1983) (en banc). Indeed, the city has asserted its
right to “stand by while its citizens die” in the course
of volunteering their assistance to the police. Butera
v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Petitioners cannot be begrudged their arguments
that they are under no general obligation to protect
citizens from violent crime.
As a matter of tort law,
Petitioners’ position is consistent with accepted
notions of sovereign immunity and the public duty
doctrine. And as a matter of constitutional law, citizens
do not enjoy any positive right to police protection.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social
Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989); Castle Rock, 545 U.S.
748.
Petitioners’ sincere desire to reduce violent crime
is unquestioned. And Petitioners’ consistent assertion
of immunity for failing to police the city is valid
policy, borne of the regrettable truth that even the
best police force cannot perfectly protect the general
population against violence. Accordingly, the people’s
need for Second Amendment rights is inevitably, regardless of Petitioners’ best intentions, a matter of life and death.
Because of Petitioners’ demonstrated – even if
understandable – inability to police the entire city,
local government cannot substitute for the right of
individuals to keep functional firearms in their
homes. Washington, D.C. is, after all, the same city
whose police chief once lowered his aspirations to
solve only 50.9 percent of homicides because “t’s
more encouraging. . . . You get these stretch goals [65
percent], and when you don’t even come near it, you
get hammered for it.” David A. Fahrenthold, D.C.
Police Cut Goals on Closing Homicides: Ramsey Calls
New Target for Solving Cases Realistic, WASHINGTON
POST, June 25, 2002, at B1.7 The failure to timely
solve homicides allows perpetrators to commit additional
murders, for which the city is, of course, not
liable. See, e.g., Varner v. District of Columbia, 891
A.2d 260 (D.C. 2006).
Data on police response times are no more encouraging
than data on crime closures. While there
has been some improvement in recent years, the response time to a “Priority 1 call in fiscal 2003 was 8
minutes, 25 seconds, up over a minute from the prior
year. Matthew Cella, Police Response to 911s Slowing;
D.C. Cops Take a Minute More, WASHINGTON TIMES,
May 10, 2004, at A1. No doubt the city’s police force
would be more effective if it were adequately staffed.
But “D.C. police routinely staff neighborhood patrols
below their own minimum standards, with some
areas having just one officer or none at all.” David A.
Fahrenthold, Craig Timberg and Clarence Williams,
D.C. Patrol Staffing Falls Short; Some Areas Get Just
One Officer, WASHINGTON POST, May 4, 2003, at A1.
If the city does not wish to “stand by while its
citizens die,” it has many opportunities to act without
infringing upon the Bill of Rights. “ntil issues like
onerous requirements for officers to appear in court,
outmoded technology, counterproductive work rules
and lax attitudes are fixed, residents won’t see dramatic
change.” Shuffling the Force, WASHINGTON
POST, Sept. 29, 2007, at A18.
In the meantime, people need not stand by and
die while waiting for Petitioners to provide a safe city
in which to live. The Second Amendment guarantees
to citizens something that Petitioners have expressly
and consistently disclaimed any legal obligation to
provide: an effective means of preserving their lives.
