'Self-Defense' Bill Introduced in House of Representatives

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ironbarr

Member In Memoriam
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,221
Location
Virginia
'Self-Defense' Bill Introduced in House of Representatives
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
January 12, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A Maryland Republican has introduced a bill protecting the right of law-abiding Americans to use guns in self-defense.

The proposed Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005, introduced last week by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, would specifically protect the right of law-abiding citizens to use handguns, rifles and shotguns in defending themselves, their families or their homes.

The bill also would allow people whose self-defense rights have been violated by any government entity to bring legal action in federal court.

The bill, H.R. 47, has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. It has the "enthusiastic support" of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), which is urging swift consideration of the bill.

John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA's public affairs director, noted that tens of millions of law-abiding, gun-owning Americans voted in November. "Now that the 109th Congress has begun its first session, and as we prepare for the presidential inauguration, we intend to continue to carry the political fight to the opponents," he said.

"For far too long, the decent, law-abiding gun owners of America have been on the receiving end of political assaults and restrictive legislative proposals emanating from the ranks of an elitist gun-grabbing establishment. Now, though, the tide is turning," he said.

"America is ready to really sock it to the anti-gun media, entertainment personalities, and ecclesiastical holier-than-thous, and the political lapdogs who try to work their wretched will."

CCRKBA says it is determined to make the individual right to "keep and bear arms" an indisputable matter of public policy.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200501\NAT20050112a.html

.
 
I suppose this will result in a lot of acrimonious debate, but overall it's a sad day when we need to introduce a new law that allows us to do what the Constitution supposedly guarantees us a right to do anyway.
 
Holy crap. This guy's from Maryland? Am I in some kind of crazy-freaky-dreamworld, where up is down and the French are brave?

Text of Bill:
Go here (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html) and search for ('H.R. 47')

Holy crap. This is a GREAT bill.

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.

The other portions of the bill are also great, as they emphasize the need for self protection by demonstrating that the police can't protect everyone, that guns are often used in self defense, and that people are persecuted for gun crimes committed in the act of self defense.
 
The bill also would allow people whose self-defense rights have been violated by any government entity to bring legal action in federal court.
That is one laden with possibilities proposal. Imagine what clever RKBA lawyers could do with this. Vermont style carry - nation wide? Seems possible if this legislation passes - but my oh my how the sparks will fly and the sheep will bleat!

I think I'll contact my congress critter and suggest he sign on as a co-sponsor. I would suggest that others do the same.
 
So what effect will the passage of this bill (and hopefully its signing into law!) have on places like Washington D.C., Chicago, and possibly San Francisco in the future where guns are banned or next to impossible to possess in your home much less on your person????
 
The bill also would allow people whose self-defense rights have been violated by any government entity to bring legal action in federal court.
Oh, yeh. That'll pass. :rolleyes:



The old "roll eyes" simley was much better than the current one.
 
This is a fascinating antidote.

A lot of state and local legislation places global restrictions on firearms, and then makes narrow exceptions for their "legitimate uses", which typically includes hunting, shooting practice, and organized matches, essentially enumerating the places and circumstances under which arms can be born.

The intended consequence of this sort of wording, of course, is to de-legitimize defensive uses of firearms outside of the home, and give legislative weight to the rejection of "self defense" as a lawfully valid reason to toss a gun into a trunk or {gasp} carry one on your person while going about one's business.

This sort of thing is precisely aimed @ places like NJ and Chicago, where state courts have colluded in mandating civilian defenselessness, and federal courts tend to punt citing states rights.
 
Does Bartlett introduce this legislation every year? I noticed that HR 31 from the 107th Congress that is linked above looks the same as the current bill.
 
I'm not a Marylander...

however, every year or not, this would be a very fine time to have our world jump in and help make it succeed. The Leo carry bill passed, allowing a small chance for national carry for us... this bill, if covering the bases properly, would go a long way to provide equitable self-defense law across the all states.

I believe we should give it a good look. We may be able to carve another niche in that ugly old anti-tree.

-Andy B
 
I doubt it will get far but I will write to support it. At the very least it gives the anti's someting to worry about and fight rather than coming up with something new for us to worry about and fight. I see no ill that can come of this, particularly with the wording "Reaffirmation of Right".
 
Call me a late bloomer, but at 46 years old, this year was the first time I ever regestered and voted. And today I just wrote my new representative (a Republican that I voted for) and asked him to support HR-47.
 
The whole bill...

http://thomas.loc.gov - search (Bill No.) HR47

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.
 
DelayedReaction:
Rep. Bartlett is from the rural portion of Maryland, not the DC portion. We're like Pennsylvania, the nutty urban areas control everything and the Alabama-like rural area gets dragged along for the ride kicking and screaming.

Kharn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top