Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (HR 47 IH)

US House of Representatives ^ | 1-4-05 | Bartlett, Congressman

[forest]

This would be a good time for everyone to get on the horn with their Congresscritter and instruct them to push this bill through the House while most Republicans still remember why they were elected. The bill is not complete support for the Second Amendment, but it is certainly a good first step. Bush will sign it.

Forest

***********************************************

<http://thomas.loc.gov/>

Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 47 IH

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.

 

  END

[forest]

Fight for it or lose it. Get on the phone. Write letters. NOW!

[Sola Veritas]

Has the NRA taken a position on this?

[forest]

I don't know. When the NRA caved in to Clinton and CARA, I dropped them and do not follow them. Gun Owners of America (GOA) is the group to follow. I haven't checked their email yet.

[mlc9852]

So will this law allow citizens to protect themselves and their families? Gee, I thought we already were allowed to do that.

[AlaskaErik]

Get on the phone.

What's the number?

[forest]

It seems that in the past the law makers have not followed the Constitution.

[TChris]

I thought we already were allowed to do that.

That depends entirely upon the state in which you live, the attitude of the AG and/or local prosecutor, and, to some degree, the circumstances of the shooting.

[forest]

The following link takes you to a politician locator. Locate your Congress Critter and demand he support.

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[RetiredArmy]

My congress "critter" is a socialist critter. He will support nothing that is pro-America, pro-freedom. He is a communist and socialist of the demosocialist here in the People's Republic of WA State. Jay Inslee (SD-WA).

[Emmett McCarthy]

This is no doubt a good thing, but it seems that the battles are being fought and won in state legislatures. Over the past 10 years, many states have passed "shall issue" right to carry laws. A person can travel almost anywhere and be able to carry a gun without running afoul of the law. What will most likely happen, I think, is that so many states will become "right to carry" states that it will become necessary to make it nationwide for everybody's convenience and that may require some federal action. Remember, the folks who take the class and pass the background checks are solid citizens, tax payers and voters, and when there enough of them, their influence will be felt.

So, support this federal action, sure, but if your state has reasonable provisions for obtaining a carry permit (usually an 8-12 hour class and a background check - around $200 total for 4 years here in Tennessee), go and get one. If you live in a more repressive state, find a group that's working toward "shall issue" laws and lend your support. When legislators see the numbers of permits issued, they begin to pay attention.

[26lemoncharlie]

Though you all might want to read this and include something about it in your e-mail or phone call to your Congress Critters:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327057/posts

[DocH]

"Reasonable" provisions for CCW? It costs, even in the good Southern state of Tennessee, $200 for something that should cost NOTHING? Hell, I felt like the good state of Georgia RAPED me for the 44 bucks it cost me for FIVE years (I think it was $18 for a renewal last time I went in), so I can imagine how you, and those in other states with RIDICULOUS fees and hoops to jump through, must feel. Of course, it beats NOT being able to legally carry... but not by much. If I remember right, my dad had to pay around $300 for the "training" and permit in Texas. I wouldn't live in a state where the government ALLOWS me to have a carry permit ONLY if I've received government APPROVED "training" and they've extorted some ridiculously high TAX ($44 is too high, for that matter) from me. I didn't spend 13 years in the Corps training with weapons to have some government-approved goofball have to teach me how to use a firearm properly. It all comes down to scumbag politicians trying to have something, ANYTHING, to hold over our heads, AND as a way to TAX us in another, more creative way. The bastards.

You may be right about the feds thinking, at some point, that they need to create a country-wide system, similar to the way state driving licenses are recognized, when enough states get on board with CCW. However, I would think there are enough NOW, wouldn't you?

[Emmett McCarthy]

I agree that it should be free and that it's just another revenue-producer for government. Since my young kids live in Tennessee, I have no choice about where I'm going to live so I have to make do. For years, I carried without a permit and doing so in Tennessee (unless you're a felon) is only a misdemeanor with a $65 fine, but a friend of mine (who is, like you, "of the Corps") offered me the class for free at a school he owns, so all I actually had to pay for was the background check.

And, yes, I would think that there are already enough states to make a nationwide permit available. Politicians will be forced into it with the growing numbers og legally armed citizens.

[forest]

To #11: Very interesting. The UN Charter, which is a very "hurtful" treaty, is probably where Congress gets their excuse for gun legislation not allowed in the Constitution.

[Pete_JR_Ewing]

One thing of note regarding this legislation...it provides that the victim(s) and/or his/her family can sue those responsible, including the U.S. Gov't, for leaving the victim (or family member) unarmed when a criminal caused bodily harm. While some states may already have this part in place, others do not. To me this aspect of this potential law is the best part of it.

[Pete_JR_Ewing]

One thing of note regarding this legislation...it provides that the victim(s) and/or his/her family can sue those responsible, including the U.S. Gov't, for leaving the victim (or family member) unarmed when a criminal caused bodily harm. While some states may already have this part in place, others do not. To me this aspect of this potential law is the best part of it. The only thing I would like to see added, is suit protection for the victims from the perp or the perp's family. Just my $0.02. Cheers, J.R.