THIS SENATE BILL SOUNDS GOOD

B

bigfoot4

New member
Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3 of 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREVIOUS | NEXT
PREVIOUS:SUMMARY | NEXT:SUMMARY
NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT SUMMARIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.31
Sponsor: Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 1/3/2001 Referred to House committee
Title: 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/3/2001--Introduced.
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2001 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of: (1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; (2) self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and (3) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the award of attorney's fees; and (2) the statute of limitations.
 
I love it! Does anyone know where in the process the bill is currently? I'd love to hear the anti's argument against it. How can somebody frame an argument that you don't have the right to defend yourself or your loved ones?

Dick
 
I guess he has given up on repealing Brady which has been shown in three separate studies (two university, one government) to have no effect on crime and is very expensive.

We shift to the left and we applaud.

Rick
 
Not a chance in Hell

DOA guaranteed.

HCI, who has demonstrated their loathing of self defense, will be all over this one.

Think about this, HCI needs victims to justify their existence. Without them, what can they point to as their justification for the need for gun control? That's why they are opposed to self defense. Armed survivors do not make the impact that disarmed victims do. The never take any of the blame for the loss of life caused by their specious laws. They simply deny that the self fdefense of these victims would have occurred in the first place. Their denials are built on a framework of "what ifs".

"What if" there had been a gunfight where innocents were caught in the crossfire?

"What if" you shot the wrong person?

"What if" this person was merely lost and seeking directions?

"What if" the victim had been unable to get to his gun?

"What if" the bad guy shot first?

"What if" the bad guy then takes that firearm and commits a crime with it?

"What if" everyone was armed? We'd have an armed camp with gunfights in the streets over minor fender benders.

Yes, they operate on "what ifs" as their primary scare tactic. They will use it now, as they have used it in the past, to great effect on a gullible public; and the gullible representatives they elect.
 
I see two holes: 1. Should I stand by an let others outside my home get victimized? 2. I can only defend self, family and home within the curtilage of my home, right? Can't carry "downtown"? Hmmm...

It's a good start, but plug the holes and I'll carefully consider this.

PS DO NOT MAKE THIS A PART OF S.25
Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate by Feinstein, Shumer, Boxer)
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=56843

[Edited by Ironbarr on 02-10-2001 at 10:59 PM]
 
small problem

When you start codifying new legislation on things that are already an unalienable right...they, it, becomes a priviledge..........and we know, priviledges can be revoked...(i.e.) licenses
Only thing here I like is the ability to bring damages.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top