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 121-150 of 281 total comments.

  • GunnyG 02/27/2009 8:44am

    Enter my house at 2am, you’re too laet for dinner and too early for breakfast. Mr. Burgular, meet Mr. 45.

  • slimgpd 02/27/2009 9:35am

    This is an essential right for citizens. Every person in this country has the right to defend themselves. Criminals should not use their rights against a person protecting themselves. Too often a criminal gets away with this, suing a home owner for shooting them when the criminal has no right being there in the first place. Just my opinion.

  • Patriots 02/27/2009 4:13pm

    I will repeat my post that was the second one here. It says it all.

    Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.

    Samuel Adams

  • Patriots 02/27/2009 4:15pm

    A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.

    Theodore Roosevelt
  • CowboyRick 03/01/2009 3:06pm

    When Seconds count the Law Enforcement Officer is only minutes or hours away! This depends on “WHO” you are and Where you are!

  • TimWarlick 03/01/2009 9:04pm

    Tim .44mag-Xring. If you want to see where we in the U.S. are headed with this Liberal gungrab mentality (as in: insanity), Google “Tony Martin” and see how well it works to defend life and property with a fire arm in the U.K. Bear in mind that the U.K. does not have a constitution/Bill of Rights. P.S. On second thought: If you may be a little mentally challenged don’t bother. It’ll definetly send you over the edge.(17 YES-45 NO)

  • TimWarlick 03/01/2009 9:13pm

    Tim.44mag-Xring
    Question: What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is not understood?
    Answer: NOT.

  • fehrmann69 03/02/2009 12:33am

    It’s a terrible shame, that we have to propose a bill, that gives us a right already established by the Bill of Rights. If this bill does not pass, it will be an admission that our elected officials agree that the constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Pass or not I will continue to exercise the rights that, ‘we the people’, told our ‘servant’ government, that we hold without the possbility of infringement.

  • fehrmann69 03/02/2009 1:13am

    If you are found in my home tonight. You will be found there in the morning. To the person who spoke of being a contientous objector. The constitution gives you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life means just what it says. You do not have to let anyone take it from you, and you may employ any means necessary to accomplish that task. Self defense laws state that if you are in fear of your life, you may use equal and opposite force. If the criminal is attempting to take your life, or you reasonably think that he will, you have the right to kill them. Of course you also have the right to give up your life, and meet your maker.

  • jeffcoat 03/02/2009 3:10am

    This bill would begin to bring the country as a whole in line with the “Castle Doctrine” or “Persons and Property Protection Act” that has been signed into law in many states. The ability of an individual to protect themselves their family or their property is a notion that can be recognized by all. Wether or not a gun is used for that purpose isnt the point. The ability of the american people to exercise that ability, and use their rights under the 2nd ammendment and use a firearm for that purpose with out fear is.

  • fehrmann69 03/02/2009 4:15am

    I already employ the Castle Doctrine in my house. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

  • kgotjesus2001 03/02/2009 8:04am

    The 2nd Amendment gives American citizens the right to bear arms for the purpose of protecting ourselves from a TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT. Would this law amend this right????

  • Comm_reply
    dmcmasters 03/08/2009 11:15am

    Para 3

    This bill allows citizens to file suit against all governments; federal and state, that illegally remove arms from citizens.

    I beg all of you to educate yourselves so that you may have a view that is only biased by your research. It is not enough to rely on the fallacies that mainstream media provides. The safety of my family is not only in my hands, but in today’s government, it is also indirectly in yours.

  • Comm_reply
    dmcmasters 03/08/2009 11:15am

    Para 2

    I think this bill may have come from the New Orleans incident. The New Orleans authorities had illegally robbed the people, at gunpoint, of their legally owned firearms after the devastation of hurricane Katrina. The NRA had filed suit against New Orleans and was successful in getting a permanent injunction against New Olean authorities. Of course, if this had happened to me, I would have attempted to file armed robbery charges against those authorities that had taken my firearms. I say this, but the fact of the matter is I do not even own a handgun or an assault rifle. I own a 20-gauge shotgun that I bought to try my hand at pheasant hunting a few years ago. I hunted for two seasons and have never fired that shotgun again.

  • Comm_reply
    dmcmasters 03/08/2009 11:17am

    Kgotjesus2001:
    Para 1
    This good bill ensures our natural right to protect our family and ourselves by not allowing authorities to disarm law-abiding citizens. One cannot protect their family with a club when the criminal has firepower.I do not think this law would amend the right to rise up against a tyrannical government, as this is, as far as I know, an un-codified right. If one would read the Federalist Papers, particularly, Madison’s writings, and the other correspondence between the founding fathers, one realizes that the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government is viewed as a natural right. Even if that right is dormant, or a people become complacent as the Romans did, and I think as we are now, there is the possibility that any government at any time can become tyrannical. In that case, the right revives itself. It is in the human nature to desire power. However, I am not stating that our Government has become tyrannical.

  • Comm_reply
    dmcmasters 03/08/2009 11:19am

    That did not lay out right. What is up with this 1000 word limit!!!

  • Anonymous 03/02/2009 8:40am

    THIS IS SCARY BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THE 2nd AMENDMENT WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER LAW? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE GETTING DUPED. ON THE SURFACE THIS BILL SEEMS LIKE A GOOD THING. BUT ACTUALLY< WE ALREADY HAVE A LAW THAT PROTECTS US. THIS BILLS LEAVES OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE THE 2nd AMENDMENT…TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!

  • Anonymous 03/03/2009 9:56am

    The next Bill introduced will be a Bill to recognize formally The Constitution as a binding document right?Do we need a Bill to affirm our right to the pursuit of Happiness,Liberty and Justice for all? What is going on in Our Country?

  • Tiffanynjon 03/03/2009 10:17am

    A Man’s or Woman’s home is there Castle and we have the right to defend it. This bill just reaffirms our rights. Some States have different policies.

    In Washington State, if you shoot an intruder and he or she should fall outside the door or window of your home. I was told by local Sheriff to drag the intruder back in the home. That works for me.

    I live in rural Washington and it would take the Sheriff some time to get to me or my family. My Wife and 9 Year old Daughter both know where the shotgun is and how to use it. It’s always loaded and you only need to chamber a round. We are not gun freak’s, just law abiding citizens who know what to do if challenged by a wild animal or intruder.

  • Comm_reply
    Theultimateg 04/14/2009 10:54pm

    dragging him back in your house is tampering with evidence or a tampering with a crime scene and will get you life in prison if the jury thinks you tried to cover up the fact you shot the intruder without actually being in danger. just wait till hes all the way in before you shoot. Forensics now days are precise and they will prove you drug the intruder back into your house. bad advice from your sheriff.

  • r4fthrs 03/03/2009 3:43pm

    It is sad that we have to pass a bill to reaffirm our bill of rights that ‘should be self evident’. Also the castle doctrine is great, but you should have the right to protect yourself from a deadly threat anywhere. Also it is BS about dragging someone inside if they fall out the door. If you are in fear for your life (apply reasonable person standard) then you have the right to use deadly force. If your state defines it any other way you need to clean house and start over. We are becoming a nation of sheep.

  • r4fthrs 03/04/2009 9:18am

    Our founding fathers talked for several years before the first actions were taken. The first armed encounters were due to responses of direct British actions. To act first, without due cause, will only make you a criminal to most. To respond in kind to hostile action is usually viewed much differently. Most rural people (such as myself) are more prepared to deal with catastrophic events than urban/suburban citizens, but none of us could ever be totally prepared for a full scale revolution.

    Since you find quoting the founding father as “retarded” then I will give something from Mao `Choose your battles wisely’.

  • PAR 03/04/2009 4:55pm

    Firearms do not commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes. Enforce the crimes code and put an end to plea bargaining for criminals who commit violent crimes. I would like to see a bill “Do The Crime, Do The Time”. There will be NO plea bargains for violent offenders. Gun, knife, baseball bat or beating. Doesn’t matter what is used to harm another. Impose the sentence and put them away!

  • fehrmann69 03/05/2009 4:24am

    There is a right that we the people also have that many do not realize. The courts have attempted to remove it, but it still exists, even though the judiciary has ‘watered it down’. That right, which has been affirmed by past Supreme Court justices, is called jury nullification. It simply means that the jury has the right to judge, not only the facts in question, but the law itself. If the jury finds the law unjust, it may strike the law down, and aquit the accused. The judge will never inform you of this right, and because of a supreme court decision in the 1970s, no officer of the court may inform the jury of this right. The government, especially in California, has been working hard to abolish this provision. It was put in place by the founding fathers, as the only check and balance to the judiciary part of the government. So remember, if you are a juror you can excercise the right. Don’t let anyone know this prior to jury selection though, or you will be disqualified.

  • fehrmann69 03/05/2009 4:26am

    Remember this. Always, always, demand a jury trial. If the posibility of jail is part of your sentence, you have a right to one. Anyone charged with a crime under this law, if it were passed, could be aquited by a jury under the jury nullification process. There will be those that exclaim that this right is ridiculous as jurys could nulify murder. Well that is true and it happens. It is call justifiable homecide when you read about it, but it is in fact, jury nullification. This is almost as important to preserve as the second amendment, and we should hold our legal system to be accoutable, as well as the government.

  • Jsh78mang 03/09/2009 3:48am

    This very simply is sensible legislation. It gives those so inclind to, thier already in existance 2nd amendment right but throws up the personal ability to make your home protected by law. It also dose not infringe on those whom do not want to own a gun or protect there homes…….I really can’t believe someone would not want to protect there homes with or without a firearm. this law just makes sure that if you shoot, stab, beat with a bat a criminal in your home in defense of life and property they can’t sue you because it hurt.

  • dondoc2comcastnet 03/09/2009 11:54am

    When that Bad person comes thru your door or window to do you or your family harm, what are you going to do? Maybe you could ask them to WAIT a little so you can call Police to come and take them away.

  • xlhowie 03/10/2009 4:41am

    I spent 21 years in active military service to protect our rights and the right of self defense should be one of them. I live in Fl so I am already blessed.

  • ralphc 03/11/2009 2:44pm

    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I’m confused. I know it seems we “bill” and “law” ourselves to death. But what is wrong with the second amendment to the Constitution? To any reasonable understanding person that should say it all. Someone help me out with this one.

    Ralph

  • Comm_reply
    Patriots 03/16/2009 4:51pm

    I suppose we need to ask our elected representatives that one.


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