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 61-90 of 281 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    gaskorup 04/02/2009 11:09am

    What the 2nd amendment dose is provide a way to guarantee the previsions of the 1st amendment. It is incumbent that the people stand ready to form a new government for themselves if our government fails to “redress” the peoples “grievances”. It is reaffirmation of the Declaration of Independence in which the people took to arms against a government that had become tyrannical and give the right to the people to do the same should a time arise. The final straw of a tyrannical government is the confiscation of our arms that’s why it is stated “shall not be infringed”. The king 1st sought to remove arm to hold his power. 1st your rights then how to guarantee them.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 2:59pm

    Thomas Jefferson was a devout ‘diest’ who belived God’s only role was in the creation of the universe. He did not believe in the myth of Jesus or it’s cult following.

    Thomas Jefferson was the first architect to keep a chapel away from the central plan of a university, since he held that religion’s place in higher learning was not critical to the object of learning. Religion is the problem, not the cure.

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/28/2009 3:50am

    Well anonymous, very brave and bold of you to speak your peace yet hide your identity! Religion, if you want to go there, AND, if you actually do some fact finding, is NOT the problem! Each and every law in this country at it’s beginning, was drawn up from the Bible if you want to actually get some education as to what you are addressing here! They’ve been changed over the years from what they were originally by people like you and our tyrannical government to be more obscure and gray so that more loopholes could be placed in all the hogwash and hide the truths of them from the beginning! Just, so the government could become more politicly correct and accomodate those who didn’t like the origianl ones set up at this countries conception. Check back thru history yourself. Don’t take my word, or anyone else’s for that matter.

  • Anonymous 01/31/2009 10:07am

    It’s about time I see some legislation that preserves rights rather than limit them and take them away.

  • c5matt 02/04/2009 8:31am

    to all…address HR45 with your congressmen and tell them to attack it with a patriotic vigor not seen in some time. this bill is the opening salvo of what will become endless attacks upon our second amendment rights during the next four years. we need bills like hr17, not gun licensing b.s. like hr45!!! deo vindice

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/28/2009 3:56am

    So many people in this country think this issue is about Democrats opposing gun ownership. Need I remind you here, that it was a Republican led government, not Democratic led, who set up the Brady Bill in the first place after the assasination attempt on Repulican President Ronald Reagan back in the 80’s! Read more of these bills before you go urging your states leaders to back them also. Some have bills attached, that we DON’T want passed! So by urging the passing of one, you might also be getting another that we don’t want passed as well!

  • dprcrna 02/05/2009 5:51am

    This bill upholds the Constitution, HR-45 does not. IF our President is to keep his oath of office, this is one he should support. Let’s see if he will.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 3:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    This bill won’t even make it to the floor of the House. It’s sponsor and co-sponsors are pandering to your irrational fears.

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/28/2009 5:16am

    But READ the Bill people!!!! Damn!! HR17 DOES have HR45 attached to it!!! We DO want HR17, but not HR45. But pushing for the passage of HR17 as it is right now, you would also be pushing HR45 thru and not even be aware because you haven’t taken the time to actually read the whole Bill of HR17. Open your eyes for God’s sake!!! It’s right there on the General Description of the Bill on the first page when you click on Bill HR17 on this very website!!!

  • usaii 02/05/2009 2:17pm

    simple when a thief breaks into your house or business you should be abe to defend it with any means you have. when they break in to steal they have no rights.

  • Comm_reply
    progunowner 03/09/2009 8:39am

    I agree, This is crazy that we have to have the government tell us that it is okay to defend ourselves or our families from those who will do use wrong a criminal or the government (Same Thing). This should be a given to all humans on the earth.

  • col1968 02/07/2009 3:13pm

    This is appropriate to oppose HR 45. Every source of research shows that when honest people have guns, crime is limited. You take away honest people’s rights to defend themselves, by whatever means available, and you give ultimate power to the criminals.

  • thwkman 02/09/2009 9:31am

    Aside from the fact that the 2nd Amendment provide this protection, I guess in this litigious society we have to have another law to legalize the Constitution. I see Rome is burning, now where’s my fiddle…….

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/28/2009 3:58am

    Very well put!

  • Pinedo 02/10/2009 7:22pm

    I don’t own a weapon or plan own one, but I believe fiercely in the Bill of Rights, whether or not it affects me personally. I don’t selfishly pick and chose which rights I like and which I don’t. I hope our representatives will be of the same mind and uphold the Constitution in its full form.

  • Comm_reply
    Shootest45 02/24/2009 1:46pm

    You can be a member of the butter knife brigade. When the schick hits the fan and it will, we’ll give you a butter knife to defend your self and family! When i joined the Marines and went to Viet Nam I Pledged myself to defend the constitution. First and foremost !!

  • oc1fb 02/12/2009 11:20am

    The way I see it, the 2nd Amendment is protected against states making laws to the contrary:

    • (Over rides State Constitutions and Laws)

    Article. IV.

    Section. 2.

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Article. VI.

    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.

    But to keep it that way, Article V needs to be amended:

    • This article should be amended to prevent the removal or lessening of the rights given the people by the Bill of Rights **********
      Article. V.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

  • Anonymous 02/13/2009 6:07pm

    “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
    The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
    wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
    they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
    it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
    warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
    resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
    to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
    in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    It is its natural manure.” TJ

  • DJJ 02/14/2009 8:29pm

    It’s time to foreclose, pay the “piper” and start over, and be accountable for our poor stewartship. Maybe we can clean it up before our children are left holding the bag.

    The other matter: Read information I found on the below websites. Is thias true? If it is how can we trust Mr. Obama and you guys(SCOTUS, House, Senate, FBI,CIA, etc) with something as massive as this when you and he can’t cleanup simple matters from like simply providing a righteous response for a simple request to confirm Mr. Obama’s natural born US citizenship status. Ratherthan simply put this to rest by sending the information requested, I understand Mr. Obama and others named in lawsuits around the country have hired several powerful law firms requesting dismissal and to seal access to all of Mr. Obama’s records(vault copy of BC, college records, immigration records, medical records, ect.). I bet that costs lots money. Why not spend a few bucks and just provide the information? Would that clear the matter up amnd build trust in everyone.

    Before you say it, let me ask: Since when was “FactCheck.org.” Appointed offical vetting agency for the election process?

    In Texas, I understand the plaintiff’s request for dismissal used was that they have “Official Immunity.”

    This gives me great faith and trust in my President & everyone that did not demand his accountability!

    I understand Pelosi, Howard Dean and the DNC are responsible to make sure these matters are properly perfomed? HAs anyone asked them? I also understand a Phil Berg of the Democratic Party advised Mr. Obaqma he was not elligible way back when he first considered entering the race? Then why are there still lawsuits and hush by the Mainstream media? And the Subpoena from Occidental(see below)?

    Mr. Obama can very simply put this to rest as he did the concerns of Rev. Wright. He didn’t get attorny’s to resolve that matters? Is he hiding something?

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

    A new lawsuit is being prepared by a California attorney who already has four cases pending over the issue of President Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and this one will include a demand from state lawmakers who forward state funds to Washington for documentation of his qualifications.

    Orly Taitz told WND today that she’s preparing the complaint but is holding onto it and will file it shortly to give state legislators a chance to join the action as plaintiffs.

    Four already have signed up, including state Rep. Eric Swafford of Tennessee, who agreed to be a plaintiff “for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain original birth certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetero aka Barack Hussein Obama.”

    Taitz told WND the case also probably will include members of the military as plaintiffs, since both state lawmakers and military officers are obliged to follow orders from the president of the United States and both have a need to know those orders are legitimate.

    “In the military, those would be unlawful orders, and [following them] would subject the officers to courts-martial,” she said. “In the legislatures, they cannot follow any of his bills or orders … they don’t know who he is.

    “As far as we know he is a foreign national … Why should state legislators send any funds from the state to a foreign national?” she said.

    “While we are working on the complaint, I’m gathering support from different states,” she said.

    Other sites with information:
    http://www.colony14.net/id41.html
    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/senator-alexanders-office-has-forwarded.html
    www.obamacrimes.com
    www.wethepeoplefoundation.org
    http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/
    http://www.theobamafile.com/
    http://www.actforamerica.com/
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/g3.xml
    http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualifications/1244/

  • Moderated Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/23/2009 2:37pm

    Obama won’t show his certificate. His grandmother says she witnessed his Kenyan birth. He traveled to Pakistan when it was prohibited for US citizens. His school records list him as an Indonesian citizen.

    I can’t verify these statements, of course, but I think they at least warrant media scrutiny and SCOTUS investigation.

    I wouldn’t call this situation “frivolous.”

  • Comm_reply
    artb 02/26/2009 4:47pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    So, If a foreign national has a baby in this country, that automaticaly makes the baby a U.S. citizen! Shouldn’t that work for babies of foreign nationals, born in a foreign land? If that be the case, then all babies born anywhere in the world, must be U.S. citizens??
    puzzling!!!
    Ok, his mother was a U.S. citizen, married to a foreign national, in a foreign land, the land in which the birth occurred. So, who gets him?
    So, why not ‘put up, or get out of the game’? Put the matter to rest. Make the records public. Every one else has to do so.

  • Comm_reply
    Godheval 03/18/2009 7:51am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Logic is not your strong suit, huh?

  • DJJ 02/14/2009 8:30pm

    Start by completing vetting Mr. Obama

  • Comm_reply
    mouseissue 03/14/2009 9:19am

    I’ll bet he won’t do any better than all those tax cheats with whom he has surrounded himself.

    Every day it becomes more evident that he and his cabinet do not know what they are doing other than forcing an agenda down our throats.

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/28/2009 4:13am

    Yes, that’s most likely true. But it’s a conglomorate leadership we have here. Dems take one side on certain issues this time around while the Repubs take the other side. Then next election, they’ll flip flop on which side of the issue they’re on as a means for all of them to keep getting big kickbacks and their marching orders from big business and corporate America. They all say to each other, you be the bad guy on this issue now, and I’ll be the bad guy on that issue next time so Wall Street and big business can keep lining all our pockets and calling all the shots!

  • Anonymous 02/16/2009 10:28am

    Everyone should be able to protect their home and family.The problem with antigun politicians is that they don’t live in the real world.
    A very few of them ever have to worry about intrusion or violence at their home and they should leave things alone they don’t understand.
    I’m keeping my guns and I’m protecting my family no matter what the socialist Democrats try to do.

  • Comm_reply
    apache01 07/28/2009 4:17am

    Again, as I told the other poster earlier, this isn’t about Dems or Repubs! The Republicans, not the Democrats, came up with the Brady Bill back in the 80’s and took the first major steps to open the doors for our gun rights and ownerships to come under fire in the first place. The assasination attempt on Reagan was what got this bullshit started, and that by a Republican led government! It’s simply the Dems turn to play the role of the bad guy on the same issue. Next time the Republicans will be the bad guys on it again as they were then!

  • Anonymous 02/18/2009 3:33am

    The right to bear arms by a US citizen should not be questioned.
    Those who have committed crimes should not be allowed to have these rights. They forfeit these rights by virtue of their guilt. We have to stop allocating prisoners to “country club” prisons and let them sweat and toil a little. Just think if we had put them to work on our “failing infrastructure”- roadways and such. But no- they sit in prison and demand cable TV. Meanwhile, there are poor folks on the street who have lost their home while these lawbreakers get free room and board. Same w/ these drug dealer thugs coming over the border. Something is definitely wrong here. If they are illegal, they s/b shot. That would discourage illegal border crossings and drug trafficking.

    You can bet I’m going to buy a firearm soon to protect family, home and hearth. With Obama’s New Deal I foresee the further erosion of individual rights. I will, however, be diligent and take a firearms safety course.
    People also have to get through to their heads that the guns that kill people that are in the hands of criminals, are usually acquired illegally. Not legitimately.

  • Anonymous 02/18/2009 3:46am

    FYI – My cousin’s husband was born in Hawaii and states that Obama’s certificate of “live” birth is of questionable origin. It is not an original. To the gent about who speaks of the CA attorney, have him get in touch w/ the Philly Atty, Phil Berg, once an Atty Gen of PA - Keep pushing! The democratic machine keeps growing- and it is scary!! and Factcheck.org is a democratic backed website. Factcheck my *ss!


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