SCOTUS says government is not responsible for protecting individuals and ACLU knows that. Why

jody

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-01-09 08:37 PM
Original message

SCOTUS says government is not responsible for protecting individuals and ACLU knows that. Why

then does ACLU insist people be denied arms for self-protection that government is not obligated to provide?

ACLU said in their brief Amicus Curiae for TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, Petitioner, v. JESSICA GONZALES, individually and as next best friend of her deceased minor children REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Court of Appeals correctly held that respondent Jessica Gonzales had stated a claim for relief by asserting that petitioner�s duty to enforce the restraining order against her estranged husband created a property interest under Colorado law, and that petitioner�s utter failure to enforce that order without meaningful consideration or explanation violated even the most minimal notions of procedural due process. Like the Tenth Circuit�s dissenting judges, petitioner primarily and persistently claims that this decision �circumvents,� �overrules,� and �undermines� this Court�s holding in DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep�t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989), which held that the substantive guarantees of the Due Process Clause do not generally require the government to protect an individual from third-party violence. See, e.g., Pet. Br. at i, 15, 20. Petitioner�s belief that DeShaney provides the appropriate reference point is misguided and flawed, for a number of reasons.

I.e. ACLU argued government is obligated to protect an individual.

SCOTUS then said in TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al.

Held: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp. 6�19.

Last year SCOTUS said in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

ACLU said after SCOTUS ruled in D.C. v. Hellerin its position on the Second Amendment

ACLU POSITION
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

What part of SCOTUS saying GOVERNMENT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL is causing ACLU to deny citizens the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense?