H.R. 2159

[silentsnake]

H.R. 2159 and S 1317 are the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Acts. H.R. 2401 is the No Fly No Buy Act. What they SAY they will do is deny the transfer of firearms to dangerous terrorists. THAT is why this is dangerous, because anything labeled a terrorist bill usually passes. What the bills WILL DO is give Attorney General Eric Holder the sole, unchecked unilateral authority to deny any individual the right to keep and bear arms. He alone will be able to put you on a list, for any arbitrary reason, and without any due process of law, you will lose your Second Amendment.

YOU will be treated as a guilty offender, though you have not even been charged with a crime. YOU will have no avenue of recourse, no right to representation and counsel, no right to a speedy trial, and no right to a jury of your peers. One stroke of Eric Holder's pen and your rights are gone. Period. An amendment to H.R. 2647 that DID pass already gives Eric Holder the authority to decide who is on the "terrorist list". And we all know who they are looking at.

These bills are REAL and they have a REAL chance of passing. Remember, the deck is stacking against us. Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Harold Koh, Cass Sustein, and Sotomayor have all openly stated that they do not believe Americans have an individual Constitutional right to own guns, and each one of them is now in a position of EXTREME POWER from which to act on their beliefs.

 

[ThePhantomPatriot]

So I guess 'right wing extremists' are on the terrorist list.

 

[silentsnake]

yep, right up there with veterans and anti abortion protesters...

anyone that believes in the bill of rights is already listed as a potential terrorist...

 

[ThePhantomPatriot]

As long as I get to fight along side of the ones that served my country and continue to defend the Constitution, they can put me on all the lists they want.

These bills can be turned over if they ever get taken to court. They are obviously unconstitutional. The Patriot Act almost got declared unconstitutional, but the feds withdrew the case once they figured out that the judge would rule in the librarian's favor.

 

[ezliving]

May 15, 2007 Then Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) now Chief of Staff for Obama Administration, speaking at DC's annual Stand Up For a Safe America event sponsored by the Brady Center says if your name is on the terrorist no fly list you should not be allowed to own a gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZK...

Why are there so many names on the U.S. government's terrorist list?

In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.1 (See also this new March 2008 report.2 )
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus...

By those numbers, the list now has over one million names on it. Terrorist watch lists must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat. Bloated lists are bad because: * they ensnare many innocent travelers as suspected terrorists, and * because they waste screeners' time and divert their energies from looking for true terrorists.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/wa...

This reporter was on the no fly list after reporting about the no fly list: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/17/watc...

These people who share a name with someone on the list: http://www.truveo.com/No-Fly-List-Gro...

CNN- Lou Dobbs - Obama and Holder to Disarm and attack the 2nd Amendment? 01/28/09

CNN segment about Obama, Holder, and restrictions on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, discussing ban on gun fears of millions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA66gl...

 

[silentsnake]

if you listen to the rhetoric closely, they keep saying the special interests are keeping legislation from going through due to gridlock, but the truth is they don't want anyone to think about the bills or even read them prior to passing them, so they just plain don't want any kind of resistance to any bill they have up their sleeves...

this is clearly completely against the purpose of having representatives...

they might as well not even have a congress if all they are going to do is pass anything that is drafted under this new regime we have...

 

[X-Factor]

My god that's scary.

 

[august_west]

Very disturbing...even more disturbing then this pic...he should have stuck to ballet...

 

[X-Factor]

ROFL......hilarious. Is that a chop?

 

[thebullpupkid]

Fortunately this bill is currently at the same stage in the process, so we'll see which if either gets out of committee.

H.R. 17:
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009

Filed by Roscoe Bartlet of Maryland!
Full Text(it's not too long):


HR 17 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 17

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.

(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--

(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;

(2) in defense of 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) in defense of the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

(b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term ‘firearm’ means--

(1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);

(2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); or

(3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).

(c) Enforcement of Right-

(1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.

(3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.

 

[thebullpupkid]

Also there seems to be an identical bill filed called H.R. 2401: No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009. Fortunately I doubt these bills will make it out of committee.

 

[X-Factor]

HR17 looks awesome....seems to loosen and afirm the currently lacking Castle Doctrine in Md and MAY be a loophole for CCW since the bill is not limited to the home only.

 

[Bigdtc]

I think for H.R. 17 to get voted on/passed, they need to be made about 1000 pages long. Its way too short! Thats how the Dems do it.

 

[X-Factor]

I think for H.R. 17 to get voted on/passed, they need to be made about 1000 pages long. Its way too short! Thats how the Dems do it.

Hmm. Very true.