Ravenwood - 08/05/04 07:15 AM
"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 -- in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; 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 in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person." - HR 648, affirming an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
Kudos to Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC for proposing it. But it's more than symbolic. It would offer a federal affirmative defense against gun grabbing localities.
it provides a citizen recourse if refused "permission" to purchase or own a weapon: "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."Booya!
Category: Cold Dead Hands
Comments (2) top link me
Had to think about the federalism implications of that for a while... But after thinking it through, I can't see anything wrong with it (although IANAL). It says you can sue in Federal Court for violation of a Federal Constitutional right - nothing new there. It would be unneeded if the Supreme Court would ever stop dodging cases that require a straight ruling on how to read the 2nd Amendment, because there is only one reading that isn't nonsensical, and the courts didn't need special legislation to forbid states from infringing the other Amendments.
And it affirms the "individual rights" reading. Telling the courts how to read the Constitution is overreaching Congress's powers - but hey, they can't overturn it without directly ruling on the individual rights issue, and I'd think any judge that ignores the plain meaning of the sentence, the specific meanings of "militia" and "regulated" when the Bill of rights was enacted, and the first 150 years of American history is just asking for impeachment...
Posted by: markm at August 5, 2004 1:21 PMVery interesting, a bill that once again proves that state rights are dead. Although I am in full agreement that it is about time some conservative legislation was pushed down the throats of liberal states.
Posted by: Rhett at August 5, 2004 4:20 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
