Posted on 01/16/2005 7:16:36 AM PST by joesnuffy
I agree.
We are fast becoming our own worst enemy - as if we weren't already. The concepts that gun owners must fight are the "collective right" concept (there is no such thing), and that some rights need prior permission from the law, as in the case of the Self Defense Bill, to be exercised.
The SDB is demoting an inalienable right, to that of being merely a law. The last I heard, a horse could kick to death any mountain lion that jumped on his back in an attempt to eat the horse. The horse was not required to check his hooves at the pasture fence post or seek a decision of self defense from the local sheriff or prosecutor. Self defense is a Natural right.
The RKBA movement should focus on forcing the gun control crowd to attempt the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, force them to show their anti-Constitutional colors in public and in court. RKBA'rs should squeese the Gun Violence Policy Center and all groups like them, like a Prom Night zit!
"Thanks - but I don't need congress looking over my shoulder when I put a hole in a would be burglar."
Well it is not the Congress looking over your shoulder, it's the local, state and federal courts that puts you in jail for owning the gun and allows that burglar to sue you for monetary damages for that hole you made without killing him/her. You had better make sure a burglar has this hole in the head and does not leave your house living.
Congress is suggesting laws that will limit the local, state and federal courts from giving that burglar a potential reward for breaking into your home. Also, making gun-ownership easier for people who choose to use guns for self-defense of their homes. I wish the 2nd ammendment would be respected by the courts, but it ain't happening and Congress knows it. I am for the new legislation personally.
When in doubt, empty the magazine.
It states clearly within the legislation that it is a "Reaffirmation of Right".
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 47 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session H. R. 47 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 4, 2005 Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland 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 2005'.
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.
"When in doubt, empty the magazine."
Exactly.
As long as that's the case, I don't have a problem with it. I was basing my opinion on what was said in the original posted article. I remain somewhat suspicious as to what some legalistic leftists might "mis-interpret".
Then why don't you move? To another country.
Yep. Baby steps.
We have been losing for the last forty years and we're finally starting to go on the offensive. Start taking back our Rights at the Courts, at the legislature and with public opinion. As we pass more laws upholding our Rights, the public will see the anti's and their willingness to disarm us. They will continue to be voted out of office and with it, there ability to halt judges who will rule in our favor. With that, we can start the giant steps with landmark court decisions.
Drive out the anti's from government and we'll get our Second Amendment to mean exactly what it says and no one in the government will dispute it. Not if they want to remain in office.
No, it doesn't, unfortunately. If you don't believe that, just carry a handgun on your person into, say, Maryland or New Jersey. Report back what happens to you.
With respect, I must disagree. Laws that explicitly support and protect constitutional rights are exactly what we need. Civil rights laws which were enacted to protect minorities, protect constitutional rights (okay, some go overboard). Yes, the constitution should have been enough, but in some cases legislation is needed to "kick" them in the right direction.
I say, it's about time that firearms were added to "civil rights law" . And for the same reason -- when states violate constitutional rights, that's the one time that the feds are justified in overriding them. A federal preemption that nullifies a lot of state and local gun laws, may be the best thing that could happen right now.
One of the reasons I moved to NC was for that very reason. Since I moved here, I got my CCW permit and bought 4 pistols.
It's the oppressive regulations imposed by states such as Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, the usual suspects, that make it necessary for people such as you and me to make sure we live in free states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.