[ Ссылка ]

PARKER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 478 F.3d 370 (2007). Shelly PARKER, et al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia, Appellees. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued December 7, 2006. Decided March 9, 2007: “the District claims a militia did not exist unless it was subject to state discipline and leadership… The District's definition of the militia is just too narrow…. THE FEDERALIST NOS. 8, 28, 59 (Alexander Hamilton), No. 46 (James Madison) (arguing that an armed populace constitutes a check on the potential abuses of the federal government) with MELANCTON SMITH [Federal Farmer], OBSERVATIONS TO A FAIR EXAMINATION OF THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSED BY THE LATE CONVENTION, AND TO SEVERAL ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY ALTERATIONSIN IT (Nov. 8, 1787), reprinted in THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, supra, at 89, 91.

United States v Jemenez-Shilon. May 23rd, 2022. No. 20-12139. The Second Amendment seems to have codified this principle. See Heller , 554 U.S. at 592–93, 599, 128 S.Ct. 2783. "It was understood across the political spectrum that the right" to keep and bear arms "helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose  an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down." Id. at 599, 128 S.Ct. 2783. At the same time, it helped to secure the citizen's right to self-defense when his government was unable (or unwilling) to protect him from private lawlessness.

Munger v City of Glassgow Police 227 F 3d 1082: “a police officer generally has no duty to protect a particular individual…”; Taylor v Phelan 9 F 3d 882; So v Bay Area Transit 2013 U.S. Dist Lexis 149807; Hernandez v City of San Jose 14 Cal App 4th 129: “the police have no duty to protect individuals from private wrongdoers.”; White v Duchford 592 F 2d 381: “There is no general duty to provide police protection to the general public.”; and United States v Duguay 93 F 3d 346: “The state owes no legal duty to protect things outside its custody from private injury.”]

Commonwealth v Alvarado 423 Mass 266. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Carrying a gun is not a crime...  This court held in Commonwealth v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 183, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 (1990), that, under the Fourth Amendment, "[t]he mere possession of a handgun was not sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was illegally carrying that gun." See Commonwealth v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159, 163-164 (1983) ("carrying a .45 caliber revolver is not necessarily a crime" and thus there was no probable cause to search vehicle)

Brumley v Commonwealth 413 S.W. 3d 280, ky “Knowledge of firearms... alone… does not create reasonable suspicion…”
 
Commonwealth v Kelly 484 Mass 53. Carrying… a weapon is not, standing alone, an indication that criminal conduct has occurred or is contemplated.

Nordyke v King 563 F.3d 439: “Self-preservation is commonly called the first law of nature… Self-preservation cannot be repealed, or superseded or suspended by any human institution.”

Samuel Adams in his report to the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town meeting in 1772: “the duty of self-preservation [is] the first law of nature”


United States v Miller supra at 178: The Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the second amendment was “to preserve the effectiveness of militias.”

Moore v Madison 702 F3d 933: “armed self-preservation [is] a fundamental natural right… a right to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self-defense and protection against both public and private violence.”

Barneblatt v United States 360 U.S. 109: “Self-preservation [is] the ultimate value of society.”

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): “Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting [one] to repel force by force when the intervention of society in his behalf may be too late to prevent injury.”

свернуть