Does a gun control ordinance imply police duty to protect?
<p>It has been established multiple times that police has no duty to protect, except for the situations where the police actions put a person in a harm's way. There were several cases affirming that. A cop arrested a husband driver and left his wife stranded and she was raped; another cop alerted a violent man that the neighbors complained about him and he slaughtered them when the cop left; another cop took a motorist's keys away in the middle of a snowstorm and the motorist froze to death; in all those cases the court decided that the cops were liable despite the general lack of duty to protect.</p>
<p>Now, suppose a city enacts an ordinance precluding weapon carry. A licensed gun owner is thus prevented from carrying a gun for protection. She gets assaulted because she wasn't able to protect herself without a weapon. Does the gun control ordinance make the city liable for failing to protect her because said ordinance put her in a harm's way?</p>

<h2>No</h2>
<p>For the same reason that requiring a licence to drive might, in some circumstances, result in harm to a person who cannot drive because they don’t have a licence.</p>
<p>The city (or any government) has legislative immunity for the laws they put in place even if those laws have negative consequences to some people. All laws have negative consequences to some people, for example, laws against theft are extremely prejudicial to thieves.</p>
<p>Similarly, the executive is immune for exercising their discretion in the enforcement of the law. This is the basis of the police not having a general duty to protect. However, police have a specific duty to protect when they have taken an individual into their care and control.</p>

united-states