Do you have a right to call the police?

[TPaine7]

I know that many here frown on the keeping and especially the carrying of guns for self-defense. Guns are thought by some to exert malevolent supernatural powers over their possessors. Others claim that self-defense is not a right, but an excuse—a pitiful excuse.

There are people, people in very high places, who think it constitutional and proper to require citizens to submit to murder, rape, torture, or whatever a merry band of felons may have planned for you and your family. Here is the learned output of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States of America:

Suppose a state were to decide that PEOPLE CORNERED IN THEIR HOMES MUST SURRENDER RATHER THAN FIGHT BACK — in other words, that burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens. See United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional right to have guns ready to hand when distributing illegal drugs).

Our hypothetical is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Self-defense is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a defense that many states have modified by requiring people to retreat when possible, and to use non-lethal force when retreat is not possible. An obligation to avoid lethal force in self-defense might imply an obligation to use pepper spray rather than handguns. A modification of the self-defense defense may or may not be in the best interest of public safety — whether guns deter or facilitate crime is an empirical question — but it is difficult to argue that legislative evaluation of which weapons are appropriate for use in self-defense has been out of the people’s hands since 1868.

Ok, defending yourself or your family is wrong, or at least suspect. Having the most efficient means on hand to do so is downright primitive if not criminal.

But while it is bad to have the means to defend yourself and self-defense itself is suspect—an excuse of which one can be legitimately stripped by the state—I always thought it was ok to band together and hire professionals to do the dirty and morally suspect work for you. I always understood that it was OK to flee your own home, or to huddle in terror while you wait for the police to arrival. Even the learned scholars of the Seventh Circuit agree that criminals “should be deterred by the criminal law.” Wouldn’t that include the threatened use of police force?!!

Maybe not. Maybe you don’t even have the right to call the police! This is your brain on gun control and "civilization":

A store was being robbed. The safe was set up to trigger a silent alarm to the police station when it was opened (supposedly contrary to company policy). The police came. There was a shootout with the criminals, in which a patron died. The patron's family sued the store for negligence, on the theory that the store shouldn't have risked patrons' lives by triggering the silent alarm. The trial court granted the store summary judgment. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that it was for the jury to decide whether silently calling the police was negligent. Source: volokh.com (“Calling the Police as Negligence”—see also “Another Remarkable Torts Case”)

If you can be sued for calling the police today, what does tomorrow hold? Jail terms for locking your doors?!

Your thoughts?