GUN HR 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Jake!, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. Jake!

    Jake! Guest

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-17



    HR 17 IH

    111th CONGRESS


    1st Session


    H. R. 17​


    To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.


    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


    January 6, 2009


    Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


    A BILL​


    To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009’.



    SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:

    (1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

    (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.


    (B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.


    (C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.



    (2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

    (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.


    (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.


    (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.



    (3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

    (A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.


    (B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.


    (C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.



    (4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.




    SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--

    (1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;


    (2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person’s family; and


    (3) in defense of the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.



    (b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term ‘firearm’ means--

    (1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);


    (2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); or


    (3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).



    (c) Enforcement of Right-

    (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.


    (2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.


    (3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.
     
  2. LancerV

    LancerV Something Happened OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    49,828
    Likes Received:
    70
  3. Cannondale

    Cannondale OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    83,562
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Austin, TX
  4. thebox

    thebox New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    45,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
  5. MAD PUNK inDC

    MAD PUNK inDC Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2000
    Messages:
    86,393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    the machine
    It would be nice if it passed, but you can certainly bet that the new house democrats will kill it. After all, they don't want people to protect themselves and their families, we're just the little people, too stupid to use the rights granted to us by the 2nd amendment. :jerkit:
     
  6. Bacardi 151

    Bacardi 151 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In your head
  7. jeepilot

    jeepilot Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    That'd be awesome if it'd pass, but unfortunately America is a bunch of pussies, along with most of their elected representatives. I'll shoot an e-mail or write a letter if it ever gets out of committee.
     
  8. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
  9. Valence

    Valence Gustav Refugee

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    12,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    They need a PR spin on it so that those who vote against it are shown to be voting for the criminals, who hate America and only care about the scourges of society.
     
  10. jehan60188

    jehan60188 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    perhaps a tv ad, showing a mother walking her baby in the park, and a mugger comes up to her, takes the kid, and demands her wallet.
    she then shoots the guy, tossing the baby up in the air, and catches it
    a voiceover says "if your congressman doesn't vote for HR 17, then he's voting AGAINST single mothers."
     
  11. Emfuser

    Emfuser Nuclear Moderator Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    83,905
    Likes Received:
    460
    Location:
    Irmo, SC
    It'll die in committee.
     
  12. dpixel8

    dpixel8 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    Messages:
    48,450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WI Go Bucky!!!!!!!
    some great facts in there that will be completely ignored and it'll never pass unfortunately.
     
  13. Carl Brutananadilewski

    Carl Brutananadilewski Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WHOREicon
    I see that removing a tyrannical government is missing from the authorized uses of firearms :hsugh:

    But I'll take what I can get.
     
  14. jehan60188

    jehan60188 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0

    the right to use firearms in that capacity is given to us by the laws of nature. the laws of man do no supercede those.
    man has a right, a duty, to stand up against any and all oppressors...
     
  15. jehan60188

    jehan60188 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. Carl Brutananadilewski

    Carl Brutananadilewski Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WHOREicon
    We also have a natural right to keep and bear arms, but I see the gov taking a big steamy shit all over it :hsugh:
     
  17. Great to see stuff like this introduced, but it has 0 chance. :(

    It's amazing to see liberal fury over any perceived threat to any right either real or imagined, until it comes to the 2nd amendment. Then, it's "oh, that's outdated, we don't need that anymore."
     
  18. jehan60188

    jehan60188 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say "I don't get the liberal agenda" but I do.
    I'm liberal in certain things, and was very much in favor of gun control as a youth.

    it was due to the fear around guns. "gangstas" use guns, cops will keep us safe, i don't want "crazies" having guns, all that stuff. I think it was because I was pretty hot-headed, and knew that if I (and people like me) got access to a gun, bad things might happen.

    I've calmed down since then, and I also slowly realized that guns aren't scary, shooting them is great fun and challenge!

    sure, there are hot headed people out there, still. but there are also hate groups, and drugs smuglers out there. should we repeal the first and fourth amendment to keep ourselves safe from them? that's the price of freedom, and we all have to be vigilant against acts that would abuse our freedoms as well as acts that would deny them from us.
     
  19. jehan60188

    jehan60188 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    perhaps this bill was just to please the constituents?
     
  20. ZCP M3

    ZCP M3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
  21. Rev Happy

    Rev Happy Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    70,147
    Likes Received:
    9
    More HR acts should read like this
     
  22. Hooligan

    Hooligan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    26,129
    Likes Received:
    0
  23. TheHunter

    TheHunter Unprofessional Lurker

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas
    If passd it would immediately strike dead so many city and state bans. Hell, it would be worth it just for the fun factor of watching libs shit themselves.

    Don't get me wrong, I like that they are attempting to draft something like this, but angry that it is even necessary to protect (Verify?Reinforce?) a right we already have.
     
  24. 1979TA

    1979TA OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    19,875
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Copperhead Road
    She needs to be black too...

    ""if your congressman doesn't vote for HR 17, then he's voting AGAINST black single mothers."
     
  25. jehan60188

    jehan60188 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0

    hmm, you present an interesting quandry. while I am in favor of firearm availability, I'm NOT in favor of large/powerful federal government...
    Now, I don't know where I stand on this bill. I guess it's win-win for me?
     

Share This Page