Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Support the Citizens' Self-Defense Act
Conservative Alerts - Email | Conservative Alerts.com

Posted on 03/13/2003 11:47:09 AM PST by webber

Support the Citizens' Self-Defense Act

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE ALERT:

ISSUE: Recently, we alerted you to yet another instance of an over-zealous prosecutor pressing charges against a homeowner that used a gun to protect his family against a home invader. Unfortunately, this happens more than anyone cares to admit.

Now, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) has introduced HR 648, "The Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2003", to counter these mis-directed prosecutions and blatant violations of American citizens' Second Amendment rights.

HR 648 was introduced 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." The bill notes that police "cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens," and that citizens "frequently must use firearms to defend themselves."

It also notes that "Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self- defense." Rep. Wilson's bill seeks to correct this fact; we need to help him get this bill passed.

ACTION ITEM: 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.

Contact your legislators and ask them to support HR 648 - the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2003". Go to the site below to send your Congressman and two Senators a direct message:

SUPPORT HR 648

NOTE: Be sure to cut, copy and paste this into your email and forward this to everyone you know who believes that Americans should be guaranteed a basic right to protect their own families in their own homes. Thank you!


Conservative Alerts.com


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; alert; banglist; congress; familyprotection; gunrights; homelandsecurity; homeprotection; selfprotection; trt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 03/13/2003 11:47:09 AM PST by webber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: webber
GUNOWNERS of AMERICA also promulgating this Act.
2 posted on 03/13/2003 11:50:35 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber; *bang_list
BTTT
3 posted on 03/13/2003 11:53:13 AM PST by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donozark
The 2nd Protects the rest!
4 posted on 03/13/2003 11:57:04 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: webber
Would this also protect gun owners who resist "wrong address" no-knock raids by our benevolent protectors?
5 posted on 03/13/2003 12:08:06 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
Bump!
6 posted on 03/13/2003 12:08:12 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber; .45MAN
Both .45MAN and I have sent messages to our representatives in support of this Bill via the link you supplied.
7 posted on 03/13/2003 12:15:44 PM PST by dansangel (America - love it, support it, or LEAVE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
H. R. 648

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

February 5, 2003

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina 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 2003'.

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

Molon Labe!

8 posted on 03/13/2003 12:16:50 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks; FreedomPoster
Please notify your 2nd Amendment cohorts!
9 posted on 03/13/2003 12:17:24 PM PST by dansangel (America - love it, support it, or LEAVE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: webber; da_toolman; alieno nomine; Atsilvquodi
Bump and a PING
10 posted on 03/13/2003 12:24:18 PM PST by phasma proeliator (it's better to die with honor than to live without it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Would this circumvent Ohio's ridiculous rule that you can have a gun in your car (unconcealed, of course), but only if it isn't loaded and you can't possibly load it?

I wish it specifically said "and carry firearms on person or in a vehicle, concealed or otherwise", but I guess its a start.
11 posted on 03/13/2003 12:28:42 PM PST by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
(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).

I believe these definitions pretty much kill the '94 assault weapons ban & other similar local laws

12 posted on 03/13/2003 12:50:40 PM PST by Ford Fairlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

.
13 posted on 03/13/2003 12:52:33 PM PST by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"Would this also protect gun owners who resist "wrong address" no-knock raids by our benevolent protectors?"

I don't know. The "no knock" law has not been passed by Congress yet, has it? I thought it was tabled or something so that no action was taken on this. I may be thinking of another similar law. Maybe someone else can clear this up for you.

14 posted on 03/13/2003 1:45:10 PM PST by webber (The "Militia" is not there to protect us from foregn enemies, it's to protect us from repressive gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: webber
The best way to counter this is to prosecute the prosecuter.Sue the prosecuter for violating that persons rights by attempting to punish someone FOR EXCERISING THEIR RIGHTS!
15 posted on 03/13/2003 2:16:27 PM PST by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
Looks like some good legislation is getting tossed around lately.
16 posted on 03/13/2003 3:11:28 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dansangel; B4Ranch; Pete-R-Bilt
thanks for the ping, dansangel!
17 posted on 03/13/2003 3:37:53 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Maybe their estate could sue. Unfortunately, I know of noone who has attempted to defend against a no-knock raid and survived.
18 posted on 03/13/2003 4:29:05 PM PST by IMHO (End the War on (some) Drugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks; dansangel; B4Ranch
you've got mail...
19 posted on 03/13/2003 6:24:38 PM PST by Pete-R-Bilt (the right thing to do, isn't always the easy thing to do...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: *TRT
TRT BANG!
20 posted on 03/13/2003 7:09:31 PM PST by Hail Caesar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson