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 271-281 of 281 total comments.

  • Aviator1812 05/11/2010 11:59am

    It’s imperative that this bill gets through. I support it, my question is why are they trying to take away our second ammendment? The problem with guns is the fact the government is useless to regulate guns. Let the states decide own their own how to regulate them laws. The “People” have the right to bear arms and shall not be infringed. Long live the People of this country. God Bless all. Peace

  • LobaAzul 06/09/2010 9:05am

    This act is not necessary in a legal sense and in fact, the government has no standing on the issue due to their lack of authority under the Constitition but the resolution serves a purpose here where we can register our opinions.

  • dankennedy73 06/22/2010 7:38am

    I could really support this bill if the 29 paragraph were rewritten just a little. People should not be prosecuted for defense of self, family, and home/property but at the same time it must be clear that there remains a reasonoble allowance for authorities to investigate possible abuses of this right. And anyone with a good imagination can see how this law could be abused.

  • bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 4:44am

    The 2nd Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” According to the dictionary, infringe is synonomous with “encroach, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep.” ANY law that attempts in any way to infringe (ie: interfere with) the people’s right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional. ANY LAW that in any way impacts the people’s right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional. So, unless a law is written that EXPANDS the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, it violates the Constitution. This is just another in a long line of laws that is attempting to infringe.

    When a law defines WHO can obtain a firearm, it infringes on our rights. When a law attempt to define the manner in which we can use our firearms it infringes on our rights. When a law defines arms it infringes on our rights.

    I oppose this legislation, not because I don’t support the 2nd Amendment, but because I do support it.

  • Comm_reply
    bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 8:45am

    Something to think about . . . .
    a criminal doesn’t lose his citizenship when he commits a crime. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that only law abiding citizens can keep and bear arms. When the authors of the 2nd Amendment participated in the Declaration of Independence, they were criminals in the eyes of their government. In fact, they were treasonous criminals. It would make no sense to read the 2nd Amendment as pertaining only to those people the government defines as law abiding. All the government has to do then, to infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms, is to change a definition in a law to define “the people” as criminals and therefore they would be ineligible to keep and bear arms.

    Who defines “criminal”? Government. Who, by proposing and enacting laws that infringe on citizens rights to keep and bear arms, ends up disarming citizens? Government. It doesn’t take a genius to see a coorelation.

  • Aviator1812 08/03/2010 12:33pm

    We cannot rely on the government for protection.. they already failed with 9/11 so I approve of this bill. The people need the right to protect themselves and families. Congress PASS THIS BILL. Let me protect my mother and young.

  • JustinAPetersWV 08/05/2010 11:53am

    Two throw in my two cents… Many states, including my home state, West Virginia, have enacted what is commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine”. While the specifics vary from state-to-state, the basic idea is that you are legally protected should you use lethal force to protect yourself or others while you are at home.

    In West Virginia, the law (ยง55-7-22) states that “A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker.”

    It also continues to claim that “A person … who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be … may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker … without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm…”

    I believe that a federal law identical to West Virginia’s “Castle Doctrine” is necessary to insure each person’s right to defend themselves and others.

  • Comm_reply
    JustinAPetersWV 08/05/2010 12:00pm

    And to comment on those who claim that a bill like this isn’t necessary because the 2nd Amendment secures this right…

    “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.”

    While I would agree that “shall not be infringed” clearly means that the government ought not to interfere with such a right, I do not see where it explains how this right can be exercised. To “keep and bear arms” means to me that you can have them and carry them, not that you can use them as you see fit. Legislation must make clear what is and what is not the legal use of firearms.

  • Comm_reply
    pramsey 08/06/2010 3:55am

    Well said JustinAPetersWV!

  • ianiam 08/23/2010 11:31am

    Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense.
    John Adams

    Do we really need laws to clarify? How about justices to uphold the constitution?

  • boomer47 10/23/2010 8:38pm

    I have problems with this because it seems to narrow our second ammendment RIGHT. WE currently have a second ammendment right to bear arms for any purpose. This seems to remove from the definition the right to protect ourselves from an over zealous government which a reading of Federalist 46 makes abundantly clear we have the right to do. Personally… I don’t like it. It seems to me if we allow this to pass we are supporting allowing congress to restrict what is already a RIGHT and thus sliding further into tyranny. We have a RIGHT to bear arms it needs no definition.

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