Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009

[Tim Nunan]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-17

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ?Citizens? Self-Defense Act of 2009?.

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.?.

( 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.

© 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.

( Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

© 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.

( 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.

© 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.

( 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).

© 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.

[Fallguy]

Interesting....but probably has a snowball's chance.......

[-boatman-]

I wish I felt different but I don't see this going anywhere.

[Punisher84]

I don't get it. How do you pass a law on a right? I guess it'd be nice to have it affirmed, but I don't see it happening in this climate.

[Guest bang-flash]

I was reading and waiting for the punch line. Would be nice if our illustrious congressional members would see this one through.

Maybe if someone added a bunch of "pork" spending and buried it in an appropriations bill it would sneak through like some of the other crap they pass.

[Guest mikedwood]

I vote Aye. I'd like to throw some pork in it but I'm in a hurry so it's just a straight up Aye.

[Fallguy]

I don't get it. How do you pass a law on a right? I guess it'd be nice to have it affirmed, but I don't see it happening in this climate.

After you get through why they think the way the think and reaffriming what they see as a right...I think the meat of it is Sec 3©(1) allowing you to sue the goverment (federal or state) if they have in any way kept you from being able to use a firearm to defend yourself.

[Punisher84]

After you get through why they think the way the think and reaffriming what they see as a right...I think the meat of it is Sec 3©(1) allowing you to sue the goverment (federal or state) if they have in any way kept you from being able to use a firearm to defend yourself.

So basically you could sue for park carry, restaurant carry, etc?

[Fallguy]

So basically you could sue for park carry, restaurant carry, etc?

To be honest I'm not 100% sure if that is the intention (although to me it does read that way) or if something bad would have to happen to you first and you weren't able to defend yourself because of some law or regulation.

[Punisher84]

To be honest I'm not 100% sure if that is the intention (although to me it does read that way) or if something bad would have to happen to you first and you weren't able to defend yourself because of some law or regulation.

Huh. Does ya alot of good after you catch a round to the face lol

[Farman]

This one might have more chance of being passed. Got it from the Gunowners of America site. This new government is starting to scare me!!!

http://gunowners.org/

H.R. 45 (Rush): This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.

I just sent off an email to Zach Wamp

[Punisher84]

This one might have more chance of being passed. Got it from the Gunowners of America site. This new government is starting to scare me!!!

http://gunowners.org/

H.R. 45 (Rush): This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission†(such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.

I just sent off an email to Zach Wamp

Hard to see that one going anywhere unless they overturn the Supreme Court decision.

[Farman]

Hard to see that one going anywhere unless they overturn the Supreme Court decision.

But they keep trying and it seems to be more worse every time.

[ukerduker]

The more I read about these attempts to intrude into our 2A right, the more it gets my blood boiling. I say pass your BS laws. I will not go silently. I always leaned toward being a quiet professional, but it seems like a perfect time to be an outspoken leader.

You want my firearms? Come and get 'em!

[BrasilNuts]

but it seems like a perfect time to be an outspoken leader.

The perfect time gets further away with every day that passes.

It's time to be outspoken about what we believe inand what we know is right. If we are not we will never be heard

Edited January 24, 2009 by BrasilNuts
one more thought

[towerclimber37]

Nice facts in this bill!! I don't see it passing when there's another bill in congress for national gun registration and a democratically controlled congress.

If this doesn't pass, I won't be that affected. I'll urge my congressman to vote for it..but I don't have high hopes..

if the registration passes...I'll become a criminal..and I guess I'll be on eggshells waiting for some a hole to come to my house and make me shoot him, by ordering me to register my firearms.