No! Full opinion here:
". . .Probably turned it away "without comment"
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al.Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. The District Court granted the town's motion to dismiss, but an en banc majority of the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that respondent had alleged a cognizable procedural due process claim because a Colorado statute established the state legislature's clear intent to require police to enforce retraining orders, and thus its intent that the order's recipient have an entitlement to its enforcement. The court therefore ruled, among other things, that respondent had a protected property interest in the enforcement of her restraining order.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
No. 04-278.Argued March 21, 2005--Decided June 27, 2005
Cite as: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U. S. 748 (2005)
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.
(a)The Due Process Clause's procedural component does not protect everything that might be described as a government "benefit":"To have a property interest in a benefit, a person ... must ... have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577. Such entitlements are created by existing rules or understandings stemming from an independent source such as state law. E.g., ibid. Pp.6-7.
(b)A benefit is not a protected entitlement if officials have discretion to grant or deny it. See, e.g., Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-463. It is inappropriate here to defer to the Tenth Circuit's determination that Colorado law gave respondent a right to police enforcement of the restraining order. This Court therefore proceeds to its own analysis. Pp.7-9.
(c)Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 47, n.2, 62, n.32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute's direction to "use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order" or even to "arrest ... or ... seek a warrant." A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that--despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated--the violation's circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance. The practical necessity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. In such circumstances, the statute does not appear to require officers to arrest but only to seek a warrant. That, however, would be an entitlement to nothing but procedure, which cannot be the basis for a property interest. Pp.9-15.
(d)Even if the statute could be said to make enforcement "mandatory," that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement. Her alleged interest stems not from common law or contract, but only from a State's statutory scheme. If she was given a statutory entitlement, the Court would expect to see some indication of that in the statute itself. Although the statute spoke of "protected person[s]" such as respondent, it did so in connection with matters other than a right to enforcement. Most importantly, it spoke directly to the protected person's power to "initiate" contempt proceedings if the order was issued in a civil action, which contrasts tellingly with its conferral of a power merely to "request" initiation of criminal contempt proceedings--and even more dramatically with its complete silence about any power to "request" (much less demand) that an arrest be made. Pp.15-17.
(e)Even were the Court to think otherwise about Colorado's creation of an entitlement, it is not clear that an individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order could constitute a "property" interest for due process purposes. Such a right would have no ascertainable monetary value and would arise incidentally, not out of some new species of government benefit or service, but out of a function that government actors have always performed--arresting people when they have probable cause. A benefit's indirect nature was fatal to a due process claim in O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773, 787. Here, as there, "[t]he simple distinction between government action that directly affects a citizen's legal rights ... and action that is directed against a third party and affects the citizen only ... incidentally, provides a sufficient answer to" cases finding government-provided services to be entitlements. Id., at 788. Pp.17-19.
366 F.3d 1093, reversed.
Hence my human rights complaint against the United Statesat the Inter-American Commission for Human rights and my contention that the Second Amendment is a human right component to the "right to life" provision of human rights treaties.
Yesterday, I sent an email to Chuck Norris, EMAIL:firstname.lastname@example.org via WorldNetDaily.com for help.
Note Michelle Malkin's Hotair blog on Chuck Norris
If I am fighting for the Second Amendment then why does the NRA ignore me? (Too soon to question Chuck Norris. I emailed him only yesterday. The question is will Chuck Norris answer my email?).
I am asking everyone to call, write, and email Chuck Norris and the NRA and ask, no, demand that the NRA help my Second Amendment case.
If ever there is to be a restoration of the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, and maritime travel there must be someone to be the first to break ground in this territory. I am that "first person."
I am the "first person" to use HELLER as evidence in a human rights complaint against the United States. The NRA and SAF love to use the phrase "next step" in their propaganda. Where is the recognition for me taking the "next step" in the fight for the Second Amendment at the international level? I am ignored. And believe me I am taking the tollfrom this political isolation.
I need legal help. I know it. But I am treated like a diseased leper by the NRA, SAF, GOA, and everyone else because I am tackling a legal subject that is viewed to be unwinnable because the right to open carry in interstate travel is viewed to be long dead, a relic of the old Wild West.
Six years pushing a Second Amendment case from a U.S. merchant seaman's point of view while being insulted, ridicule, and harassed, HELL! Even Curtis Stone, alias SAILORCURT, blogger for Virginia Citizen's Defense League (VCDL) chased me off their blog and stalked me to David Hardy's blogand he was the first to comment when David Hardy was kind enough to promote my Second Amendment case there. Curtis Stone's harassing comment triggered an avalanche of harassing remarks. David Hardy removed his posting and all the comments to it at my request. At least David Hardy respected my dignity as a human being.
I guess you can say I have collected a lot of enemies who hate the sight of my name, "Don Hamrick." Believe me, 6 years of such harassment is taking its toll on me. But I cannot and will not give up my fight for my own Second Amendment rights because it is MY rights that I am fighting for. It may very well be collateral rights with the American people but it is still my rights as and individual. I will not back down just because Internet Rambos and bullies are harassming me.
My argument for firearms on U.S. flag commercial vessels is primarily for company owned firearms (stored in gun safes or lockers under maritime law) need to be issued to crew members performing security duties because 33 C.F.R. Â§ 104.220 "Company or Vessel Personnel with Security Duties" omits to mention the need of firearms for personal protection and protection of the vessel. It also does not address the liability for personal injury or death resulting from the ommission or implied prohibition of firearms to vessel personnel performing security duties. I guess this will not be addressed until a merchant seaman aboard a U.S. container ship gets injuried or killed by a pirate or terrorist.
But my Second Amendment fight for seamen's rights also has a home defense component, as in a defense against domestic violence, as in Jessica Lenahan's situation above, May God Bless Jessica for enduringher hell on Earth. In memory of her three little girls: "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: forsuch is the kingdom of God." Luke 18:16, King James Bible.
To force the issue, to compel the U.S. government to address the matter, someone has to initiate civil litigation in federal or court or initiate a human rights complaint at the international level. Ohh! Wait! I have already done that! I have been pushing the matter in federal court for 6 years and the human rights issue at the international level for 2 years and my cases are still ignored by the NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, and everyone else.
I believe it is because I am pushing, for the lack of a better descriptive, a taboo into the arena of legal and social norms that the very idea of "National Open Carry Handgun" is either offensive or it terrorizes the phobic, even among pro-Second Amendment advocates at online discussion forums.
After 6 years of hopping from one discussion forum to another and getting banned from each because the message I bring draws weapon fire of insults, ridicule, and harassment like a magnet I presume I have name recognition, "Don Hamrick" as one who is to be "shot on sight" with verbal artillery regardless of the merits of my Second Amendment case. I still have not learned how to counter this type of prejudice. Fight fire with fire has always resulted in getting me banned from the discussion forums for breaking the rules of conduct while the natives (or cronies) of those forums get off scott free because I was the "newbie" on their boards. This is synonymous to mob lynching mentality. The behavior is the same.
After 6 years of combatting this type of intellectual stupidity I have become jaded and combative myself. My own prejudiced behavior is reflected in my pleadings to the Courts as you can see in the first 10 pages of my newest lawsuit. I intentially prepared my lawsuit in that manner to impress upon the Court that there does exist a judicial prejudice against pro se civil plaintiffs, especially so against those with Second Amendment cases.
Ihave been combative in reciprocity to the insultingly combative responses to my visits to gun discussion forums over the years. To use an analogy, if these confrontations accorded in person I would probably have been thrown in jail or sent to the hospital in critical condition on numerous occasions because I do not back down from a fight when I am in the right. And as God is my witness I am in the right because I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms and the Ninth Amendment includes the right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate and maritime travel.
April 19, 1777 The Battle of Concord and Lexington.
In 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417, 450-451. "It would give to persons of the African American race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
On January 1, 1863, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation stated, in part, "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."
In 1868, Fourteenth Amendment ratified. "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
On April 19, 2002 (Patriots Day) the U.S. Coast Guard, a naval authority in terms of the Emancipation Proclamation,denied my application for the National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document.
On July 4, 2008 (Independence Day)I used HELLER as evidence in my letter to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rightsclaiming that the Second Amendment is a human right.
By these actions am I not considered a "patriot" fighting for freedom? Or am I to be denied even the dignity ofa human being?