Tell Congress to Pass "Self Defense Bill"

Right March ^ | 1/16/05 | Right March

[steplock]

We already have that law! It is called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If Americans are too cowardly to support and demand Constitutional rights ..... you will find just what we have now ... giving up all our GOD-given rights to a bunch of scumbag lawyers and activist judges to LORD over the masses of serfs like they used to back in the UK.

What about congress? Let's see -- they will write another "law" that forces more LAWYERS and ACTIVIST JUDGES to even have more power to decide your fate. Hell of a racket isn;t it?

[Cold Heart]

BTTT

[Wonder Warthog]

This is a VERY BAD IDEA. Once a precedent is established that such a right (already protected by the Bill of Rights' Second Amendment) can be established by legislation, then it can also be REMOVED by legislation. Far better to put the effort into getting pro-strict-constuctionist judges appointed to the Supreme Court that will recognize the Second Amendment as having already recognized such a right.

[Oatka]

Perhaps a better approach is to enact a law that prevents the criminal or his family from suing the shooter, in self-defense cases, from a civil lawsuit.

The way I understand it, in some states, the shooter cannot be sued in civil court if he has been no-billed or found not guilty in criminal court.

How many times have we read when the perp's family ends up getting a big, sometimes ruinous award from the shooter's estate?

[dljordan]

"If Americans are too cowardly to support and demand Constitutional right"

Many of us have been supporting and demanding that our rights be recognized for years. The problem is when you have government at all levels ignoring those rights and a corrupt court system.

[shellshocked]

Your #4, Ditto and well said!

[OldPossum]

I think you are right.

I also hope that nobody promotes this stupid idea of enacting federal concealed carry permit legislation. What Uncle Sam can give he can take away. That's a matter best left to the states. If you don't like your state's policies, you can always move.

[Simo Hayha]

Bad idea or not, it could be used to help people see the light that the anti-gun movement is anti-choice. I wonder how many "pro-choice" advocates want to limit our freedom of choice, our inalienable right to defend our body from harm. Why doesn't someone point out to women that the anti-gunners want to limit the right of women to chose to defend themselves? I'm reminded of an episode of "The Man Show" during which the guys went out on the street and set up a booth with a petition to end women's suffrage. Many women signed it.

[Joe Brower]

"Taking back our Republic, one Constitutional Right at a Time" !

[Dead Corpse]

2nd Amendment protects a Right of EVERY US citizen on US soil.

Or are you gonna pick up the "incorperation" myth and run with it?

[sandydipper]

Thanks - but I don't need congress looking over my shoulder when I put a hole in a would be burglar.

[RKV]

After the 14th Amendment you are certainly correct about the Bill of Rights applying to all citizens in all states. I think I can make a case for that before the 14th, but there are quite a lot of folks who think otherwise, and they do make a pretty good case (and I wish they couldn't). I'm with you on selective incorporation - it is an abortion. Just because a case hasn't been tried to cover a specific scenario, doesn't change the plain meaning of the Constitution. The words "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" are easily enough understood - except by those who have an agenda.

[Dead Corpse]

No. You can't make the case.

Art 4 Sec 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Art 6. Paragraph 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And then there is the 10th Amendment. The 14th was required for EXACTLY the same reason we need the above legislation passed. Ie; the judiciary and legislatures IGNORING our Rights. Goverment malfeasance sapping us of our Freedoms.

Violating the Constitution, and their oaths of Office, should be a capital offense. Same as Treason.

[umgud]

DC, San Francisco, Detroit, NY City......... It'l be interesting to see how these cities would react to this if passed.

[punster]

It would have one very good implication. It would be possible for Chicago residents to sue that lying bastard, Mayor Daley, for denying them the right to defend themselves.

[RKV]

The statements you have quoted are the reason why I think you can make the case for incorporation prior to the 14th. That said, and I am sorry I don't have the references in front of me, there are quite a number of writings from the founders which go the other way. I was not aware of this line of reasoning myself, until some folks here at FR pointed this out. For my part, the 10th Amendment should be enough in and of itself. That and a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at the Supreme Court deli and foodcourt give what current 10th Amendment jurisprudence amounts to. Would that it were otherwise.

[Dead Corpse]

Yep. A lot of those writings of the Founders were pre-Constitutional convention. A lot of the protections for individual Rights were added in late in the Convention. See the last 5-6 Federalist papers for how they worked out the compromise.

The Confederation didn't last long. Without basic protections for fundamental individual Rights, no system really can.

Our Republic was born with the seeds of its own destruction built in. Giving up the States power to elect Senators was the final blow. Everything since then has been a temporary holding action.

We are a full blown Democracy now and will go the way of all other such entities. Our "Rights" are now "privileges" that are taken away by simple majority or by judicial decree. George Bush pounding the pulpit repeating the word "Democracy" doesn't fill me with enthusiasm either...

[blackie]

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

[uncbob]

This is a VERY BAD IDEA. Once a precedent is established that such a right (already protected by the Bill of Rights' Second Amendment) can be established by legislation, then it can also be REMOVED by legislation. Far better to put the effort into getting pro-strict-constuctionist judges appointed to the Supreme Court that will recognize the Second Amendment as having already recognized such a right.

Exactly