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. [More]My initial read says this would be a considerable improvement over where we are now, plus open some doors. If anyone disagrees, please educate me.
Does it have a chance?
Not if we don't make it happen.
And assuming others don't discourage us from trying because it exhausts too much "political capital."
[Via Marc H]
19 comments:
in my ever skeptical view of politicians, i give you this tidbit:
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.
Ok...ok.. so it's not a tidbit, but I don't like the way that this is reliant on 922g. I know it's a small step (maybe) in the right direction, but I wish that they would reaffirm not based on what 922g says, (b/c non-violent felons, (ie, non-murderers) would be barred from owning firearms, and thus not "protected" under this). Also, they could just amend 922 to include a slew of other "prohibited persons" which they are doing (or have done) already with the veterans disarmament act.
My cynical side also wants to point out that this is useless in that we don't NEED this bill. We already have the 2nd Amendment.
Fair enough, Stephen, and I saw that and agree. Understanding those things will still be in place if this bill doesn't pass, I was looking at what it changes.
I am all for it. Yes we have the Second Amendment but reminding them don't hurt. Does this exist? Who do I write to to support it? Are we talking a state or federal bill?
Well, just looking at the first part of Sec. 3, it would throw a wrench into gun bans (imho) by allowing armed self-defense. If we take this to it's logical conclusion, and you are "allowed' to have a firearm for self-defense, then you should also be allowed to carry that firearm with you anywhere. Which, I think is a good thing, of course. I think the states (ie, cali, illinois, etc) would challenge this on a states right basis, especially since the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated to be held applicable to the states. just musings....
I believe we will find only evil in much speaking. We have a human right to defend ourselves, and obtain weapons for self defence. That right is mentioned in the 2nd. Although not granted by it. As soon as it's codefied, it can be changed. We should fight for our human rights. Not something granted by the government. mthead
JD,
Write your US Representative
I have two reasons for hesitation.
The first is that it could get in the way of incorporation cases. The courts tend to decide cases at the lowest level possible, i.e., if a Federal statute prevents a state from passing a law, and the Constitution does as well, they will base the decision on the statute. They usually say something like "because the ordinance is barred by statute, we do not reach the question of Constitutionality."
The other is that it relies on the definitions of rifle, shotgun, and handgun that are in the Federal law already. Changing these definitions would be a sneaky way to make this law useless.
Other than that, I think it's a good idea. It reinforces and supports the 2A, and can be used to knock down bans until we do get incorporation.
i can't imagine this won't simply turn into a gun ban bill once it gets into the senate.
Riposte3 said...
"...They usually say something like 'because the ordinance is barred by statute, we do not reach the question of Constitutionality.'
Yes, especially when the statute is null and void because it is flagrantly unconstitutional. I guess I should act like a total air-head at this point, and say: "my stars, who but who will enforce the law when Congress violates it?!"
Since the statute is considered first, isn't that promoting statutory primacy? I'm sorry, but do we live in the United Kingdom, where the national lawmaking body is sovereign? That would certainly explain the application of "home rule" in this country. What possible reason would there be to NOT consider constitutional requirements first, then statute afterward?
(Hint: If you point out that new laws must supersede old ones--or the system is static--then I will point out that there is an amendment-making process to achieve this, and that neither statues nor constitutional amendments override natural law.)
A national preemption to that would be a most wonderful advance to end the war on people!
Doesn't address carrying our tools, that I could see, but it's a heck of a good start.
We can all dream, anyway.
(And I agree that such a "law" should not be necessary - and might be used for evil, but when did that stop any legislature?)
I wrote my Congressman. Living in a state with no castle doctrine, this looks like a step up to me.
Since the 2A, the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution are no longer relevant to today's government, perhaps codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms into regular law is good and necessary.
All this supposes that 2A, conferrs a right. It does'nt. It's a prohabition on government violation of a pre-existing right. Now,if government is willing to violate the first set of laws governing it, what makes you think a stack more will change things? It's also the same arugument we use on them. What makes us think writing law is going to stop criminals? mthead
Mama,
it seems like it actually would address the carrying aspect of it b/c it says "use" the firearm in self-defense. unless you are carrying it, how would you use it?
TJP said:
"Since the statute is considered first, isn't that promoting statutory primacy?"
Not necessarily.It's really an "analyze from the bottom up" process. If you challenge a local law, if there is a federal law that says the locals can't make that law, the federal law wins. It then falls to the other side to challenge the federal law. If they don't, you win, and you can stop there.
If they do show that the federal law is invalid, or if there is no federal law, then the court will go to the constitution.
This is actually my biggest objection to this bill. If we're going to continue to fight in the courts, then getting a decision on incorporation is important. This bill could make it nearly impossible.
'Oooh! Oooh! Look at me! I'm a legislator! I'm important!
Even when I give you what I want, you still have your attention focused on me instead of following your own pursuits, and now you're back to eating out of my hand. If I do this a few more times somebody will put my name on a blimp and people will welcome me into their bosom! This will enable all my other cronies to steal and kill even more. Now I've got them talking about the "legal system" again, which is a playing field I designed to be ridiculously slanted in my favor. This is far better than them studying 4th generation war.
Intermittent reinforcement is still the most effective use my (well, it was yours, but it's mine now) operant conditioning dollar.'
Someone ought to draw a eight-panel cartoon of a conversation where two self-educated, pro-gun-rights lay people are discussing the legal strategies leading up to Heller, with a reasonable amount of legal sophistication -- both of them should be grounded in the moral opinion that the legal system is sane and fundamentally designed for their protection. The characters should be skin-and-bones prisoners in a concentration camp, and express no irony about what they're saying vs. the situation they find themselves in. At the end of the cartoon they will have been no change in their situation.
Let's review.
State restrictions on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, etc. Amendments to the Constitution are not allowed. Why are there any State restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights if it is an INDIVIDUAL right not relegated to the states? The Heller decision by SCOTUS affirms this, as opposed to the confusion presented by the Miller decision. if the the U.S. military adopted a short length shotgun, would that make it a "militia" qualified weapon? In hand to hand combat, a shovel is a weapon. Should we now regulate shovels?
The whole purpose of any gun control legislation is reduction in violence - well intentioned but misappiled. Only law-abiding citizens comply, which results in them becoming sheep among the wolves. Either change the legislation or become a wolf to survive.
A right granted by statute?
It is NOT a good idea.
Longbow
Post a Comment