H.R. 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 (A Trojan Horse!)

Janq · January 28th, 2009, 03:21 PM

Note:
It should be immediately obvious to Us, amongst DC.com and anyone else who is up on their 2A and civil rights laws, that this is not what in title upon first blush it might seem and be purported to be.
For persons who are without a clue I can though easily see how they would jump to support this and think it's a good thing.
A critical eye is required here to understand exactly what is being proposed, and why it's a sucka play for suckers.

---

H.R. 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009

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.

1/6/2009--Introduced.
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of: (1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; (2) 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) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.
Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

Source - H.R. 17 - Summary: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)
Sponsor - Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD](no cosponsors)

- Janq

C9H13NO3 · January 28th, 2009, 03:32 PM

I read the full text...and I'm confused. It doesn't seem this bill does anything at all, good or bad. We already have the right to obtain firearms, and use them for defense. We also have the right to pursue legal action if that right is violated...so what's this bill doing that I'm not seeing?

rottkeeper · January 28th, 2009, 03:38 PM

The only provision I don't see is in defense of a third party that is not family.

HotGuns · January 28th, 2009, 03:51 PM

Heres is the act posted for all to see. Please read it before making judgements.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

HotGuns · January 28th, 2009, 03:53 PM

So Janq, what is it in there that you dont like?

Janq · January 28th, 2009, 03:59 PM

Adrenalin,

Nothing about it is right/okay.
It's all wrong....

* It is duplicitous against the 2nd Amendment

* Being conditional against the Brady Act is unnecessary as that act affects singularly purchase of firearms as related to timing. If you are defending yourself in your home then well you already have a firearm and are not waiting in line at Dick's.

* If the inclusion of the 'Brady Bill' portion is meant to be in reference to the secondary and follow on Assault Weapon Ban of '94 which expired Federally then again this is unnecessary and stupid. And would be a back door means to reinstate the AWB at the Federal level as most states today no longer follow or have applicable the AWB. Except for a handful of states like MA, CA, MD (!), NY, NJ, and IL.
At a federal level this would override already existent state Castle laws _and_ further add specific restrictions which are not only unnecessary but in many if not most states simply are not relevant as current.

* The proposal adds _limits_ to where and when and for what reason a person might choose to defend their self or their property to actions only that are of a felony degree. Meanwhile very many citizens defend themselves and their homes against persons who are committing misdemeanors such as assault, battery, intimidation, and theft. None of these are felonies.

I could go on but bottom line this is garbage.
Do not support it and write your Congressman asking them to do same, and to not be bamboozled by the title or to assume the 'gun people' would find this acceptable...because it definitely is not acceptable.
Although for antis it is and would be appeasement.

- Janq

C9H13NO3 · January 28th, 2009, 04:07 PM

Good eye Janq. I figured it might be something like that...just didn't really see it.

swaggs · January 28th, 2009, 04:46 PM

I disagree.
It's not duplicitous of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment says nothing specifically of the right for the citizen to own or use firearms to protect themselves or their families.

18 USC 922 is not the weapons ban of '94. 18USC922 is the current legislation that prohibits certain interstate sale and transfer as well as purchase by felons, fugitives, mentally defective persons, persons acquited by reasons of insanity, minors, etc. The inclusion of this seems to point to the situation where such person prohibited from owning/posessing firearms uses one. I'm okay with this inclusion.

A lot of states don't have castle laws. As the examples, included in the bill, point out, many people are prosecuted for defending themselves and their property. This bill would serve to protect them.

So, what's wrong with this again?

Janq · January 28th, 2009, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaggs

I disagree.
It's not duplicitous of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment says nothing specifically of the right for the citizen to own or use firearms to protect themselves or their families.

Correct.

The 2nd does not specifically narrow down ones right to keep, bear, and employ arms to a specific instance of use under a specific and narrow window of circumstance.

What do we need this for when already we have the 2nd?

Quote:

18 USC 922 is not the weapons ban of '94. 18USC922 is the current legislation that prohibits certain interstate sale and transfer as well as purchase by felons, fugitives, mentally defective persons, persons acquited by reasons of insanity, minors, etc. The inclusion of this seems to point to the situation where such person prohibited from owning/posessing firearms uses one. I'm okay with this inclusion.

As I'd stated above I said "if" the reference to the Brady Bill was meaning toward the expired AWB...then well the rest should be clear.

As to 18 USC 922 in specific that too has problems even as it is current US law.
Specifically these...

Quote:

922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
...

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
...
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

Source - US CODE: Title 18,922. Unlawful acts

Even as they are already law of the land 18 USC 922 is not something to be reinforced in validity.
This item in itself is an item of great debate and has been even here on all of the specific points I cited above.

Quote:

A lot of states don't have castle laws. As the examples, included in the bill, point out, many people are prosecuted for defending themselves and their property. This bill would serve to protect them.

And as such those individual states should develop their own state laws to address this as have those states that have.
Under this bill many of the Joe and Jane Blow persons who have been victimized by crime as featured and updated daily here in our own crime archives would find themselves to be victimized a second time because they used a firearm to defend themselves or their property whilst at home against a person(s) who were not committing specifically a felony level crime.

So, what's wrong with this again?
As I said before almost everything.

- Janq

PaulJ · January 28th, 2009, 05:30 PM

I assume the main benefit of a bill like this would that it would create federal law as opposed to the various state laws. Some states will likely "win" others "lose" depending on how the bill compares to current laws in the respective state.

The bill is actually overall very much pro-gun if compared to average state laws (remember there is CA, MA and such).

PaulJ · January 28th, 2009, 05:41 PM

reading it again, I am even more in favor of it. The bill doesn't restrict anything. The most important part of the bill is the "enforcement of rights" section. It would enable a citizen to sue a state if the state! This is the big question that Heller left open: If the 2nd amendment applies to state law or not. With this bill, there would be no question: You are allowed to own firearms, and use them in your defense inside AND outside the house. If the state doesn't allow it: Sue them and earn cash doing so.

ChiWeiSz · January 28th, 2009, 05:50 PM

Maybe a moot point here....but could it be that the whole point of the "felony" inclusion and not even a mention of "misdemeanors" is for civil lawsuit protection - vs explicit or implicit meaning that we cannot defend ourselves from misdemenors?

In other words, if we are protecting ourselves during a felonious intent - we won't get sued.
But we are fair game if it is only a misdeamenor?

Janq · January 28th, 2009, 05:53 PM

Paul,

I'm not clear as to what you mean by "pro gun" but this bill is not pro human being. :(

There is no strong need nor call to override state laws with a Federalized version of a Castle Law. Who has even heard of anyone calling for as much?
This is and has been a state rule item handled at the state level.
The MD representative might mean well (benefit of the doubt) by intentions to provide his own states people and those of others like his a means of protection which his own states legislature may not support. But that is his problem and his states people problem. Not that or my state, your state, or Florida and Colorado for example where such item has already been covered by the state. Persons in other states such as CA and MA (I am currently in MA) should and need to address their own individual state legislature as well for same. This is a state issue not something for Feds to manage and discern.

Then speaking of discernment there is the not so tiny contrition on the part of the rep in that he states;

Quote:

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

(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.

So in order to even be applicable under this federalized position the victimizer has to be and would have to have been in the act (!) of committing a felony. That is the only allowance. There are in fact though very many other reasons that a person would want to defend themself, their family, or their home against a victimizer that in fact would not be a felony level/type crime.

Further he goes on to specifically state this would only be applicable to use of firearms (!), and within that certain and specific types of firearm.
So what about all the many people who use other means to defend themself or their property at their home. Items such as baseball bats, golf clubs, knives of all sorts, and basically any other thing a human being can lawfully keep and bear toward which they might employ to defend themself?

He clearly narrows this down only exclusively to use of firearms _AND_ when the victimizer is in the process of commission of a felony.
Check any other states Castle Laws and see how many others have same such narrow restrictions.

While you're at it also check the Clayton Cramer Self-Defense Blog and compare real world incidents as reported there of citizens defending them self at home against the text and letter of this proposal. Many of them under this would be found not applicable and thus in a future speak sense be either potentially guilty of a crime (!) though wouldit be at the stet or even a federal level (?). And the person would per the text of this be left with no recourse either thanks to at a Federal level state citizen right being shut down.

No thank you.
I personally am not "pro-gun" . I am though very much pro human being and all about civil rights, which this proposal to my eyes would infringe upon for many real people everywhere...including in MD, MA, CA and other such crap places.

- Janq

Janq · January 28th, 2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiWeiSz

Maybe a moot point here....but could it be that the whole point of the "felony" inclusion and not even a mention of "misdemeanors" is for civil lawsuit protection - vs explicit or implicit meaning that we cannot defend ourselves from misdemenors?

In other words, if we are protecting ourselves during a felonious intent - we won't get sued.
But we are fair game if it is only a misdeamenor?

I hadn't even touched on that specific point yet, but yep and agreed.
That too is _another_ back door to problems that we don't need, want, nor many of us across the nation care to deal with.

I might be okay with this, maybe, if it were rewritten and various exclusions excluded as well as various other items included.
But then it would be a wholly different and new document altogether. Which should be pushed at the MD and similar other state level not federal.

- Janq

PaulJ · January 28th, 2009, 07:02 PM

Janq:

I think the two of us just read this bill very differently :-).

I see it as a "minimum standard". A state would have to at least provide the rights outlined in the bill. It does not limit what states may provide in addition. So for me as a Floridian, the bill doesn't matter. However, some years ago, when I lived in Mass, the bill would make a big difference.

It would be nice to get more. But if this bill passes, it would be a big step forward.

I don't think any state law right now allows the use of deadly force to defend against a misdemeanor. Florida limits it to "forcible felenoys" outside of your house. A burglary would be a felony. HR is worded very brief compared to the corresponding Florida state law (the only one I am somewhat familiar with), but it expresses the same ideas.

The second amendment does go beyond what this bill provides. But remember that we still don't know if state law is affected by it. The bill also in particular addresses carry outside of the house, which is another question left open by the Heller decision.

press1280 · January 28th, 2009, 07:32 PM

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

This part bothers me. Reasonable and imminent. This sounds like the good ole' NJ/MD CCW requirements. Sounds like someone wants to have the arbitrary process go beyond CCW and include possession as well.
That would mean DC could deny Heller a hangun because he wasn't attacked or threatened.
I don't see anything bad in the rest of the bill, but it does seem redundant in light of Heller and the 2A.

mlr1m · January 28th, 2009, 07:35 PM

I could be wrong but I see it as an added restriction by adding the Brady clause.

Michael

kazzaerexys · January 28th, 2009, 07:47 PM

I don't want to dismiss Janq's concerns, because I agree with him in the following sense: we shouldn't need Federal legislation that is redundant with respect to protected rights, and any attempt to do so offers a potential avenue for 2A opponents to try to restrict specific things that aren't encompassed by such a law.

So I will grant that I can see room for Unintended Consequences to come along and bite us in the backside.

Without that extra grain of salt, though, Bartlett has an A-rating from the NRA and is generally clued in on RKBA issues, and I think this is a straightforward attempt by him to propose a legitimate Federal Castle Doctrine. Thing is, it might almost be worth seeing this pass just to get all of those findings---the exact arguments we tend to make to counter anti-2A BS---admitted as an official part of the Congressional record.

I figure this will probably go the way of the National reciprocity legislation---well-intentioned but DOA.

ETA: The Brady reference might be a sop to get some votes. If it were me writing it, trying to find some weasel words, I might just say something like, "anybody not specifically prohibited under Federal law from buying..."

Also, I think the paragraph about those whose rights have been curtailed having the right to bring action and seek relief is a deliberate thumb in the Brady Bunch's collective eye, addressing the current situation where folks are generally unable to get themselves off of a NICS forbidden list; this should, I think, be seen as a pro-RKBA effort limited by the state of other current legislation.

AllAmerican · January 29th, 2009, 10:00 AM

Not to worry... Its going to go nowhere.

swaggs · January 29th, 2009, 11:03 AM

Fully agree with Paul on this. This is not a restrictive bill. It doesn't trump states castle laws in any way. Rather, it provides a baseline, federal, level of protection to those who defend themselves and their families.

Should this be a state issue? Absolutely! But since some states seem to face internal hurdles that do allow passage of such laws, this would be a win. Of course, many of those same hurdles exist at the federal level. Is it likely that this bill will make it through a liberal house, liberal senate, and miss a liberal veto?.......

January 28th, 2009, 03:21 PM	#1
Janq VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,958	H.R. 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 (A Trojan Horse!) Note: It should be immediately obvious to Us, amongst DC.com and anyone else who is up on their 2A and civil rights laws, that this is not what in title upon first blush it might seem and be purported to be. For persons who are without a clue I can though easily see how they would jump to support this and think it's a good thing. A critical eye is required here to understand exactly what is being proposed, and why it's a sucka play for suckers. --- H.R. 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 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. 1/6/2009--Introduced. Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of: (1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; (2) 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) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person. Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Source - H.R. 17 - Summary: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) Sponsor - Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD](no cosponsors) - Janq __________________ "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

January 28th, 2009, 03:32 PM	#2
C9H13NO3 Distinguished Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 1,325	I read the full text...and I'm confused. It doesn't seem this bill does anything at all, good or bad. We already have the right to obtain firearms, and use them for defense. We also have the right to pursue legal action if that right is violated...so what's this bill doing that I'm not seeing? __________________ -Ryan All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

January 28th, 2009, 03:38 PM	#3
rottkeeper VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Upstate New York Posts: 2,748	The only provision I don't see is in defense of a third party that is not family. __________________ For as the lighting comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27 NRA Member

January 28th, 2009, 03:51 PM	#4
HotGuns Senior Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,227	Heres is the act posted for all to see. Please read it before making judgements. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. __________________ AR. CHL Instr. Live your life well enough that the Preacher wont have to lie at your funeral.

January 28th, 2009, 03:53 PM	#5
HotGuns Senior Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,227	So Janq, what is it in there that you dont like? __________________ AR. CHL Instr. Live your life well enough that the Preacher wont have to lie at your funeral.

January 28th, 2009, 03:59 PM	#6
Janq VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,958	Adrenalin, Nothing about it is right/okay. It's all wrong.... * It is duplicitous against the 2nd Amendment * Being conditional against the Brady Act is unnecessary as that act affects singularly purchase of firearms as related to timing. If you are defending yourself in your home then well you already have a firearm and are not waiting in line at Dick's. * If the inclusion of the 'Brady Bill' portion is meant to be in reference to the secondary and follow on Assault Weapon Ban of '94 which expired Federally then again this is unnecessary and stupid. And would be a back door means to reinstate the AWB at the Federal level as most states today no longer follow or have applicable the AWB. Except for a handful of states like MA, CA, MD (!), NY, NJ, and IL. At a federal level this would override already existent state Castle laws _and_ further add specific restrictions which are not only unnecessary but in many if not most states simply are not relevant as current. * The proposal adds _limits_ to where and when and for what reason a person might choose to defend their self or their property to actions only that are of a felony degree. Meanwhile very many citizens defend themselves and their homes against persons who are committing misdemeanors such as assault, battery, intimidation, and theft. None of these are felonies. I could go on but bottom line this is garbage. Do not support it and write your Congressman asking them to do same, and to not be bamboozled by the title or to assume the 'gun people' would find this acceptable...because it definitely is not acceptable. Although for antis it is and would be appeasement. - Janq __________________ "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

January 28th, 2009, 04:07 PM	#7
C9H13NO3 Distinguished Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 1,325	Good eye Janq. I figured it might be something like that...just didn't really see it. __________________ -Ryan All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

January 28th, 2009, 04:46 PM	#8
swaggs Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Virginia Posts: 132	I disagree. It's not duplicitous of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment says nothing specifically of the right for the citizen to own or use firearms to protect themselves or their families. 18 USC 922 is not the weapons ban of '94. 18USC922 is the current legislation that prohibits certain interstate sale and transfer as well as purchase by felons, fugitives, mentally defective persons, persons acquited by reasons of insanity, minors, etc. The inclusion of this seems to point to the situation where such person prohibited from owning/posessing firearms uses one. I'm okay with this inclusion. A lot of states don't have castle laws. As the examples, included in the bill, point out, many people are prosecuted for defending themselves and their property. This bill would serve to protect them. So, what's wrong with this again?

January 28th, 2009, 05:30 PM	#10
PaulJ Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 616	I assume the main benefit of a bill like this would that it would create federal law as opposed to the various state laws. Some states will likely "win" others "lose" depending on how the bill compares to current laws in the respective state. The bill is actually overall very much pro-gun if compared to average state laws (remember there is CA, MA and such). __________________ I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. (Thomas Jefferson)

January 28th, 2009, 05:41 PM	#11
PaulJ Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 616	reading it again, I am even more in favor of it. The bill doesn't restrict anything. The most important part of the bill is the "enforcement of rights" section. It would enable a citizen to sue a state if the state! This is the big question that Heller left open: If the 2nd amendment applies to state law or not. With this bill, there would be no question: You are allowed to own firearms, and use them in your defense inside AND outside the house. If the state doesn't allow it: Sue them and earn cash doing so. __________________ I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. (Thomas Jefferson)

January 28th, 2009, 05:50 PM	#12
ChiWeiSz Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 242	Maybe a moot point here....but could it be that the whole point of the "felony" inclusion and not even a mention of "misdemeanors" is for civil lawsuit protection - vs explicit or implicit meaning that we cannot defend ourselves from misdemenors? In other words, if we are protecting ourselves during a felonious intent - we won't get sued. But we are fair game if it is only a misdeamenor? __________________ Trying to leave as large a carbon footprint as possible. Shivering in the "heat" Innocent as doves, wise as serpents, armed like wolves.

January 28th, 2009, 07:02 PM	#15
PaulJ Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 616	Janq: I think the two of us just read this bill very differently :-). I see it as a "minimum standard". A state would have to at least provide the rights outlined in the bill. It does not limit what states may provide in addition. So for me as a Floridian, the bill doesn't matter. However, some years ago, when I lived in Mass, the bill would make a big difference. It would be nice to get more. But if this bill passes, it would be a big step forward. I don't think any state law right now allows the use of deadly force to defend against a misdemeanor. Florida limits it to "forcible felenoys" outside of your house. A burglary would be a felony. HR is worded very brief compared to the corresponding Florida state law (the only one I am somewhat familiar with), but it expresses the same ideas. The second amendment does go beyond what this bill provides. But remember that we still don't know if state law is affected by it. The bill also in particular addresses carry outside of the house, which is another question left open by the Heller decision. __________________ I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. (Thomas Jefferson)

January 28th, 2009, 07:32 PM	#16
press1280 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: WV Posts: 604	(1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; This part bothers me. Reasonable and imminent. This sounds like the good ole' NJ/MD CCW requirements. Sounds like someone wants to have the arbitrary process go beyond CCW and include possession as well. That would mean DC could deny Heller a hangun because he wasn't attacked or threatened. I don't see anything bad in the rest of the bill, but it does seem redundant in light of Heller and the 2A. __________________ And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete

January 28th, 2009, 07:35 PM	#17
mlr1m Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: okla Posts: 854	I could be wrong but I see it as an added restriction by adding the Brady clause. Michael

January 28th, 2009, 07:47 PM	#18
kazzaerexys Distinguished Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,481	I don't want to dismiss Janq's concerns, because I agree with him in the following sense: we shouldn't need Federal legislation that is redundant with respect to protected rights, and any attempt to do so offers a potential avenue for 2A opponents to try to restrict specific things that aren't encompassed by such a law. So I will grant that I can see room for Unintended Consequences to come along and bite us in the backside. Without that extra grain of salt, though, Bartlett has an A-rating from the NRA and is generally clued in on RKBA issues, and I think this is a straightforward attempt by him to propose a legitimate Federal Castle Doctrine. Thing is, it might almost be worth seeing this pass just to get all of those findings---the exact arguments we tend to make to counter anti-2A BS---admitted as an official part of the Congressional record. I figure this will probably go the way of the National reciprocity legislation---well-intentioned but DOA. ETA: The Brady reference might be a sop to get some votes. If it were me writing it, trying to find some weasel words, I might just say something like, "anybody not specifically prohibited under Federal law from buying..." Also, I think the paragraph about those whose rights have been curtailed having the right to bring action and seek relief is a deliberate thumb in the Brady Bunch's collective eye, addressing the current situation where folks are generally unable to get themselves off of a NICS forbidden list; this should, I think, be seen as a pro-RKBA effort limited by the state of other current legislation. __________________ “What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry SRT, P226, P239 (.40S&W), P2022 (.40S&W); GSR 5", P6. Last edited by kazzaerexys; January 28th, 2009 at 07:51 PM.. Reason: Another thought.

January 29th, 2009, 10:00 AM	#19
AllAmerican VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Chesterfield, Kakalaki del Sur Posts: 2,401	Not to worry... Its going to go nowhere. __________________ My Music: www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks New tunes added. "The Double Tap Center Mass Boogie. Learn it, know it, love it, shoot it. Good guys should live, bad guys not so much. " - Ted Nugent 09

January 29th, 2009, 11:03 AM	#20
swaggs Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Virginia Posts: 132	Fully agree with Paul on this. This is not a restrictive bill. It doesn't trump states castle laws in any way. Rather, it provides a baseline, federal, level of protection to those who defend themselves and their families. Should this be a state issue? Absolutely! But since some states seem to face internal hurdles that do allow passage of such laws, this would be a win. Of course, many of those same hurdles exist at the federal level. Is it likely that this bill will make it through a liberal house, liberal senate, and miss a liberal veto?.......

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode