Andrew Rothman
Member
Alan -- good find!
El T or other tilecrawlers -- whadayathink?
El T or other tilecrawlers -- whadayathink?
The State is under NO obligation to protect you. However,(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Pp. 194-197.
If I read that correctly, if the State prohibits you from being able to adequately defend yourself, then it has an affirmative duty to protect you, and is liable if it fails to do so. Reading further:(b)... the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.
I think this case may have implications in the RKBA arena in MANY states.The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.
for themselves they also claimA State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.
Generally, an ordinary business owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his or her invitees.
I found nothing at that page that directs me to press releases. Sent an e-mail to that effect.For further information about The Home Depot please visit our website at www.homedepot.com to read current Home Depot press releases.
I don't understand what you mean there. What do they consider to be ridiculous and a public safety hazard?In fact, they consider it to be ridiculous and a public safety hazard.
This operator said, "I have no idea here. Why would you want to take a gun into the store?"