Lawmakers To Consider Federal Self-defense Handgun Bill

[Ironbarr]

We'll see, huh?

LAWMAKERS TO CONSIDER FEDERAL SELF-DEFENSE HANDGUN BILL

BY CALEB HALE
THE SOUTHERN

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS -- Some federal legislators are working to catch up to what is already law in Illinois, a bill designed to make handgun use in self defense legally permissible.

Despite Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto, Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, received the self-defense handgun law he pushed for last year, when the general assembly overrode the veto in November. The bill effectively allowed a person to fire a handgun in self defense inside his or her home, without being prosecuted.

Now, lawmakers in Washington will likely discuss a bill recently introduced by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Maryland, asking for the same type of provision to people who use a handgun for protection inside their homes.

HR 47 is the latest version of a bill Bartlett has been trying to push through Congress for several years. Local gun enthusiasts say that bill has faced the same types of obstacles Bradley's bill did in Illinois.

Illinois State Rifle Association southern region representative Larry Morris said typically opposition swirls around a rural versus urban battle. As is the case in Illinois, cities often regard guns in a different manner than people in rural regions.

Morris said city officials contend with the problem of gang violence and consider guns a root cause of the problem. In rural parts of the country, such as Southern Illinois, guns are more of a tool for sport and hunting. However, Morris said, there is the notable exception that guns are seen as a measure of defense if necessary.

"What the deal is in some of these cities, they take away the best tool of self defense, and that happens to be a gun," Morris said. "There are people walking up and down the streets today with guns, and they are part of the criminal element. They don't care what the law says."

Bradley said it was surprising to get his version of a self-defense handgun bill passed.

"It was such a fight, it's hard to believe we got it done," he said.

Southern Illinois legislators have historically supported what they say are Second Amendment rights to own guns for self protection. Each legislator supported Bradley's bill in the general assembly, and most have voiced opposition to legislation imposing restrictions on gun rights to individuals.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley recently announced he wants legislators to consider two new bills, one holding gun dealers accountable for the sale of weapons to known criminals, the other making dealers liable for lawsuits from those injured by guns.

Bradley said he has been in contact with the Illinois State Rifle Association on the matter but has yet to hear anything else, past Daley's announcement.

As for the proposed federal legislation to protect handgun rights, Bradley said it would help solidify what has already been done in the state.

"They need to follow Illinois' lead and pass it," Bradley said.

[email protected] 618-529-5454 x15090

http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2005/01/20/top/doc41efaeccec611871853986.txt

.

 

[George S.]

If a bill like this passes, that would be a great step forward. But how would this law work in Washington D.C.? Or in San Francisco should the upcoming vote on a handgun ban get passed?

If you cannot possess a handgun, how can this law protect you? Other than using a long gun (rifle or shotgun), citizens still have no way of protecting themselves

Daley wants to prosecute gun dealers for illegal sales to known criminals. If a dealer knowingly does this, that is something that makes sense. But known criminals do not typically go into stores and buy guns over the counter. The guns are either stolen or bought and sold between criminals. The courts have in nearly every case, overturned or rejected lawsuits dealing with liability on the part of manufacturers when a gun is used to kill somebody.

There is no reason why a dealer should be held to a different standard as long as the proper procedures involving the sale is done properly and the approvals are given. Car dealers aren't sued when somebody buys a car and winds up killing someone in an accident.

 

[skidmark]

Got a reply from my congress-person! Sent him a message early last week saying I thought it would be nice to co-sponsor HR 47, & he replied yesterday.

OK, so he does not exactly jump at the chance to become a co-sponsor, but sounds as if he is supportive (and his voting record says he is).

stay safe.

skidmark

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 47, the Citizens' Self-Defense Act. I appreciate your taking the time to share
your thoughts on this matter with me.

Introduced by Rep. Bartlett, the Citizens' Self-Defense Act would protect the right of qualified individuals to obtain firearms for purposes of
security. In doing so, the legislation would permit firearms to be used
to defend one's self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of
imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily harm. The bill would
also allow firearms to be used in defense of an individual's home should
the commission of a felony by another individual take place there or
involve themselves or their family in a violent assault.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." While others may disagree, the plain language of this Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear the arms of their choice.

Americans should be free to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms and I am strongly opposed to any legislation that would infringe upon that right. The Citizens' Self-Defense Act offers an opportunity for
individuals to employ the rights assured by the Second Amendment and
utilize them in the protection of themselves and their loved ones.

H.R. 47 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is
currently under review. Rest assured that I will continue to monitor this
important legislation and will certainly keep your comments in mind,
should it come to the House floor for a vote.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your
Representative in Congress, I appreciate your input in this matter. As
always, if I may be of assistance to you on this, or any other issue,
please feel free to contact me in my Washington DC office at (202)
225-6365 or online at www.house.gov/forbes.

With kind personal regards, I am

Yours truly,


J. RANDY FORBES
Member of Congress
JRF:mc

 

[Ironbarr]

skid...

I haven't yet formed a solid opinion of Randy's 2A stance. I wonder who wrote that for him - considering:

...would protect the right of qualified individuals [AND] ...and I am strongly opposed to any legislation that would infringe upon that right.

which, if it isn't a bit of semantic misjudgement, suggests he would go to the wall for "qualified" folks only. I wonder what his definition is of "qualified"; I hope it isn't in the same vernacular as ... "what is is".

To me, unless you have been relegated to just beyond the edge of society (usually for good reason), or are "protected" by some plucked from air age criteria, I suggest that "qualified" doesn't apply - he might have just dropped it and stayed with "individuals" (although I prefer "persons"). This would have, IMHO, allowed law to handle the miscreants and not implied (my) right under 2A - or yours - required "qualification".

It's said that "timing is everything"... sometimes the choice of a "perfect word" is everything - especially when it is codified in law.

Okay - I'm done

-Andy B
Virginia Beach

.

 

[Standing Wolf]

We already have the Second Amendment.

Oh. Wait. I forgot. It's worthless in many states.

 

[Frohickey]

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley recently announced he wants legislators to consider two new bills, one holding gun dealers accountable for the sale of weapons to known criminals, the other making dealers liable for lawsuits from those injured by guns.

How about in addition to those 2 new bills, this bill?

One holding government agents and politicians accountable for death and injuries suffered by people disarmed by gun control laws.

 

[SmershAgent]

If a bill like this passes, that would be a great step forward. But how would this law work in Washington D.C.? Or in San Francisco should the upcoming vote on a handgun ban get passed?

If you cannot possess a handgun, how can this law protect you? Other than using a long gun (rifle or shotgun), citizens still have no way of protecting themselves.

Actually, the IL version that recently became law was written so that even if you posessed a handgun in defiance of a local ordinance, you could not be prosecuted if you used the handgun in self-defense on your property. That's why Daley flipped out so much when this was introduced (and again when the veto by his pawn was overriden). It essentially undermines the ability of municipalities to ban things that they can't get at via state laws.