Posted on 02/15/2003 12:49:21 PM PST by forest
Here's a test we can give to any of our Congress- Critters who say they support the Constitution and the Second Amendment. It's a simple little test that will only require they formally lend their name to that which they say they profess.
A few days ago, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced H.R. 648, 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."
The bill is rather straightforward. In short, it states that: "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 -- in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; 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 in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person."
The bill also gives a citizen recourse if refused "permission" to purchase or own a weapon: "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." Attorneys fees may also be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff.
Along with attempting to change the law favorably, the body of the bill also presents some facts that could also be useful in forming arguments against local gun- grabbers.
For instance, in the "Findings" section, Rep. Wilson includes some surprising statistics:
(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: . . .
(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.
So there you have it. The bill is crafted in such a way that even moderates in Congress should agree. Sure, many of us can argue that the bill does not go far enough. Even so, this bill is worth working to get passed.
And here's our little test: Anyone not agreeing with the self-defense of self, family and home against a violent felon simply has no business being in government. In this case, our argument is outlined for us within the bill itself. So, let's work to have our representatives sign on to H.R. 648 and vote in favor of it when it gets to the floor.
Some useful information was included:
Police can not protect and are not liable, supported by courts.
Police can not answer all calls immediately.
In crime, most guns are used to protect and not fired at the crook.
This bill is worth working to get passed.
And here's our little test: Anyone not agreeing with the self-defense of self, family and home against a violent felon simply has no business being in government. In this case, our argument is outlined for us within the bill itself. So, let's work to have our representatives sign on to H.R. 648 and vote in favor of it when it gets to the floor.
1. I think the bill should also state that people have the right to own firearms for hunting, for sport shooting, for collecting, of just because they feel like it.
2. I have a problem with the "reasonably perceived" and "imminent" parts of the statement "in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury." I fear that gun-grabbers would use these words to try to restrict us based on their claim that it is "unreasonable" for me to believe that I might be faced with having to defend myself or that if such a threat exists, it isn't imminent. Of course, this problem would go away if the bill also stated that I could own a firearm (or several firearms) just because I felt like it.
Overall, I still like the idea. I like the idea of putting them on record for or against the purpose of the Second Amendment. Of course, I'd like it better if the guy would just pick a couple of hundred needless firearms laws and repeal them, but I'll take what we can get.
WFTR
Bill
I'd make it more explicit: anyone who is not prohibited from receiving a fireararm either on the basis of a crime committed after 1968, and of which they either were convicted or accepted a plea bargain, and for which the actual sentence imposed was a year or more in prison; or a crime which they committed and plead insanity.
Otherwise people's rights can still be denied via restraining orders.
Yeah. Sitting here in the Peoples' Republic of California, I'd also like to see a universal right to CCW.
Impossible to obtain a CCW in Los Angeles unless one is a jewelry salesman, carries large amounts of cash, has been threatened, or is a celebrity or big-deal politician.
--Boris
The inalienable right to defend life and liberty as set forth in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution includes the fundamental right of each person to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family and home. This right shall not be infringed.1. All State government action regulating the right of law-abiding persons to acquire and possess arms for the defense of self, family and home, shall be subject to strict scrutiny, in the same respect as the freedoms of speech and of the press. All county, city and local government action on this subject is preempted by state law and this Amendment.
2. This Amendment does not limit the State from regulating the acquisition and possession of arms by: felons, minors, the mentally incompetent, and any person subject to restraining orders based upon their own violent conduct
Osama bin Laden's tape sounded like a threat against all Americans. I think you should be granted the permit. (/sarcastic humor)
WFTR
Bill
5.56mm
I don't like the last bit. Violent conduct worthy of denying somebody's right to keep and bear arms should already be a felony offense, provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Restraining orders are given at the drop of a hat to any woman who feels "afraid"; note that there's no requirement that the woman's fear be reasonable--the fact that she feels "afraid" is in and of itself sufficient.
Remember, "perfect" is the enemy of "good enough." Also, good enough is good enough, while perfect is always a pain and not usually worth the effort.
The problem with the Lautenberg Abomination with regard to restraining orders is that it totally ignores what they're supposed to be about.
A restraining order does not, and should not, typically require any particular level of proof of criminal conduct (or even allegation of criminal conduct) because it should not interfere with any particular rights of the recipient.
Actually, in the right context, a restraining order can provide very useful protection for a woman who fears her estranged lover: it puts both the woman and the man on notice that if the woman shoots the man in her house she'll have an easy time claiming self-defense, and that if the man wants to stay alive he'll stay out of the house.
Of course, with the Lautenberg Abomination in force, the woman in the above situation may be faced with a reciprocal restraining order and thus disarmed. Thus, the man knows that he can safely attack the woman without reprisal.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I would wear one by my side.
And if "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers.
As it stands now in California, without this amendment, there is no particular right that the amendment interferes with, because according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest authority in California short of the US Supreme Court, "...the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own or possess firearms..." (Silveira v. Lockyer, 2002)
Passing this amendment, causing a restraining order lacking a basis in proven violent conduct to interfere with a particular fundamental and inalienable right of the recipient under State law as well as Federal, but on different terms, will throw a wrench into the works and force a careful reexamination of the manner in which restraining orders operate.
Citizens already have that right. What is need is the abolishemnt of all laws prosecuting people for practicing it.
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.