Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: H.R. 17 Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 2009

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

    You can contact your representatives here:

    https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

    Bronson

    __________________________________________________ ______

    Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)


    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
    [line]


    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.








    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    As much as I like the intent behind this effort at safeguarding the rights of citizens throughout the United States, I cannot see any constitutional basis from which the U.S. Congress can draw the authority to pass such a law. Although this has not stopped them from passing laws with similar extents of over-reach, we should not encourage the flawed thinking which leads them to believe they have any such authority.

    This neither promotes the public welfare nor addresses interstate commerce, which are the premises behind most U.S. Congressional statutes affecting the behavior of citizens and their state and local governments. Good intentions do not make good law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Hcidem wrote:
    As much as I like the intent behind this effort at safeguarding the rights of citizens throughout the United States, I cannot see any constitutional basis from which the U.S. Congress can draw the authority to pass such a law. Although this has not stopped them from passing laws with similar extents of over-reach, we should not encourage the flawed thinking which leads them to believe they have any such authority.

    This neither promotes the public welfare nor addresses interstate commerce, which are the premises behind most U.S. Congressional statutes affecting the behavior of citizens and their state and local governments. Good intentions do not make good law.
    +2

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    +3

    Legislation passed with good intentions is almost always doomed to fail due to the lack of calm rational thinking!

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Hcidem wrote:
    As much as I like the intent behind this effort at safeguarding the rights of citizens throughout the United States, I cannot see any constitutional basis from which the U.S. Congress can draw the authority to pass such a law. Although this has not stopped them from passing laws with similar extents of over-reach, we should not encourage the flawed thinking which leads them to believe they have any such authority.

    This neither promotes the public welfare nor addresses interstate commerce, which are the premises behind most U.S. Congressional statutes affecting the behavior of citizens and their state and local governments. Good intentions do not make good law.
    Um, try the 2A. And yes, this does promote the public welfare by drastically reducing the violation of a clearly-defined Constitutional right. Think of it as a CRA like the many before it. States receive money from the Feds for their police force. The police force, however local,is therefore a federally-funded organization and thus subject to federal law. The act and the right it protectsmust then be recognized by such agencies.

    On the other side of the coin, this act is firstlyvague. Citizens have the right to obtain firearms and to use them... When? Where? The correct answers are "anytime, anywhere" but the act does not specify this. To do so would trample every state-sanctioned gun-free zone law and the federal ones as well. I'd bet on the snowball in hell over the chances of thisact passing with such sweeping language, but without it, a state can still argue that as long as a person can defend themselves, their homes and familiesanywhere other than some specified type of location, the right is not infringed. It also does not specify any other legitmate use for firearms such as sporting. Use of a firearm in a case other than a defense of self/family/property scenario is not protected under this Act.

    Secondly, the act is at the same time overly specific. It does not state that a person has the right to own an NFA-class firearm such as an automatic weapon, SBS (which is NOT a "shotgun" under Federal law) etc. The Congress can also change the definition of "rifle", "shotgun" or "handgun" at any time, or move those definitions to a different defined name, resulting in a broad writing-off of entire classes of firearm. For instance, notice that "assault weapons" as a class are not specified, because as of the bill's introduction the class does not exist in the USC. However, it hasbeen in the USC before, andthe next AWB may sidestep this Act by simply stating thatfirearmsfalling under the definition of"assault weapons"are no longer considered as belonging to any other single class defined in the USC. It may not even mater; under the terms of this Act an LEA can say "youhave the right toa rifle, but it can't be THIS rifle".

    Thirdly and most importantly, it has no teeth. All it prevents is an absolute ban on the possession of firearms, because as long as a firearm can be a rifle, shotgun OR handgun, then a ban of any two of those classes does not violate the right to own a firearm as defined because the third is still available. It also does not prevent any hurdles such as licensing or discretionary approval from a government body. And (thank God) it does not allow the Feds to file suit or other charges against the local government; the affected individual or group of individuals must seek their own redress.

    And on top of all that, you can already sue the government for damages plus attorney's fees under USC 42 Sec. 1983, claiming infringement of Second Amendment rights. What grounds do you think Heller had to sue D.C.? What do you think is the basis for the pending suit against Chicago?

  6. #6
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Although I do agree that the 2nd amendment should be applicable here, legal scholars would probably disgree, as the 2nd amendment has not been incorporated, which means it would apply to the states. This legal construct, "incorporation", is the reason that the Heller would, according to some, be only be applicable to the Federal Government, not to the states. I think that, when some of the cases such as the one being persued in the Chicagoland area regarding the right to bear arms is decided, those that claim the 2nd amendment hasn't been incorporated could be shown to be very wrong. Another option would be to have Congress expressly declare that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated. With the present power shift in Congress, though, I find this unlikely in the forseeable future.

    (The 2nd Amendment is not the only amendment considered applicable only to the Feds, for more info, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)


    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    All I know is the first Amend. reads as follows: "No congress shall make any laws...
    funny I don't see No federal congress, I don't see No state congress.

    As far as the 2nd I say "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Oh well what do I know I was pubic scrule edumacated...We have hope tho!!!right?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •