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.
Bill's Views
- Today: 116
- Past Seven Days: 837
- All-Time: 89,771
97%
Users Support Bill
4977 in favor / 168 opposed
Write Your
Representative
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed ?
What's this?
OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion. Let's build public knowledge about Congress together, so please keep the discussion civil -- no harsh language, subject to our community Comment Policy. Do not post any information here (for example, your name or email) that you do not wish to be public.
Filter Comments to a Rating of at least
What's this?
The Ratings Filter allows you to determine how many user comments to view on pages here on OpenCongress. Setting the filter higher (towards 10) allows you to see only the comments rated "most helpful" by users, while setting the filter lower (towards 0) allows you to see more comments on a page.
Displaying 61-90 of 240 total comments.
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.
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.......
Very well put!
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.
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 !!
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.
**************************
"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
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
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."
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.
Logic is not your strong suit, huh?
Start by completing vetting Mr. Obama
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
"My cousin's husband was born in Hawaii and states that Obama's certificate of "live" birth is of questionable origin." Yeah, there's a real authority on the subject.
Phil Berg is also a 9/11 Truther. He's a conspiracy theorist nutjob, end of story.
Also Factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation, which was created by Nixon appointee and Reagan fundraiser Walter Annenberg and is currently run by his widow Leonore, who was a Reagan appointee. Yep, sounds like a Democrat front group to me!
YES!!! Finally a proposal that supports what the founders intended! Just read the examples included in the bill and you will see why this bill is needed. Imagine being jailed simply for saving your family's life from the hands of a criminal
You're right. But we actually don't need 50,000 different bills and laws that support the Constitution! All we need, is for our government to have the balls to tell ANYONE, and EVERYONE who doesn't like our Constitution, to stay out of our country, and to not expect US, the American people, to give up any of our Rights under the Constitution, just so they can become a citizen here, or so we can conform and become more politicly correct on the issue. Tell em if they don't like it, get the f*%k out!!! OUR GOVERNMENT, as it is, needs to stop trying to accomodate how everyone else feels about our Constitution, and start standing up for the Constitution as it is, and for our people. I don't give a damn if other countries don't like the fact that we have it in our countries Constitution that we have that right! Nor whether some big bussiness would rather see us not have guns to defend ourselves against their lobbying and financial pursuasions in Washington!
As a corrections officer,(retired) inmates have told me that they fear the home owener with a firearm more than they do the cops. The cops have more restrictions on them than the home owener. I sugest all gun oweners let it be know that we will "not" give in to any Bill that will make a criminial out of me. I support the right to carry,"Anywhare" in the US and will fight anyone who wants to put my freedom to owen a firearm with out registering said firearms. I know the criminal mind and I know what scaers them the most. Sorry about my spelling as I dont know how to correct it here. Wayne Tachell. ID.
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
the Police can't be there fast enough to keep home intruders at bay. you don't have to shoot them to in order to make them think twice before commmitting an act of aggression.
HR 45 is not taking the nation the right direction basically because we don't trust the government to stop there. Read up on what happened in Britian... they don't have firearms and crime has increased.
And don't forget about Australia, they started out with registration, also. First comes REGISTATION, then comes CONFISCATION.
Does anyone doubt where Odummy stands on this matter given his voting records in Illinois and the US Senate? Any bill having anything to do with guns or gun rights weren't bills that he voted "present" on.
A US gun ban is what Odummy's boss, George Soros wants, and that is what Odummy has to come through with in order to keep his boss happy. You'd think the President's boss was the people, not a billionaire foreign national.
That's the thing! EVERYWHERE that guns have been taken from law abiding citizens, crime increases because the criminals have no fear of them. The criminals are the only ones then with guns they bought off the streets, and you can bet it aint registered to them. But if the corrupt business people on Wall Street can push the government to take away our guns, then they know they can steal even more Trillions from us like when George Bush, the dumbass that he is, bailed out all of Wall Street before HE left office. Coincidental that most all of the Bush and Cheney Fortunes were all invested in many different ways on Wall Street, huh? If they can get our guns away from us, then they (Wall Street Criminals) have even less to worry about!
I am a free man that has never been arrested or charged with any crime and it is my right under the constitution to defend my life and stop any action that would harm myself and other people, even if it means shooting the person putting us in harms way.
Ahh, but not if that person is a crooked cop!!! You'd go to prison for the rest of your life for being a cop killer, even if he was a dirty cop! And you have to be a convicted felon to lose those rights. Not everyone that gets arrested is a felon.