• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009

ECKSJAY

Water is dirty
Location
Covington, WA
Wishful thinking...but sure would be nice to have passed. ;) Write the letters, make the phone calls folks.


Text of a new bill in the U.S. House, sponsored by Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.17:

*****

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


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.
 
wouldn't that be awesome, however with the new congress don't hold your breath
 
does anybody have a link to the thread that listed all the numbers and addresses of all the Reps and Senators? I had it but I do not know where I saved it, I figure someone has it handy.
 
Wishful thinking...but sure would be nice to have passed. ;)
Telling them you want them to pass that piece of crap sends the message that they have the ability to control any of our rights simply by passing legislation.
A better idea would be to call your reps and tell them it's already in the bill of rights, what's in the bill of rights is a REMINDER of what the government is not allowed to do, and if they would like to do something productive instead of waste time and money, you'd like to see them repeal some of the illegal laws they've come up with in the past.
does anybody have a link to the thread that listed all the numbers and addresses of all the Reps and Senators? I had it but I do not know where I saved it, I figure someone has it handy.
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
 
1) Rescind any and all regulations restricting the ownership of firearms in general (we didn't have any prior to 1968. NFA34 covers ownership of particular firearms, not firearms in particular. That can be rescinded later.)

2) Pass a Federal law saying that there is no "duty to retreat" from a home or a place of business, as there is in some states (here in CA, you are required to escape from your home vice taking down an assailant if it is possible to do so.)

3) Pass a Federal law granting immunity from civil action in cases where a criminal court proves self-defense. (Just because a criminal court finds you "not guilty" doesn't mean that a civil court can't be set upon you anyhow, much to my dismay. And, I'm sure, everyone else's as well.)

4) Disband F-troop. Or the BATmen. Whatever you want to call BATF(E).
 
Thought we already had something like this...

oh yeah, the 2nd Amendment.....its a damn shame we need ANOTHER law/rule to protect our rights defined in that...
 
Thought we already had something like this...

oh yeah, the 2nd Amendment.....its a damn shame we need ANOTHER law/rule to protect our rights defined in that...

That's because it's been gradually eroded for the last 75 years (starting with NFA34.)

"Spirit of '76 - Re-elect Nobody!" Problem is, no-one ever wants to vote the rascals out...
 
tbburg beat me to it, but isn't this already in the Bill of Rights? Something about the 2nd amendment? The gubmint has no authority to tell us we can't have guns. The Constitution guarantees us that right. ALso, by specifying that we have the right to own and obtain firearms for the defense of ourselves and families really kinda limits us, wouldn't you say? I want to go target shooting. Maybe take up hunting later. This could easily be twisted into taking away rights rather than securing them.
 
This is blanket authority for people living in places that don't allow firearms for personal protection or have ridiculous laws governing use of force, etc. Same places that allow ownership for 'range' or 'target' use. Is that making sense? Of course this is a 2nd Amendment thing...but Congress is like MTV. Their attention changes every few seconds and they need something 'new' to go with or it's out of their minds. They're stupid like that.
 
I posted this in a local gun forum as well. Wishful thinking (like democracy actually works...) but maybe if the elected official see's how the voters feel on issues they will agree in the hopes of being re elected.
 
I posted this in a local gun forum as well. Wishful thinking (like democracy actually works...) but maybe if the elected official see's how the voters feel on issues they will agree in the hopes of being re elected.

The system started to fall apart once "politician" became a career choice.
 
The system started to fall apart once "politician" became a career choice.

seriously. My ideal politician is a competent individual who acknowledges that the job needs to be done, but does not want to have it any longer than is necessary. That is the type of person who will work for good solutions that will work with a minimum of time and effort.
 
seriously. My ideal politician is a competent individual who acknowledges that the job needs to be done, but does not want to have it any longer than is necessary. That is the type of person who will work for good solutions that will work with a minimum of time and effort.

Yep. I want someone who solves extant problems, not someone who creates problems to take our minds off problems we already had, and then "fixes" them to confer the illusion that he's doing something.

It's been bantered about here before, but I kinda like the "Lottery" idea. We don't elect a President or congresscritters, we select them from the citizenship rolls. Random selection, you serve a term and you are immune from selection for a like term (four years in office, four years out of office.) You are paid whatever you are making at your regular job, you'll have your regular job back after you're done, and your official travel is covered.

That should take care of all this campaigning nonsense, and pretty well knock out party politics (since you can't guarantee - or even properly guess - who will be following you!) Should take care of all these "political dynasties" that we keep hearing about as well.

Eliminate retirement for pols. Outright. They go on Social Security (which would fix the system pretty damned quick!) or they'll just have to go work for a living...

What we're doing isn't working - why aren't we trying something else?
 
5-90,

That's an interesting idea, and I like it to some extent, but there are a lot of people that are not qualified to wipe their own butt, they certainly don't need to run the country.....I think there needs to be a term limit though, you serve one or two 4 year terms in the House or the Senate, and you're done. Just like with the President.

Just my $0.02

Dane
 
@5-90:
I have to disagree with the pay portion. There is the potential for serious pay increases in four years @ a 'regular' job and this plan will negate all of that. Not every job will fit this of course. What if the person selected was, like myself, in between college and their next (potentially very lucrative) career move? I could conceivably go from unemployed (I'm not) to POTUS back to unemployed. I would have to work for 4 years as POTUS for FREE, have no job waiting for me afterwards, no option to collect unemployment benefits (2/3 of $0/week = $0/week), have gained ZERO experience in the field/industry I went to college for (paid by me/loans), be 3.5 - 4 years defaulted on student loan payments, and be so far behind the technology curve in said industry (GIS/spatial databases in my case) that I would be unemployable.
College Grad --> POTUS --> Unemployed/Unemployable doesn't sound like a very good career path to me.
 
@5-90:
I have to disagree with the pay portion. There is the potential for serious pay increases in four years @ a 'regular' job and this plan will negate all of that. Not every job will fit this of course. What if the person selected was, like myself, in between college and their next (potentially very lucrative) career move? I could conceivably go from unemployed (I'm not) to POTUS back to unemployed. I would have to work for 4 years as POTUS for FREE, have no job waiting for me afterwards, no option to collect unemployment benefits (2/3 of $0/week = $0/week), have gained ZERO experience in the field/industry I went to college for (paid by me/loans), be 3.5 - 4 years defaulted on student loan payments, and be so far behind the technology curve in said industry (GIS/spatial databases in my case) that I would be unemployable.
College Grad --> POTUS --> Unemployed/Unemployable doesn't sound like a very good career path to me.

I never said it was a "perfect" idea - that's what discussions are for. However, it should be harder to get out of than Jury duty (Hell, Jury duty should be harder to get out of, y'ask me. That's another process that wants to be revamped...)

What do you suggest? I'd honestly like to hear it.
 
I like this idea more for the legislature than for the executive branch. Potentially the legislative can do more damage. If that body is so contradiction as to be of no use unless it is a proposition that everyone can agree on I think it is the for the best.

I think the country needs a strong executive though to make time crucial decisions. But using this system would negate a lot of the party line "experience necessary" to get the nomination, so we might actually see some better candidates
 
You should change the voting age to 35 or if you have served 4yrs in the military!!!! You should not be able to vote if you are on public assistance or on any type of government program. I think this would solve a lot of BS.
 
Back
Top