H. R. 31 To protect the right to obtain firearms for security...

[alwynsw]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.31:

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.

I don't really care what Dr. Bartlett's political or religious associations are when it comes to this resolution. It's definitely a resolution I can support. It's languished in committee for a while, but seems to be getting some new attention.

A few letters and/or emails might help it along.

Remember. It's all about freedom.

[shoelace414]

1. maybe we should pass a law

that says the freedom of the press shall not be infringed.

[rkc3]

2. You assume the press is still free (and not directed by the CEO).

[goju]

3. What I dont like

is putting a "reason" behind the acquisition of firearms. It sounds good and reasonable to us, but Id just as soon restate it as:

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to protect the right to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such rights.


Why limit the justification for obtaining firearms? You have the "right" to do so, regardless of the reason.


Edit again. The "reason" in this bill opens the door to further litigation/legistlation, I think. Proving one's need for "security" would be a suggested prerequisite to obtaining a firearm and thus, in the courts, before you could say "tom diaz".

[mosin]

4. New bill reference

Bartlett has reintroduced it as HR47 in the new 109th Congress.

I don't have a problem with the use of the term security. Security is a much broader concept than self-defense. Any court that would read "security" narrowly enough to accept firearm bans wouldn't care what terms you use.

The reason this bill won't go anywhere is that it is drafted so broadly. It could easily be interpreted, for instance, to provide a federally protected right to carry firearms in public, potentially overturning 48 states' concealed carry laws. I think that would be fantastic, but it's legislative overreaching at this point.

[iverglas]

5. verrrrry interesting

I assume that nobody actually clicked on the link, which doesn't work, or that nobody who did thought it worth mentioning that the terminal ":" must be reattached to the url in order for it to work.

I just loves those "findings" that your congress types stick in front of laws they want to pass. Such a grand flourish they are. I keep waiting for one of them to "find" that the moon is made of green cheese, because surely, if Congress stated that it had so found, then so it would be.

(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.

(emphasis added) Heh. I think I can guess where he "found" that one. (Is dumpster diving a recognized method of research?)

(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, ...
(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, ...
(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, ...

All of them ... charged, as reported in the "findings". I find various references to these poor martyrs on the net -- e.g. http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2003/libe222-20030505-06.html -- but I'm not finding anything saying that any of them were convicted of anything. (see further below) And I'm not grasping what difference this fluffy bit of legislation would make. The fact that one has a right to do something does not mean that every time one moves a muscle one is exercising that right. Having the right to use a firearm in self-defence does not mean that everyone who claims that his/her use of a firearm was in self-defence actually used the firearm in self-defence. Sheesh.

The legislation doesn't create a new right. And anyone claiming to have exercised it would still have to demonstrate that to be the case.

The proponent (and his fellows on the net) evidently objects to person (A) having been charged "for violating Oak Park's handgun ban". Hmm. Is it suggested that this bit of federal legislation would override state legislation in respect of matters within state jurisdiction??

All in all, I just scratch my head again. The function of legislation is not to "reaffirm" rights. The function of a legislature is not to provide a soapbox for someone who wastes its time by introducing screwball bills that purport to "reaffirm" rights. The colour of legitimacy that he has attempted to give this bill is that it purports to create a right of action:

(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.

The right in question is:

(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.

But I'll just have to wait for slackmaster, or anybody else, to explain to me exactly what such a rights violation would look like. Because all I'm seeing is a big bag of nonsense and very hot air.

Oh, and then there's that bit I never get. This right that we're "reaffirming" -- how come a person who *is* prohibited from receiving a firearm, as provided, doesn't got it, or doesn't get to exercise it? Does being convicted of some crime or other really strip one of one's right to defend one's self or one's family? So can I just walk up and bop one of those "felons" over the head with a big bat, and s/he will have to turn the other cheek?

What a funny old place it seems to be down there.

[iverglas]

13. this post had tonnes to do with the resolution

but gosh, nobody seems to want to answer it ...

[goju]

25. I will take a stab at it...

The legislation doesn't create a new right. And anyone claiming to have exercised it would still have to demonstrate that to be the case

Clearly it doesnt create a new right. But it does put the impetus on the police to demonstrate that a crime has been committed, as opposed to the assumption of guilt we have now. If a gun is used in self defense, the burden of proof "should" be on the police to justify the persons arrest. I think you see from the examples and, as you pointed out, their subesequent release, that that's not the case today.


The proponent (and his fellows on the net) evidently objects to person (A) having been charged "for violating Oak Park's handgun ban". Hmm. Is it suggested that this bit of federal legislation would override state legislation in respect of matters within state jurisdiction??

I believe this federal legislation would indeed override state legislation. Am I wrong?

But I'll just have to wait for slackmaster, or anybody else, to explain to me exactly what such a rights violation would look like. Because all I'm seeing is a big bag of nonsense and very hot air.


What such a violatin of rights would look like has been demonstrated already:

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.


I cant see how or why citizens should be subject to lawsuits or arrest for justifiably defending themselves. Can you? This bill, I think, would curtail rights abuses by police and prosecutors.



Oh, and then there's that bit I never get. This right that we're "reaffirming" -- how come a person who *is* prohibited from receiving a firearm, as provided, doesn't got it, or doesn't get to exercise it? Does being convicted of some crime or other really strip one of one's right to defend one's self or one's family?

Nope, just limits use of "guns" in ones defense. I thought that was fairly clear.


So can I just walk up and bop one of those "felons" over the head with a big bat, and s/he will have to turn the other cheek?

In Canada maybe, or probably. You would likely end up in jail if you took any other action.

What a funny old place it seems to be down there.

Yeah, crazy isnt it. Imagine the audacity of actually having a "right" to defend yourself against gun weilding thugs, with a gun!

[MrSandman]

33. I would postulate that...

exactly what such a rights violation would look like

Would be any jurisdiction which does not allow an individual to posses a firearm as defined:

(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).

Even for a Congress Critter, it seems rather to the point.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Postmanx]

6. HR 47

HR 47 would essentially trump all the bullshit state regulations on firearms.

Under HR 47, if you can own a gun, you can own a gun period.

[jody]

7. "(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: `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.
UNQUOTE

ON EDIT ADD
The above quote is from H.R. 47

[iverglas]

8. and wot a fine fellow he is

I don't really care what Dr. Bartlett's political or religious associations are when it comes to this resolution.

http://www.bartlettforcongress.org/awards_endorse.htm

And such charming bedfellows:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H2MD06054

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE ON BEHALF OF THE CANDIDATE

MARYLAND RIGHT TO LIFE INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

and a whole lot more ... banks, Boeing, the Conservative Victory Fund, Lockheed, National Pro-Life Alliance ... far too many to list here ... and, of course, the NRA Political Victory Fund.

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Roscoe_Bartlett_Abortion.htm

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" . The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Bartlett scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

Of course, there's more:

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Roscoe_Bartlett_HouseMatch.htm

YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer
YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer
YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration
YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror

Rated 22% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record

Rated 10% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record

Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes

More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty

Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration

YES on deploying SDI

Rated 30% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes

And those are just snippets.

I'd prefer sleeping on the couch -- in fact, if the alternative were getting into bed with him, I'd sleep on the pig barn floor, where I'd at least be in good company:

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE AGAINST A CANDIDATE

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc.

After all, it's all about freedom, right?

[alwynsw]

9. With that reasoning, I suppose

that you'd refuse a lifesaving drug that you needed if it were invented by a conservative.

Have a nice life.

[iverglas]

11. nah

With that reasoning, I suppose that you'd refuse a lifesaving drug that you needed if it were invented by a conservative.

I probably wouldn't have the chance, because I probably wouldn't be able to afford it.

By the way, this Roscoe fella ain't no "conservative". He's a right-wing authoritarian, bordering on fascist. They ain't the same thing, and my reply refers to people like him, not "conservatives".

People like him don't do things like invent life-saving drugs. Not unless there's a large lot of money to be made out of it for either themselves or the people with whom they are engaged in mutual back-scratching.

Have a nice life.

Hmm. Hmm. Are you hinting that you're putting me on your prayer list ... or some other list, maybe? That just sounded kinda, I dunno, final.

[skippythwndrdog]

10. Of course your post has nothing to do with teh resolution.

Thank you for making that clear.

[iverglas]

12. of course not

Not to a blind horse, anyhow.

That is what you had in mind, right?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

19. still nothing to say about post # 5?

I guess as long as someone says guns! defend! self! family! rights!, it just doesn't matter whether what s/he's saying makes a stitch of sense.

[skippythwndrdog]

21. One can be raving mad about all other things,

yet still be correct about another. Oleg Volk comes to mind. I find the nude photos to be disturbing, but what he says about the RKBA is correct.

[iverglas]

22. and still nothing to say about post # 5

Oh well, eh?

Never mind any actual argument. It's correct because you sez it's correct.

Excuse me while I blow my nose. It's that laugh so hard you cried phenomenon.

[skippythwndrdog]

27. Wait until I have time to translate your missive.

That is all I have to say about it until I decide to take the time to translate your scribblings into plain English.

[jody]

31. I can mail you a pitchfork if you need one!

:evilgrin:

[skippythwndrdog]

34. It is getting kind of deep around here.

[iverglas]

35. dear me

A pitchfork ... to pitch invisible things with?

A wondrous tool that would be, indeed.

[Paladin]

23. Interesting, Isn't It?

How many raving mad types, knuckle-dragging right-wing extremists, and assorted assholes there are who nonetheless seem to get it dead solid perfect with you gun militants. You might pause and give that matter some serious reflection---but I doubt that you will......

[Paladin]

14. Typical RKBA Water-Carrier

Nice to know you gun-hugging "Democrats" have such upstanding individuals doing your bidding.

Let's have some more soothing sounds from you guys, about how you just have the best interests of the party at heart. While people like Bartlett do your heavy lifting.........

[cms]

40. Paladin...as in...?

Paladin Press...the people who distribute books on how to convert weapons into machineguns and build bombs and become a hitman? LoL

[DavidMS]

16. Iverglas -

Bartlett is barking mad (or at least that's the conventional wisdom in the Counties around DC and Baltimore City).

http://www.cephas-library.com/unification_church/unification_church_hail_to_the_moon_king.html
He was at the 'Rev. Moon' 'Corination'

[iverglas]

17. aha

One does get that impression. ;)

(One must keep in mind, of course, that the Rev. Moon is not just a loon, but has political implications as well.)


I confess that my first reaction was "Bartlett? Jed Bartlett??"

;)

[Buster43]

18. The law

is all fine and good. But essentially, the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution say the same thing. Instead of passing yet more laws, lets just reaffirm the 2nd Amendment. Most Constitutional scholars agree that it is an individual right versus a collective right. The 11th Circuit in Emerson stated it is an individual right.

[Postmanx]

20. Ignore the red herring

A Republican advanced a bill is not inherently bad, just as a Democrat advanced bill is not inherently good.

I am excited by the content of HR 47, the R or D next to the author’s name is irrelevant.

[Lefty48197]

24. What we need is a Constitutional amendment to protect the right to ownguns

That would make this law senseless.

[goju]

26. Hmmm

Maybe you meant, an amendment "clarifying" the right to own guns? We do have the 2nd already, ya know?

I would surely support an amendment clarifying the 2nd amendment. Just take the argument off the table, once and for all.

[Lefty48197]

28. The "right" is either there, or it isn't

Obviously, if the right actually existed, then there would be no need to clarify it.

[benEzra]

29. ...such as the right to privacy?

It seems THAT one is also in desperate need of some clarifying...

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=16021&c=39

[jody]

30. Excellent point!

:thumbsup:

[iverglas]

36. understanding of law

It's a quality in such short supply in so many places.

Anybody proposing legislation to "clarify" the right to privacy? I don't think so.

The ACLU (in your link) sure wasn't. It was proposing that legislation that (in its view) improperly invades privacy be turfed:

Take Action! Urge your legislators to stop any MATRIX-related activities and protect our privacy. Enter your ZIP code below to make your voice heard.

It actually didn't say anything about the right to privacy. You do know about equivocation, right? The "privacy" that the ACLU is talking about just ain't the "privacy" that your Supreme Court has talked about in cases like Roe and Lawrence, I'm afraid.

In Lawrence, your Court quoted an earlier decision that said:

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

It didn't say that the individual has a right not to have the gummint collect info about him/her.

You might want to read Lawrence and clear up the confusion that you (and not people in the know) seem to be experiencing re: "privacy".

Of course, I could always ask what privacy has to do with the second amendment to the US constitution, but I would of course acknowledge that you were attempting to argue by analogy. You just didn't succeed, is all.

[hansberrym]

37. The right to Privacy

is one aspect of the right to liberty that is protected in US law by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You might note that the US Congress has passed legislation to protect other rights which are derived from that same liberty -the civil rights acts, fair housing laws, Equal Opportunity in Employment, etc. (also cited in support of Congress' authority to enact such laws are the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses)



(iverglas)
All in all, I just scratch my head again. The function of legislation is not to "reaffirm" rights. The function of a legislature is not to provide a soapbox for someone who wastes its time by introducing screwball bills that purport to "reaffirm" rights. The colour of legitimacy that he has attempted to give this bill is that it purports to create a right of action(end quote)

edited to add above quote.

[iverglas]

38. not taking your point

You might note that the US Congress has passed legislation to protect other rights which are derived from that same liberty -the civil rights acts, fair housing laws, Equal Opportunity in Employment, etc.

Yes ... and all of those acts impose clear and definite rules governing actions by individuals and organizations. They require individuals or organizations to do certain things, or, more often, prohibit individuals or organizations from doing certain things. And they impose penalties for violation, or, in some cases I imagine, create causes of action for violation.

I'm quite failing to see anything like this in the legislation in question.

It "reaffirms" that individuals have "the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms ...". It provides that "A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action ...". Does the phrase "void for vagueness" come to mind?

Legislation like equal opportunity in employment statutes doesn't "reaffirm" that individuals have "the right to earn a living". Legislation like that says things like an employer may not discriminate against any person, in hiring, on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

Legislation like that makes express rules of conduct that must be followed, on pain of prosecution and punishment, administrative penalty or exposure to liability for a tort created by the statute. (I confess that the USAmerican proclivity for creating causes of civil action for the violation of a rule of public law has always puzzled me, and I am not accustomed to this idea or way of proceeding, so forgive me if I get it wrong.)

There are no express rules of conduct established by this bill, violation of which leads to exposure to civil action. It's a silly dog's breakfast.

[hansberrym]

41. 1964 Civil Rights Act

(you said)
Legislation like equal opportunity in employment statutes doesn't "reaffirm" that individuals have "the right to earn a living". Legislation like that says things like an employer may not discriminate against any person, in hiring, on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, etc.(end quote)



Consider:

An Act

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964". (my emphasis){/i]


The above act uses the words "enforce" and "protect" in reference to Constitutional rights. That is certainly on par with the language that "reaffirms" the right to obtain firearms for safety.

This might be strange to you, but it is the normal way of thinking about rights for US americans. Government is instituted for the purpose of protecting rights -that is as basic as it gets, it is US American Government 101. General governments can and often do pass laws to protect rights against encroachment from subordinate governments and also from individuals.

[goju]

32. Silly, and simplistic

The right does exist, as you know, but as it turns out, certain unscrupulous groups/individuals will take advantage of the murky language within that amendment in a deliberate attempt to deprive citizens of their rights. A clarification "shouldnt" be needed, but it seems nowadays that nothing short of that will stop the fervent attacks on our rights. More's the pity.