H.R. 17: Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Finally!  Someone in Congress who actually gets it that the 2nd Amendment is FOR We the People’s defense and not open for gun control legislation. I think that the description of the bill says it all.

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.

Representative Rosco Bartlett is the one who introduced this bill.  This bill SHOULD BE PASSED. We need to put pressure on the following committees to get the bill passed and let them know how strongly we feel about it.

House Judiciary

House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

This is another very short bill with clear goals and easy to read.  None of the convoluted legalese that some bills are known for, this one spells things out in simple and concise terms.

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).  (See Below JMT)

(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.

I found this reference to Sec. 3 #3 Public Law 99-408 on another site about half way down the page.  I can only hope this is the referenced material in the bill just above:

Armor Piercing Ammunition – Public Law 99-408

Banned the manufacture and importation of handgun bullets made of tungsten, steel, iron, brass, bronze, copper, or depleted uranium, or alloys of these hard metals. (Depleted uranium is currently used in ammunition for the U.S. Army’s M1 Abrams main battle tank, so presumably the government can keep track of its limited supply of such an exotic material!) An exemption exists in the law for steel shotgun shot, which is needed by waterfowl hunters for compliance with environmental regulations. Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is regulated as a “destructive device” under the National Firearms Act, requiring federal permission to own and manufacture. This law also strengthened penalties for federal felonies committed with armor-piercing handgun ammunition, though at the time, no cops had been killed by so called “cop- killer” bullets. The NRA helped draft the version of the law which was adopted, so as to exclude ammunition for hunting rifles and shotguns, which is also capable of defeating soft body armor.

President Clinton has recently revived the “cop-killer bullet” strategy for “gun control,” but it is unlikely that his proposal will be accepted by the Republican majority in Congress (see 3.4).

The Bill H.R. 17 is so easy to read, so simple to understand, and is so needed in today’s violent world. Being able to defend ourselves was the entire reason the Founders created the 2nd Amendment.  They wanted to make sure that at no time was our right to keep and bear arms legislated away.  The Founders knew that an armed populace cuts down on crime and criminals.  And they knew that it is not possible for a select group of individuals, (police),  being tasked with keeping the peace to be everywhere at the time they are needed.

I’ve written before about the false concerns with those wanting gun bans and the real statistics provided by law enforcement concerning guns but here are a few more in support of guns:

Facts taken from www.gunfacts.info

Myth: Private ownership of guns is not effective in preventing crime

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. (Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology) Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or
used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their
gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a
thousand instances is the attacker killed. (FBI, “Critical Incidents in Policing”, 1991)

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through
defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense:
83% of robbery victims were not injured.
88% of assault victims were not hurt.
• 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession
for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate. (Pat Mayhew, Residential Burglary: A Comparison of the United States, Canada and England and Wales (Nat’l Inst. of Just., Wash., D.C., 1987))

Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

(British Home Office – not a “pro-gun” organization by any means)

Myth: Guns Are Not Effective In Preventing Crime Against Women

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by
women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

Fact: When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed,
compared to 32% when unarmed. (U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979)

Fact: The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury. (Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey)
Fact: 28.5% of women have a gun in the house. (Smith, T: 2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, December 2001.)
Fact: 41.7% of women either own or have rapid access to guns.
Fact: In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year.

Rape Rates 1995–2003 (per 100,000 pop.)1995 2003 % Change
Australia
(1995)72. (2003) 5 91.7 +26.5
United Kingdom
(1995)43.3 (2003)69.2 +59.8
United States
(1995) 37.1 (2003) 32.1 -13.5

Clearly, the facts show that the need for individuals to possess and own guns is valid. To have H.R.17 signed into law only makes sense.  It is time for the federal government to stop with their personal agendas and do what is good for We the People.  Statistics don’t lie.  Those with personal agendas such as Eric Holder and Janet Reno should be discounted when it comes to testimony against guns because they use false or misleading data to support them.  Their actions are criminal!

Obama did himself and his administration a grave disservice in appointing Eric Holder to the position of Attorney GeneralEric Holder is a black eye in the face of Justice as far as We the People are concerned.  Whether you own a gun or not, (I do not), the facts are clear that you are safer having one than not.  Even the police agree with this.  They know they cannot get to every crime when they are needed and courts have stated over and over that police are not obligated to arrive to stop crimes in progress.  With this as the case, self defense is the only answer and it is time to make it so that those that defend themselves are treated with respect and backed by the law instead of investigated by it.

The facts go on and on supporting gun rights for gun owners and prove conclusively that more good comes from owning a gun than not owning one.  With States asserting their rights to intrastate commerce and thumbing their noses at the feds, it only makes sense for the feds to jump on board and get a clue before they get bitten in the assets!

Myth: Gun registration will help police find suspects

Fact: Registration is required in Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Yet there has not been
a single case where registration was instrumental in identifying someone who committed a crime.
Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. Would-be criminals
also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.  (Prof. John Lott, “Gun Licensing Leads to Increased Crime, Lost Lives”, L.A. Times, Aug 23, 2000)

Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation

Fact: It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify
and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001.  (Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, “Civil Disobedience In Canada: It Just Happened To Be Guns”, Idaho
Observer, August 2000
)

Americans no longer trust the federal government with good reason.  We’ve been lied to, had our tax dollars stolen and wasted, (like the money spent to teach hookers and their pimps in China how to drink responsibly), watched as corrupt officials lie and cheat their way into office and then try to get laws passed that are NOT good for Americans, (Bobby Rush and H.R. 45 who was convicted of having an illegal weapon and spent 6 months in prison), and the list goes on.  We will not support those who support laws which mean us harm.  We will support H.R. 17 because it supports US!

Advertisements

~ by justmytruth on May 13, 2009.

6 Responses to “H.R. 17: Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009”

  1. Thanks for your compassion,

    Please, continue to write about the right to self-defense in America (and the resources victims of the judicial system can use to protect themselves and the future of their families). I believe it will save lives and families (families need counseling not jail time), and one day will improve the future of our nation. The more people getting involved…

    The public and legislators need to be aware how the state of Hawaii (police and district attorneys) is denying law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to self-defense. We just had another women shot at and stabbed few days ago by a men who loved her (23 murders last year alone, all domestic violence related… 9 shelters running at full capacity on most days…). The shocking part is that prosecutor attorneys are adding charges with a mandatory clause for individuals who dare to use a gun by adding additional felonies for one single traumatizing event. For instance, the police will charge a victim of domestic violence who defended herself with a registered gun, with a felony such as Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree. Then, the police investigator with the assistance of a district attorney will add an additional felony such as Terroristic Threatening (even though the warning shot saved every ones lives and was discharged from her retreating place). But this is another felony and this manuver helps district attorneys when presenting a case. If the arrested victim is found guilty, she will face mandatory jail time (no probation).

    Another fact is that police investigators will press charges without providing the arrested victim with a lawyer. So, if the arrested victim is in shock or scared and wants to tell her side of the story in the presence of an attorney… tough luck. This should be against the most basic civil rights of humanity: How police investigators expect victims to speak up freely once they have been traumatized twice: First, by their aggressor and secondly by police who arrested them? Victims are being arrested even when they call the police seeking help themselves.

    Sincerely, An Army wife with a clean record, with a husband who might be facing PTSD from service in Iraq, and a mother of 3 girls.

    P.S. What future are my girls and other American little girls will be facing in the near future?
    Where are the check and balances when it comes to the police and district attorneys?

  2. I’m appalled at this story! I have no idea what Hawaii is thinking, but someone should be looking into this. To make the victims of domestic violence into the criminals is outrageous! Has anyone checked into Hawaii’s State Constitution? Are there mobsters in power there? I can’t believe that those sworn to protect would victimize those who have been abused enough to fight back with all the fear that must be going on in those moments. I’ll be checking up on Hawaii, be sure of that!

  3. I’ve just been reading the Hawaii Constitution. It seems to me that the following sections are being denied to women in that State:

    Section 7. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized or the communications sought to be intercepted. [Am Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

    RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

    Section 8. No citizen shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to other citizens, unless by the law of the land. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

    It is obvious to me that there is a good ‘ol boys club that needs to be beaten back. You need to get a serious lawyer, one perhaps not on the Islands but here in the mainland States who is fluent in Constitutional law to go after these people. I realize that takes money, but perhaps he or she will do it pro bono.

  4. Did this bill passed?

    I defended my self using a gun and the state of Hawaii failed me.
    Sincerely,
    A survivor, nene… mother of 3

  5. As far as I can tell the bill is still in committee. Doesn’t it just figure that something that would be good for the Citizens of this country would languish in a congressional committee?

    I’m sorry that the State of Hawaii failed you. If you would like me to do an article on this to get the word out just let me know.

  6. i do agree that a bill supporting our rights to carry should be passed. no more gun control on law abiding citizens. enough is enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: