HR 17 Citizen's Self Defense Act of 2009

Link to bill

Alright, since you are already sending your congresscritters hatemail regarding HR 45, go ahead and write them a loveletter for this one!

And see if they can pass it without any (oink)!

1/6/2009--Introduced.
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of: (1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; (2) 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) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.
Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

Do not let my excited language confuse you, WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL!



edit to explain intent

[edit on 28-1-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

What's the problem??? This is perfectly sensible. It allows you to defend yourself, your family and your home with a gun. In Ohio we already have this, it is called the "Castle Doctrine". Looks like they are trying to federalize it which is a good thing. Strangely enough it flies right in the face of HR 45.

Sounds like a blanket "Castle Doctrine" to keep people from going to jail or being sued by some ghetto-trash relative of some ghetto-trash kid who happened to get blown away for trying to steal a TV.

In most places in America this bill is unnecessary but there certainly are plenty of urban strongholds suffering under an asinine executive body.

Besides, it never hurts to have something like this on paper with signatures in case a few loons try to impose a UK-esque "help the thief to his car if your TV is heavy" type insanity.

This coupled with the bill for concealed carry reciprocity are wonderful things. HR 197: National Right to Carry. www.govtrack.us...

The only drawback I see with HR197 is it allows for all of the crap in HR45 to "make sense" int he minds of the ignorant.

The only problem I see is it isn't law yet!

Everyone should be stomping HR 45 and pushing this bill to be passed.

ThisGuy,

I can see your angle, but to me, hr17 give us defined recourse if uncle fud messes with our rights.

Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

reply to post by kozmo


Sorry Kozmo, I edited the OP to explain my intent a little better.

maybe we can get them to rewrite it Kennesaw style.

Can we really federalize the Castle Doctrine?



Make it so, people.

Edit: Mistake.

Reopened.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by MemoryShock]

OK. Now I feel loserish.

Apparently Rep. Bartlett has been submitting this for years,
found examples back as far as 1993.

Guess this doesn't have a snowball's chance after all.

biil in 103rd congress

Based on past performance, this will go nowhere fast with a liberal executive and legislature.

It's a sad state of affairs when Congress won't pass a law that simply reaffirms the Second Amendment. Hopefully it'll get through this time though. Too many people get in too much trouble for self defense.

I'll be writing Congressman Berry 1st thing in the morning, along with a phone call, if we have service. Darned ice storm has knocked out cell service as well as land line. I'm only on the ATS because I'm at work and it's quiet.
I agree. We need these bills!

reply to post by hotrodturbo7

I just want to mention that I don't believe anybody is implying that a persons life is worth less than material objects, such as the TV mentioned above. I would never think to kill someone to protect my TV. We have insurance plans for that. But if someones life was in danger.....

That being said, this bill is the kind of common sense the U.S. used to run on.

I often joke that if you shoot somebody breaking into your house you should be sure he dies. If he dies you are justified by self defense, if he lives, you are going to jail for attempted murder.

I hope this bill also prevents criminals from suing their victims for personal injury if say they slip on ice in your yard and break an arm or if the get electrocuted unplugging your TV.

Who introduced this bill?

This bill is trickery.
This just goes along with HR 45. It does not contain the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Witch by doing so, you could be liable as a criminal for defending your right to suppress against a govt. gone wrong.
Everything it has in it is good, but alot of bills you have to watch, because it's what is not said that is going to have impact.
I will star and flag for the find though. If people know about it, then the spin machine has a bigger battle.
You should be writing your congress rep to ask them this question.

Let me add. Laws like these should be passed at the state level. I really don't know why everyone thinks the Fed. Gov. is suppose to do every little thing in controlling our lives. All the states where never designed to be identical. You should be able to go from one to another with a different way of life.
This way you can be with like minded people and the very big issues handled by the Fed.
This is how the Fed got so big to begin with.
Just like right now. Even though you are in a state that lives within it's means, you pay for the states that are going bust from over spending.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by j2000]

Originally posted by j2000
Let me add. Laws like these should be passed at the state level. I really don't know why everyone thinks the Fed. Gov. is suppose to do every little thing in controlling our lives. All the states where never designed to be identical. You should be able to go from one to another with a different way of life.

Amen
to that

reply to post by j2000


The constitution, and the rights described therein, is, in fact, designed to be identical from state to state.

In my state, a non-castle doctrine state, I legally have to run away if armed robbers break into my home and my wife and children are sleeping.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Glad to see some sensible legislation being pushed through. Love your avatar ... it echoes my sentiments regarding HR 45.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by tyranny22]

reply to post by GuyverUnit I


The bill was introduced by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of MD.

According to congressional record he has introduced the bill every congress since 1993. All through the Klinton and Bush years.

It would be a wonder if we could get it through now, but if the response to the TARP outcry is representative of what our lawmakers think of us, it would be a miracle.

People are looking for the 2/3 liberal majority (executive and legislative) to continue where Klinton and Bush left off, eroding our rights into oblivion.

The Supreme court threw a gauntlet down with the Heller decision, do not dream for a second that Obama and Pelosi will not pick it up and smack them back thricefold with it.

With an ex-Klinton cabinet, composed of nominees like Eric Holder (Janet "Waco" Reno's right hand man), I don't hold much hope. Maybe I will be proved wrong. The economy will probably keep them busy at least the first term.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

Here in Colorado, we have the "Make My Day" law at the state level, and I'd appreciate it if the Feds simply stayed out of our business.

Besides, I don't care what law says what, I won't be thinking about it if I ever need to use a firearm to protect myself, my family or my home.

reply to post by Unit541


"Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six"


2nd line