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

If this is for real, I sure hope it's not just another bill that will never go anywhere.

What's that link to the gov site to track bills? I want to keep up with this one.

Quoted: I sure hope it's not just another bill that will never go anywhere.

Quoted: Quoted: I sure hope it's not just another bill that will never go anywhere.

I know, wishful thinking.

A guy can hope though, can't he?

Well.. where is the "people also need to protect themselves on the streets, as police can't always protect them there, and therefore CCW for ALL!" part?

From the thomas.loc.gov web site:

H.R.47
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] (introduced 1/4/2005)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

...it's for real....

-Jeff

Maybe one day when we live free again, or maybe when our children live free.

Could this bill be used against us in some manor?  limiting us in some way?
is it possible that it seems too good to be true because it is?
Not saying any of this is true but has anyone questioned the other angle?

M4-CQBR ~ out

It was introduced in the 107th Congress and had a bill number of H. R. 31 and a title of "Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2001".  It had 78 Co-sponsors when it was introduced.  Seems like it died in the Subcommittee on Crime in Feb of 2001.

Seems like Rep Bartlett has reintroduced the bill again this session.  Currently it has no cosponsors this time around.  It has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.  Hopefully this gains some steam.  Maybe the members here could write to their Rep and get some support moving behind the scenes on this bill.  I will contact the PA Reps and see what happens.

This should be listed as a "Fire Mission".

I love the fact that ol` Roscoe is from Maryland!!!

Nice to know there are reps like him still out there.

Roscoe and Ron make a heck of a pro-gun pair!

CRC

I'll drop a line to Ginny. I'm on her Christmas card list.

tag

So youre saying I should be calling my senators and state reps about this?

tag

I can only imagine the amendments that will be tacked on to kill the bill.

Quoted: So youre saying I should be calling my senators and state reps about this?

Contact your FEDERAL represnatives in Washington.

CRC

Quoted: Quoted: So youre saying I should be calling my senators and state reps about this? Contact your FEDERAL represnatives in Washington. CRC

Yeah, my congressman and such, thats what I meant.

So...  who do I contact first?  where will this bill be?  Do I contact my Senators, or my state rep in the House of Reps first?

Ill be calling my wonderful state and local reps tomorrow!

Quoted: If this is for real, I sure hope it's not just another bill that will never go anywhere.

Rosco introduces this every couple of years.  So far it hasn't gotten anywhere - this is probably the best chance it has ever had.

taggage

Quoted: Well.. where is the "people also need to protect themselves on the streets, as police can't always protect them there, and therefore CCW for ALL!" part?

Baby steps man, baby steps.

So... who do I contact first? where will this bill be? Do I contact my Senators, or my state rep in the House of Reps first?

I hit the PA Reps with an email.  I will do some calling in the morning.

Tag. You're it.

Quoted: I love the fact that ol` Roscoe is from Maryland!!!

He's a heckuva guy.  The NRA opposed him during his first run in 1992. . . .

Quoted: ... I sure hope it's not just another bill that will never go anywhere.

For years, I tracked the nationwide CCW for LEO’s, thinking it would never go anywhere.

To my absolute amazement, it finally was passed!  It took 10 years.

The same is possible with this bill.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly would this bill do?

Quoted: Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly would this bill do?

In brief, it reaffirms the right of law-abiding citizens to obtain and use firearms for self-defense purposes.

In particular, it pre-empts local firearms bans such as in Washington DC.

It also has a really low threshold for the use of deadly force with a firearm.  Sounds like – per this bill – if someone tried to punch you in the mouth, you could shoot and kill them.

I'm on it, even though I have Hitlery and Schumer.

nah I'd rather watch an episode on national geographic about wild chimps breeding. I don't feel like writing anything.(sarcasm for those of you who are intellectually inferior)

im calling mine today.

tagged.

tagged

Quoted: Quoted: Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly would this bill do? In brief, it reaffirms the right of law-abiding citizens to obtain and use firearms for self-defense purposes. In particular, it pre-empts local firearms bans such as in Washington DC. It also has a really low threshold for the use of deadly force with a firearm.  Sounds like – per this bill – if someone tried to punch you in the mouth, you could shoot and kill them.

Exactly. WE SO need to get this passed. I'll make sure all the boards on my "fav"s list gets this.

Super taggage.

tag

Quoted: Super taggage.

That's RIGHT! ;)