While I was doing a little research on the DC Circuit Appeals Court decision on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (and why I didn’t get any comments on that posting from gun nuts I’ll never figure out) I came across this little gem .
You know, it really surprises me that this wasn't authored by someone from the Texas delegation. It has "Yee-Haw!" written all over it.
The bill has been referred to the US House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Tagged the Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2007, the resolution does two things:
1) It guarantees the right to obtain firearms for security, and,
2) It guarantees the right to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home; enforcement.
Well waitaminute, someone would say, what about the 2nd Amendment?
The answer, I think, is that the resolution is not so much about guaranteeing the right to bear arms (as opposed to arming bears) as the right to use them when you feel threatened. That is, if you shoot someone in self-defense, you can’t be charged with discharging a weapon within city limits or something like that.
But it is interesting, don’t you think, that it also, in the language of the bill “reaffirms” the right:
“(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.”
As if, what? As if maybe someday the Supreme Court’s 1939 opinion will someday be enforced and gun ownership will only be allowed to members of a militia? By the way, can you imagine what would happen if that ruling would ever come down? We’d have militias spring up everywhere. Wouldn’t that make America a fun place to live?
What I really hate about this Republican sponsored and co-sponsored (except for 2 Dems) resolution is that there are three conditions stated when one has a right to use firearms in self-defense, two are reasonable: self-defense in the course of commission of a violent felony by another person, defense of a home in the course of commission of a felony by another person. The first is a no-brainer, the second is iffy and conjures up memories of the death of two Scotsmen several years ago in Houston – drunk, they noisily approached a home and were shot to death through the door. But no, here is the objectionable sentence.
“(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury”
Emphasis is mine.
The resolution hasn’t a snowball’s chance in the nether regions of passing, but I wanted to wrap up this gun stuff with the observation that the right wing whackos are still among us, and in another alternate universe where Tom DeLay is still our congressman, this bill would be given serious consideration before it got passed and signed by President Cheney.