Gun Control Commercial

[namvet]

[darrels joy]

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 17
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 6, 2009


Mr. BARTLETT 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 2009’.

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.

[darrels joy]

Lying to win

Posted by: SayUncle
Via R. Neal, we learn of a site called Gun Free Kids which seeks to prohibit lawful concealed carry on campus. As these groups usually do, they frame the debate in terms of the evil gun lobby wanting to arm kids and that is patently false. The implication is that it’s the NRA (they say gun lobby and we know who that means) when the group advocating this is Students for Concealed Carry. NRA is pretty much mum on the issue these days.

The other false claim is that people seek to arm kids. Students for Concealed Carry is pushing for legislation to allow adults with concealed carry permits, who happen to be students, to carry on campus. They are not arming kids. But a little hysteria goes a long way.

Not a hot button issue for me. After all, like the various guns in cars bills, the issue is one of property rights. If a school chooses to prohibit carry on their property, well, it’s their property and they can do what they want.

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/20...ying-to-win-2/

Go read the comments

[ANGLICOone]

Not going to give up my pistols or rifles or shotgon.

Have no desire to own a tank, command a personal band of commandos or otherwise outgun our military with nucs, artillery, automatic weapons, etc..

I don't expect to infringe on a property owners rights by carrying sidearms into his privately-owned business when he doesn't want them. If he posts a sign that there are no firearms allowed, then I can choose whether I want to do business there, but it IS his property, not mine. Personally, if I had a business, I wouldn't allow anyone to carry in firearms and act as amateur law enforcement. If necessary I would hire a former sniper and have him prepared to take you out if you drew your sidearm.

But I'm going to defend my home and property, and take out the first dozen jack-booted thugs that come through the door.

If I mistakenly act as judge and jury and kill someone who is innocent, then I should be dragged down the street, wrapped in barbed wire until dead.

Both the extremes are FT's in my opinion. Just leave me alone and don't impose whatever extreme position on me.

[darrels joy]

Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

Gun Owners of America analysis of current House Bills: H.R. 17, H.R. 45, H.R. 197, H.R. 442 & H.R. 495 H.R. 17 (Bartlett): This bill would reaffirm the right to use firearms for self-defense and for defense of one’s home and family. H.R. 45 (Rush): This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established. H.R. 197 (Stearns): This bill would establish national standards for concealed carry reciprocity, but would not protect residents of pro-gun states like Vermont and Alaska which do not require paper permits. H.R. 442 (Rehberg): This bill would provide amnesty for a veteran who acquired a “souvenir” (such as a machine gun) while serving overseas, so long as it is registered during a 90-day grace period. H.R. 495 (Rodriguez, Teague, Engel, Reyes): This bill would authorize $15,000,000 for two years to the BATFE for the purpose of enhancing its project to thwart the transportation of firearms across the Mexican border.

http://gunowners.org/111anatb.htm

[darrels joy]

NY senator, husband keep 2 rifles under their bed


NEW YORK – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has drawn criticism from fellow Democrats in New York because of her pro-gun stance, says she keeps two rifles under her bed.

Gillibrand says she and her husband, Jonathan, keep the firearms to protect their upstate home.

"If I want to protect my family, if I want to have a weapon in the home, that should be my right," Gillibrand, who has two small children, said in an interview published in Monday's Newsday.

Her spokesman, Matt Canter, said Monday that the rifles are not loaded and the Gillibrands follow gun-safety procedures. He would not say if they keep ammunition nearby.

Gillibrand was a little-known second-term congresswoman from a rural Republican district when she was tapped by Gov. David Paterson to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As a member of the House, she had earned a 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association.

The day her appointment was announced, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy threatened a 2010 primary challenge. She was elected to Congress after her husband was killed and her son wounded in a shooting rampage on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993.

Gillibrand has said that her views are broadening as she moves from representing one rural district to the entire state. She has said she would work to fight gun violence while still protecting hunters' rights.

Gillibrand told Newsday that while she and her husband don't hunt, her mother, brother and father do.

"I grew up in a house where my mom owns about eight guns," she said. "She keeps them in a gun case."

(This version CORRECTS last name of spokesman to Canter.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/...and_guns/print

[Arrow]

http://www.txconferenceforwomen.org/...s/luttrell.htm

[Arrow]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12690379

[phuloi]

Thanks Sis

[82Rigger]

Best gun control commercial I've ever seen!