[jcparks]

This bill gives people who exercise the 2nd Amendment rights protection from those who desire to sue them for merely defending themselves with a firearm.

The government cannot give what it does not possess.
They CAN, however, make silly unconstitutional laws that all "law abiding" citizens [subjects] will obey until someone is forced into challenging such, thus becoming a "precedent" (not the right term, but I forget the term). IMHO, this will be how SCOTUS will skirt the issue should a second amendment issue arrive on their doorstep which they cannot refuse cert. IOW, they will say that since there was no "public outcry" when the unconstitutional laws were passed, then they must be alright. Constitution be damned. If our congresscritters pass enough laws "giving" us permission to excercise our constitutional rights, then what good is the constitution...we should just ask congress for whatever we want...right?

[LurkedLongEnough]

I see what you're saying, jcparks. However, isn't the key point "immunity from prosecution", which is not addressed in the Constitution? Or is it, implicitly? I'm not sure.

People who bear arms in self-defense, even if they are not LEO's, should not be penalized for causing grief to those who perpetrate criminal acts. I suspect this proposed Act comes out of the Florida case where the dad protected his little son by shooting (but failing to kill) a threatening intruder.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Read bill H.R. 648, "Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2003" before you start ripping in to me. I know my 2nd Amendment rights are God given. You're preaching to the choir here.