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: 120
- Past Seven Days: 841
- All-Time: 89,716
97%
Users Support Bill
4975 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 151-180 of 240 total comments.
Please read this website http://uspatriot.blog.com/ and pass it on to anybody you care about. It's of dire importance.
US Congress (Bill Clinton) in 1992 signed the UN Charter and Treaties including in particular Articles 55 and 56 that declare that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are null and void.
I oppose this bill on the basis that the 2nd amendment already gives us this right. Such a bill implies we do not have that right otherwise and only Congress can grant us the rights we hold dear. I would support this in the form of a concurrent resolution though.
Completely agree. An unalienable right needs no reaffirmation or ancillary support. In fact, such a bill can be used to weaken the Second Amendment. We need to remain consistent; we have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
I support this bill,but I believe we already have the right to protect ourselves and family under the constitution.Bill or no bill I will shoot anybody who tries to harm me or my family!
Do we really need Congress to waste it's time reinforcing the natural right to self defense? I have guns and I will use them in self defense regardless of what those asshats in Congress think or pass. Self defense is a natural right not one we have to have handed down to us from those useless $hitbags in DC!!!!
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
They cannot take from you what you aren't willing to give....
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
We have the right to bear arms.
What happened to the second amendment? We have an absolute right to bear arms in this country!
An unalienable right needs no reaffirmation or ancillary support. In fact, such a bill can be used to weaken the Second Amendment. We need to remain consistent; we have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
They are simply doing and end run around this issue by going after ammunition and reloads. Then they will tax them so highly no one will be able to afford the ammunition including the police.
Sorry for being SLOW here folks but I am confused. Why in the world do we need this bill given that we already have the second amendment of the constitution - the unequivocal right to bear arms?
What am I missing here?
You know, I am beginning to think that the majority of people in Congress would not be able to pass a basic test on our Constitution.
this bill is so important. right now if you say you want to register a gun for self-defense, they wouldnt let you most likely but if you say hunting, pest control or something else then they will let you. right there a red flag should be raised.
anonymous : dont call people idiots and to get the fact straight, republicans arent part of a conspiracy, both parties are controlled. only a few represent us now a days.
Something has to be done about this government. We watch these fools be sworn in to uphold and protect the Constitution, then to turn around and try to abolish it. We people need to send Washington DC a Declaration of Independence from them. We are going through the same things that we left England for. Remember to join the TEA PARTY'S in your town on April 15th!!!!
I feel quite strongly that this bill will simply undermine our second amendment rights. No clarification is needed on whether we have the right to defend ourselves. It's in our CONSTITUTION.
These guys are just wasting out taxpayer money.
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 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 arms to hold his power. 1st your rights then how to guarantee them.
I fully support this legislation. Every Citizen has the right to defend themselves and their family. I thought that the Second Amendment as well as the writing's of the founding Fathers makes that perfectly clear. We must guard our liberties against all enemies foreign and domestic and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Seems that our Government has forgotten who they work for.
My great fear with this bill is that it will simply undermine the second amendment. If the second amendment gives us this right to bear amrs, why is a clarification needed? Ah, the opposite side will argue you only need them for protection then? The erosion of our gun rights may begin out of sheer ignorance. Why aren't these congressmen SCREAMING the second amendment at every opportunity instead of trying to redefine when it applies?
I don't know whether I support this bill. We should not have to clarify our rights under the 2nd amendment. It clearly says that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That means we already have too much regulation as it is. I think that the passing of this bill means that when and where you CAN have a gun becomes more restricted as these specifics are legislated. Anything outside of what is "allowed", at a later date, can be construed as illegal. ie...bye bye permit to carry.
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.