U.S. Congress - H.R.17 Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009
H.R.17 - Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009
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. view all titles (2)
All Bill Titles
- Short: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Official: 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. as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 181-210 of 281 total comments.
To deny this bill does not deny you the right to have the weapon. It looks like it’s setting the stage for legalities after the fact provided you act within the letter of the bill.
This bill is meaningless. It does not immunize people who act in lawful self-defense from prosecution or civil lawsuits. All it does is “reaffirm” already-existing rights. What is the point? http://frankiethelawdog.com/?p=375
The point of this bill is to pander to the people who lost the election. The minority party has to pick issues, even if they can’t even bring it to the floor for a vote.
This bill is a distration from their inability to offer solutions to the problems they had a hand in causing.
I don’t know what the point of the bill is, but the effect of it would be to simply allow people who have been “prohibited” from receiving a firearm to sue whoever “prohibited” them from receiving such firearm. And that only applies to people “not prohibited from receiving a firearm” by 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g). That provision specifies those persons for whom it is unlawful to (among other things) possess or receive any firearm or ammunition.
I just don’t see how this bill does anything to or for either side of the gun control/gun rights debate.
This bill does nothing for either side of the 2nd Amendment issue, but the Party of No needs to have something to show for the next two years, other than voting no on everyting the the Democrats propose and pass.
In 2010 they will parade a group of bills out to show the voters they did something to earn a paycheck.
Not sure what the laws about gun ownership are in New Mexico (newmeximan) but some states have made unbelievable hurdles necessary to own or use a gun. By making a national law to define their rights (which could be done through the courts) the local authorities would be thrown to the defensive and have the show that they had just cause to prevent the ownership….as it should be.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Also, unbelievable as it may seem, some States, counties and cities (and District of Columbia), make it illegal to protect your home with a gun. By defining the ownership as “Brady” not: filled in proper paperwork, took shooting course, had gun approved by sheriff, had less than 10 round magazine, did not have flash suppressor, did not have barrel length less than…x, did not this, did that….
Makes it simple, If meets Brady qualifications: not felon, not adjudged mentally defective for some reason, and used the gun in defense…no charges. I live in a state that is “shall issue” for concealed and allows reasonable gun ownership, this would not effect me…but Chicago?
Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
DFD
This is all well and good, but would it not just be better to enforce the constitution as it was written and repeal all the existing gun laws as violations of the constitution.
Agree. Texas is taking a bold first step.
Self-defense is a drastic reaction caused by drastic action. Therefore, there should be no limit on self-defense. You are forced to protect yourself and/or your family by whatever means necessary. Law of nature. No mercy to criminals.
It’ll be a good day when I see this come out of committee. Most states protect this right anyway, and it should be implied on a federal level by the second amendment to that old document Democrats and Republicans alike wipe their asses with.
This bill is a waste of time. If HR45 passes you won’t have time to go unlock your safe and load your weapon and defend your family. This congress is a joke and we have only ourselves to blame.
We the people have the right to keep and bear arms, we should remember what our fore farthers did for us when they created our constitution. They knew that citizens needed to bear arms,for self protection as well as tyranny.
A Necessary LAW
I support this bill because it’s our right to bear arms, why do the democrats always want to take away the guns?
They prefer supporting criminals, and giving them more rights.
That’s easy to answer dr207960. It’s easier to control an unarmed population. Witch is why the right to bear arms was added to the constitution. So we the people would have the means to protect ourselves from a government that may and have got to big for their britches. The same reason states were given the right to pass their own laws. But the state rights were taken away oh about 141 years ago. I guess they think it’s time to make a clean sweep of things. Get ready for serfdom my friend. Maybe it want be so bad. Hell you might get lucky, they might make you a knight or a lord if you behave. Naw they already got those guys picked out.
Here you go with Democrats again. Who the hell pushed the Brady Bill thru? The frickin Republicans did after the assasination attempt on Ronald Reagan back in the 80’s with Nancy Reagan leading the push!!! They opened the floodgates on all this bullshit! NOT the Democrats.
Too more accurately define the right to bear arms is an underhanded way to narrowly focus it and thereby diminish it. Do something outside the definition and you are in jail.
According to United States Consitution that all Americans has known and is part of our BILL of Rights.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Which means if the Democratics or any other goverment Senate and Representative and Obama infringed our rights, only tells me who are the real Anti – Americans and Obama has broken his Oath to protect the United States Consitution. If Obama does infridge our 2nd Amendment, His whole Administration and himself is lawable for Impeachment.We need a new party the american party no rep. no dem. no green no lib. just americans or those that want to be. Born free, profress to be free , want to be free , WE need to flush the waste down the drain where it belongs!!! The old way isn’t working any more they have broken it.Destroied the way our founding fathers made it. They should be ashamed but I doubt they have any morals to see what they have done to our country.
We already have these rights in TX. If they pass this does it make it legal in say in NY. or MAS. to wast some crack head for trying to jack you up or rape your woman ? Or will you still go to jail for possession of a firearm ?
If you read the body of the bill I think that it will go around the current possession laws. It is federal and it says any one who can legaly purchase a fire arm.Could be good new for the east coast folks.
Wait, the right to own a gun, where have I heard of that before? Oh! now I remember, its the second ammendment! I agree wholeheartedly with this bill but pardon my ignorance, I thought we had settled this issue two-hundred years ago! Why are we having to pass more legislation to reiterate what is already written down as the supreme law of the land?
Well, probably because our Reps don’t have the balls to tell these idiots “NO, and we’re not Re Addressing this issue anymore, so don’t bring it up again!” !!! If they had the guts to do that, these activist groups, whether pro or conn, wouldn’t have anything else to do but sit around and cry about some other Rights in our Constitution they don’t like. Instead of telling these jackasses that if they don’t like our Constitution, leave, go back to where ever it is you came from. Cause this is how this country was set up, and I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and this country whether you like it or not! Instead, they’d rather cower down to some sort of politically correct approach to everything.
I almost want to vote no for this this bill. The bill itself legitimizes government to make gun laws, even though this is a step forward.
This is a silly time wasting peice of legislation however, because of our current environment of radical leftist policy and rights errosion we will have to waste the time on this. By doing this we take away time from thier activists policy proposals so I support it if not only to limit the time available for free cell phones to homeless people, or cash back for fuel guzzeling cars, or legalizing pot…