« More on Romney's record | Main | Favorable Op-Ed on requiring gun ownership -- in the NY Times? »
Federal self defense bill
Rep. Bartlett, of Maryland, has introduced HR 73. I'll paste its text in extended remarks below. It doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting out of Judiciary Committee, but the effort is praiseworthy.
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 73 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 73
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, 2007
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 2007'.
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.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
This would be a good start, and I think that most Americans would find it very reasonable. It's tragic that the GOP didn't embrace something like this in all the time they controlled the House, Senate, and the White House. As far as I know, the NRA hasn't pushed anything like this, either.
The following is not not a real bill. But I would like to see Congress pass something like it as a resolution:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of their life, their liberty, their property, and in the pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors.
Whereas the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an Unalienable Right of all Citizens of the united States, such Right occupying the same preferred position as all other Rights protected from government infringement by the constitution;
Whereas unconscionable abridgments of the second amendment have been undertaken over the years by Federal, State, and local governmental bodies, and have been allowed by the courts to stand uncorrected; and
Whereas the Framers of the second amendment to the Constitution and those who ratified the second amendment intended that the individual Right to keep and bear arms be protected, in order to protect life, liberty, property, and to protect our Nation from those who would attempt to destroy our freedom: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives and Senate, that it is the sense of the Congress, the Constitution protects the right of all individual citizens to keep and bear arms, which right supersedes the power and authority of any government.
HERE IN IOWA THE SHERIFF HAS THE RIGHT TO GIVE CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS..IN CLINTON COUNTY OUR SHERIFF ONLY GIVES THE PERMITS TO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE WHO DONATE TO HIS PARTY..WITH THE THREATS WE HAVE DUE TO TERROISM AND ILEGAL ALIENS AND DRUG CRAZED CRIMINALS WE HAVE LITTLE RIGHTS..WE ARE ILEGAL IF WE HAVE A GUN IN OUR CAR..I BELIEVE SOME LAW ENFORSEMENT OFFICERS ONLY WANT THE POWER OF GUNS IN THERE HANDS..IF THERE AFRAID THEY SHOULD NOT BE IN LAW IN FORSEMENT..THE EGO TO THINK THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES TRAINED OR COULD BE TRAINED TO CARRY A GUN IS OVER MY HEAD..NOT ALL COPS HAVE THIS PROBLEM..SHERIFFS IN THE PAST DID NOT HAVE THESE IDEAS ABOUT ARMED CITIZENS..MORE STATES ARE ALOWING CARRY LAWS FOR ALL CITIZENS WITH GUIDE LINES OF COURSE..THE CRIME GOES DOWN AND HAS FEW PROBLEMS PROBLEMS WITH THE ARMED CITIZEN..I DO NOT TRUST A GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS OUR GUNS..I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHY???
I am a pilot that was suspended after the FAA delayed pursuit of the matter for over 5 1/2 years. The triggering action that caused the eventual prosecution was a televised speech against a major FAA project. Exactly three weeks after the speech, the Order of Suspension arrived. The NTSB kangaroo court affirmed the FAA, immediately after the ALJ admitted that it was determined in court that I was assaulted!
Even though State Law allowed for all of my behavior during the incident in question, the FAA is attempting to prosecute me for careless and reckless behavior. As a result, they are attempting to take away the rights granted to me by the state. They refused to prosecute the assailant for their actions against a commercial flight. Makes you feel safe, doesn't it?
Can you believe that our government would act in such a hateful, and unprofessional manner? Prior to this, I was naive. I thought that my government actually was in the business of serving justice and integrity.
In conclusion, I now realize that whenever men no longer believe in absolute truth, and no longer believe in the "judgment to come" (as taught in the Bible), we can expect ever-increasing corruption, even on the bench. This once-great nation was founded upon the faith of our Founding Fathers. In abandoning that, we should not be surprised when all hell breaks loose, and justice is denied. It is only a natural outcome, and is evidenced daily in our land!
This is interesting. Is Congress presuming the 14th and second amendments as the source of it's power to legislate here? I would imagine cities like Chicago and New York are going to fight this tooth and nail on federalism grounds. It would seem that it would restore D.C. rights pretty effectively though. It would be nice to have another declaration of the the second amendment as an individual right, and for Congress to be more specific on it's powers in this area. It would put one more nail in the coffin of the collective rights theory.