Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 12/19/2005 8:18:17 AM EDT
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 (75)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(75), BY DATE [order is left to right]: (Sort: alphabetical order)
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/20/2005 Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 2/1/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 2/1/2005 Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 2/1/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 2/1/2005 Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 2/1/2005
Rep Bilirakis, Michael [FL-9] - 2/1/2005 Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 2/1/2005
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 2/1/2005 Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 2/1/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 2/1/2005 Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 2/1/2005
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 2/1/2005 Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 2/1/2005
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 2/1/2005 Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 2/1/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 2/1/2005 Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] - 2/1/2005
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 2/1/2005 Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 2/1/2005
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 2/1/2005 Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 2/1/2005
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 2/1/2005 Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 2/1/2005
Rep Taylor, Charles H. [NC-11] - 2/1/2005 Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 2/8/2005
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] - 2/8/2005 Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 2/8/2005
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] - 2/14/2005 Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 2/14/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 2/15/2005 Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 2/15/2005
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/7/2005 Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/7/2005
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/7/2005 Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 3/7/2005
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 3/7/2005 Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 3/7/2005
Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] - 3/14/2005 Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 3/17/2005
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 4/6/2005 Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 4/18/2005
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 4/18/2005 Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 4/18/2005
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 4/18/2005 Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 4/18/2005
Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 4/18/2005 Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 4/26/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 5/9/2005 Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 5/9/2005
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 5/9/2005 Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 5/9/2005
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 5/9/2005 Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 5/23/2005
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 5/23/2005 Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 5/23/2005
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 5/23/2005 Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 5/23/2005
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 6/8/2005 Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 6/8/2005
Rep Jindal, Bobby [LA-1] - 6/21/2005 Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3] - 6/21/2005
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 6/24/2005 Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 6/24/2005
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-8] - 6/24/2005 Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 7/11/2005
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [CA-50] - 7/11/2005 Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 7/11/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 7/11/2005 Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 7/11/2005
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 7/11/2005 Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 7/28/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/19/2005 Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 9/19/2005
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 11/7/2005

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:18:53 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:27:30 AM EDT
W00t!!!

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:29:11 AM EDT
January 4th, 2005?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:32:08 AM EDT
Awesome! I will be E-mailing my congress critters
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:32:44 AM EDT
OK........................ this means what?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:33:43 AM EDT
Is this the awaited "Response to Attempted Gun Confiscation During Katrina" bill?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:36:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tallbill:
January 4th, 2005?



I knew this bill looked familiar
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:37:29 AM EDT
Moving at the speed of government!
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:41:34 AM EDT
shotgun; check

rifle; check

pistol; check

machinegun; no machineguns?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:44:01 AM EDT
let it pass like a kidney stone!
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:47:39 AM EDT
don't the 2nd and 4th amendments already cover this? Why do they need to make a new law that gives us what is already given by the Constitution?


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progun laws, but this seems a little redundant.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:48:10 AM EDT
Too wordy. Narrowly defines the scope.

Why not just say, "The Second Amendment is hereby re-affirmed as an Individual Right. All Federal, State, and local laws are hereby repealed due to lack of compliance with the US Constitution under the 'Supremacy' clause."
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:49:05 AM EDT
They should ammend this bill with legislation to remove the "Sporting Purposes" BS.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:51:57 AM EDT


Its redundent

and doesn't include NFA stuff.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:55:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nacrotek:
They should ammend this bill with legislation to remove the "Sporting Purposes" BS.



I don't see a sporting purposes clause in there...

...oh wait do you mean of the import ban?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:57:48 AM EDT
Might be able to pass, in my poli sci class at college I was able to convince a good 70% of the class(all but 2 were flaming libtards) that this was a good bill.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:11:14 AM EDT
while it does not appear to do anything, I think it's purpose is to hold gun grabbers civially liable for damages.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:12:00 AM EDT
tagged
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:14:59 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:16:05 AM EDT
If only Moses had a table that said, "Thou shalt own machine guns"
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:33:58 AM EDT
The current congress is cowardly when it comes to repealing the machinegun ban.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:37:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
W00t!!!




+1
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:39:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
The current congress is cowardly when it comes to repealing the machinegun ban.




ALL congresses will be. the 86 MG ban ain't goin' nowhere unfortunately.


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:41:34 AM EDT
tag.

Thanks for all your updates on stuff like this CRC. I appreciate you keeping us informed of things like this.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:41:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 10:03:31 AM EDT by fossil_fuel]
<tinfoil survivalist mode> Senator Bartlett is also the guy who has been constantly giving speeches to congress about the possibly devastating effects that oil depletion may have on the US. does he know something that we don't? </tinfoil survivalist mode>

ETA: post 100! i'm going to post a pic of my very first rifle which i just bought last friday, it's a 10/22 with stainless barrel and synthetic stock:

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:42:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

Originally Posted By CRC:
The current congress is cowardly when it comes to repealing the machinegun ban.




ALL congresses will be. the 86 MG ban ain't goin' nowhere unfortunately.





Right now, probably.

In the future? Who's to know
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:45:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 9:46:02 AM EDT by CRC]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
tag.

Thanks for all your updates on stuff like this CRC. I appreciate you keeping us informed of things like this.



Your welcome.


Keep informed and bug your reps.

The rights you loose will be your own.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:50:53 AM EDT
If they pass this law, I'm gonna try to use it to buy a P-90. It's a Personal Defense Weapon, isn't it?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:55:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jmzd4:
don't the 2nd and 4th amendments already cover this? Why do they need to make a new law that gives us what is already given by the Constitution?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progun laws, but this seems a little redundant.


Tell that to the anti-gunners.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:58:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

Originally Posted By CRC:
The current congress is cowardly when it comes to repealing the machinegun ban.


ALL congresses will be. the 86 MG ban ain't goin' nowhere unfortunately.


If we got rid of the "Sporting Purposes" clause, the MG ban will be a moot point.

More than anything else, we need to work on the repeal of the SP clause.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:07:15 AM EDT
I don't see the point.


Would this help people in non-free states to get around some laws? i.e. No 10 day waiting period.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:09:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Too wordy. Narrowly defines the scope.

Why not just say, "The Second Amendment is hereby re-affirmed as an Individual Right. All Federal, State, and local laws are hereby repealed due to lack of compliance with the US Constitution under the 'Supremacy' clause."



Hell ya what he said!
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:18:57 AM EDT
I wrote a 30 page paper on this very topic. I wish this bill had passed when I wrote the paper.

This bill would finally put the libs feet to the fire. Right now there is no way to sue a state government for wrongs suffered because a person was denied teh ability to purchase a firearm. This would remedy that and effectively overturn the D.C. N.Y.C. and Chicago handgun bans. Of course, I don't see any language describing the burdens of proof on the respective parties nor do I see anything that concretely delineats the threshold elements of the cause of action.

Simply, this bill needs to be fleshed out so that a plaintiff (denied gunowners) can prove that he was denied a gun and that is the proximate cause of his injury in a jurisdiction that prevents him or her from having a gun.

All in all a good start.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:56:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
If we got rid of the "Sporting Purposes" clause, the MG ban will be a moot point.



Really?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:03:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:
If only Moses had a table that said, "Thou shalt own machine guns"



It was on that third one that he dropped.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:03:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ilike9s:

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Too wordy. Narrowly defines the scope.

Why not just say, "The Second Amendment is hereby re-affirmed as an Individual Right. All Federal, State, and local laws are hereby repealed due to lack of compliance with the US Constitution under the 'Supremacy' clause."



Hell ya what he said!



Someone was bound to say it. I just got to it first this time. ;-)
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:12:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

Originally Posted By CRC:
The current congress is cowardly when it comes to repealing the machinegun ban.




ALL congresses will be. the 86 MG ban ain't goin' nowhere unfortunately.





Right now, probably.

In the future? Who's to know



One day in the distant future the United States will faulter and die as Rome did, and with it her laws...
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:17:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Coop_K:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
If we got rid of the "Sporting Purposes" clause, the MG ban will be a moot point.


Really?


Think about it.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:19:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glimmerman68:
shotgun; check

rifle; check

pistol; check

machinegun; no machineguns?


word
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:35:58 PM EDT
Thanks for the info CRC, I'll put a bug up my reps ass to support this
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:37:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 2:38:02 PM EDT by ipsilateral_7]
damn.

ALL ACTIONS:

1/4/2005:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3/2/2005:

Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:42:02 PM EDT
Hasn't gotten very far, has it?

How does "(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"

apply to places such as DC? Or does DC only have a handgun ban with no prohibition on shotguns or rifles?

NTM
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:00:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 3:02:55 PM EDT by BangStick1]

Originally Posted By jmzd4:
don't the 2nd and 4th amendments already cover this? Why do they need to make a new law that gives us what is already given by the Constitution?


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progun laws, but this seems a little redundant.





Redundancy is the only thing that can crack into the liberal gun grabbin' brain!! Plus, it keeps the gun grabbers from trying to "re-define" the 2nd Amendment.


Any chance they will make this "pre-emptive" to do away with the ridiculous restrictions in some cities?? San Fran. for instance.
Top Top