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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 281 total comments.

  • Anonymous 01/22/2009 7:12am
    Link Reply
    + 14

    I hope this one goes through. We have a pistol for defence of our family. If that right is not defined and defended- our chance of protecting ourselves and our children will come to a complete hault.

  • Comm_reply
    kbfreedom 03/29/2009 2:26pm
    Link Reply
    + 29

    Although I completely agree with this bill as well as support it, I am not accepting of the fact that we need to clarify our second amendment RIGHT. This is preposterous to have to ask for our GOVERNMENT to allow us to live by the rights that they are supposedly “sworn” to. If this doesn’t go through what will anyone here do about it? Will you petition? Will you impeach those who denied this bill? Or will you all sit back and let another part of your lives be controlled by the government? This is our time to change this weak country, it needs to be a country of educated, involved citizens, not a country of irresponsible naives who sit around and play video games while other countries are getting smarter and stronger and more disciplined.

  • Comm_reply
    wera308 04/02/2009 1:05pm
    Link Reply
    + 11

    I also support this bill, but I have a hard time understanding why this bill is even needed. Do we really want to start acknowledging that we actually need these measures to justify the second amendment? What is to stop some other greasy politician from amending this bill in the future to change its intent?

  • Comm_reply
    callagan 04/02/2009 3:03pm

    I don’t know if it is even possible, but Obama and Co. would like to implement International Law norm….Now I watched as he bungled the “support and defend the Constitution” oath of office. There are some that think that the International Court and Laws that the EU tried to get the EU member nations to accept would trump our constitution (by the way, no EU member has yet adopted them). Maybe it’s a good time to affirm our rights in yet another bill such as this to keep it on the front burner.

  • Comm_reply
    dgramme 04/29/2009 6:34am

    Did obama actually take ‘the oath’ to defend our Consitution? Was the bumble up really a bumble up or was it to negate protecting the constitution….just one crazy thought…

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 10/23/2009 10:22am

    Treaties cannot supersede the fundamental rights of the Constitution.

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

  • Comm_reply
    italianjerzguy84 07/22/2010 6:20am

    It doesn’t contradict the constitution it supports it. I think it will give us more rights then what we have now. I think this is a common sense solution to slowly working in more rights for us, and taking back our country.

  • Comm_reply
    silverfang77 05/10/2010 6:24am

    It’s needed because obviously, some people in congress can’t read the Second Amendment.

  • Comm_reply
    crackpot 09/21/2010 1:32pm

    I think most of them haven’t read any of the Constitution.

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/22/2009 6:13am

    I do agree with your comments here fully, and would like to add if I may, that not only does the Second Amendment in our Constitution not only speak very clearly our right to keep and bear arms, but we as a people, under this same Constitution, do also have the right to keep those weapons for our own defense in each states Militia, which we do also have the right to have according to the Rights handed to us so wisely all those years ago by our forefathers. No government, not even our own, not on the federal, state, or even local level, should be empowered in any way, to take any of these rights away from even one single law abiding LEGAL citizen of the United States of America.

  • Comm_reply
    jesse_linn 11/29/2009 4:00pm

    I am in total agreement. Things we were promised years ago are slowly but surely being taken away from us. I support this bill but why are we begging and voting for things that has already been discussed and promised??? This should not even be an issue. And if our constitution supersedes everything, then why are we desperately trying to support what it already says with bills such as this one?

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    Strankon 04/07/2009 9:01am

    How about posting a link to these polls you speak of, because I strongly disagree with what you presume to be scientific polls. Until you do, what you are posting is nothing more than unsubstantiated rhetoric.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    Strankon 04/08/2009 10:01am

    This bill has nothing to do with political preference. It doesn’t matter who won of lost the election, It’s about your God given right to protect yourself, your family, and your property. A right we don’t need the governments permission to uphold.
    And because you can’t back up your polling statistics, I’ll give you a couple. just take a look at the votes on H.R. 17 & H.R. 45 at the top of the individuial bill page.

  • Comm_reply
    Theultimateg 04/14/2009 10:29pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    How about you post some links to your polls rather than spouting your mouth. Not that i would put much face value on some liberal tainted poll anyways.

  • Comm_reply
    sweffymo 04/21/2009 4:51pm

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx

  • Comm_reply
    BartelsK 05/02/2009 7:53am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    After taking statistics in college, I learned that you can make all statistics say exatly what you want them to. Pre determine the output based on the questions asked and population that is surveyed.

  • Comm_reply
    djwalsh1969 04/22/2009 6:24am

    Isn’t this what the 2nd Amendment is? We don’t need new laws we need to live by the Constitution! I can’t believe this. It is sad that we have a new law that we already have.

  • Comm_reply
    jbeyes 06/23/2009 11:23am

    I agree…we must protect our rights. I am praying this one is approved.

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/28/2009 8:45am

    Yeah, I own guns myself, and to believe in our rights to protect ourselves and families, but READ the bills they’ve attached to this one!!!! HR 47 we DO NOT WANT! But, it’s attached to this one, because they knew people like you, would not read the whole thing and be all on board about passing this one, while they slide HR 47 thru as well, right under your blind noses people!!!! Damn, wake up! Yes we need this one, but not the other one attached. By urging the passing of this one, you are also unwittingly helping get the unwanted one passed as well!!!

  • Comm_reply
    italianjerzguy84 07/22/2010 6:37am

    Please show me what other things democrats have attached to this. I would be interested to see what you are talking about. This is a common trick among politicians.

  • Comm_reply
    italianjerzguy84 07/22/2010 6:39am

    Also, HR47 is not this bill. That was a previous session of congress and has not been voted on. If this one is not considered before november, the same will probably happen.

  • Comm_reply
    Foundersfury 08/18/2009 4:14am

    I agree with this bill, but according to the 2nd amendment this right is God given and SELF EVIDENT, what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do the demo-commies not understand. Did the Heller Decision not make this plain for all to see. No matter what never surrender, any law passed that is contrary to this or the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional and shall not be obeyed.

  • Comm_reply
    ccsilveus 11/02/2009 11:43am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Is that so you can shoot the unemployed, homeless and those without insurance when they ask for help.

  • Comm_reply
    ccsilveus 11/02/2009 11:46am
    Link Reply
    + -3

    oh I forgot any minorities too. I belong to NRA but keeping pistols in homes is inviting trouble. Accidental death rates for children where hand guns are in the home are too high. In my view 1 is too many!!!!

  • Comm_reply
    MercilessPit 12/02/2009 5:20pm

    ccsilveus: You’re full of crap. You’re posing as an NRA member but you would ban the ownership of guns in the home. Don’t you realize that you expose yourself with such delusional lies?

    Plus you’re typical liberal statements: "Is that so you can shoot the unemployed, homeless and those without insurance when they ask for help… …oh I forgot any minorities too " is typical liberal democrat race-baiting (party of unity my ass) and has nothing to do with your comment about ownership for the use of protection. You’re a liberal Democrat shill posing as an NRA member, which is oxymoronic at the very least.

    You’ll keep pandering your liberal talking points and make more of the fool of yourself. You probably still believe in AGW even though the CRU has been exposed for the sham that true thinking people always new it was.

  • Comm_reply
    pramsey 07/23/2010 7:55am

    You’re absolutely correct however; those “accidental deaths” are caused by inappropriate storage and insufficient firearms education. My father really was a Life NRA member, NRA firearms instructor, and WWII veteran. I slept with hunting rifles, shotguns and a few handguns in my bedroom. I can’t remember any “accidental” deaths related to firearms in my home town between the years of my first memories (born 1959) and the time I joined the Navy in 1977. And I don’t know of any since either. You may be an NRA member, but it is likely in name only. You may carry a membership card, but it’s likely only so you can say you are an NRA member, otherwise you would not spout your retoric and appear to have some kind of knowledge of what you are talking about.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 8:42am

    Whether there are “accidental deaths” related to firearms has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. How many accidental deaths are year are related to bikes, motorcycles, cars, etc. and there aren’t attempts to ban their use. It’s a ridiculous argument that just attempts to divert attention from the real issue.

    I agree with you that the main cause of these accidents is due to the lack of knowledge and exposure kids have to firearms today. Used to be firearms were kept in the open, they weren’t a novelty item hidden away. Kids were taught how to use them and how NOT to use them from young ages. Now, they are hidden away and even talking about guns with kids is taboo according to the PC crowd – except to say never use them, never touch them, if you even see one laying around rund in the opposite direction.

    The current PC attitude about guns and how access for kids should be severely limited is the caues of theses accidents – it is not the cure.

  • Comm_reply
    pramsey 07/23/2010 9:26am

    AMEN bonniebluepatriot


Vote on This Bill

96% Users Support Bill

6085 in favor / 265 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments