http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.47:

Basically, this bill gives reasons that people need to protect themselves (police have no responsibility to stop a violent crime against you, they seldom arrive in time from a 911 call anyway, they might not even get there at all, etc.), reasons that people who shoot someone in self-defense need legal protection (many times, the victim is prosecuted more than the criminals), and restricts the states and cities from prosecuting victims for shooting criminals in self-defense, and prevents states and cities from restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to buy firearms for self-defense.

Call or mail your congressman (if you live in Rolla, you're either in the 8th or 9th district, I'm in the 8th district and I've got JoAnn Emerson) to support this bill.

Add this to the conceled carry law...

And to the no-longer banned automatic guns...

Wow, that's actually a fairly spiffy idea. We've all heard the story about the guy that broke into a house through a skylight, fell onto the kitchen counter and got stabbed with a knife, then sued the old lady for everything she had. I think it's about time, actually, that victims were somewhat protected.

That scenario is from the movie "Liar Liar." Whether or not there is any merit to it is questionable.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but automatic guns are still banned unless you have a special permit, same as it has been for many, many years.

I was to believe that once the ban was up at the end of last year, that it was legal to buy and own automatic weapons. And for the past 10 or so years, it has been illegal to buy an automatic weapon (had to show proof of ownership before the ban started to be grandfather'd in).



That is based on a true account. A law professor told me about that, because if I remember right, it actually happened in St. Louis, where he is a lawyer.

Those were *assault* weapons. Basically, any semiautomatic rifle that had 2 of six arbitrary "scary features" including pistol grip, bayonet lug, collapsible stock, etc.

Fully automatics are still very much regulated.

The spirit of the law seems to be in the right place, but I see some problems with it.

1) It sounds disturbingly like a violation of the 10th Amendment. The Feds are basically telling the states who they can and can't prosecute with regards to the states' own laws.

2) It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. First, most burglaries occur while the occupants of the home aren't there because the burglars specifically want to avoid armed conflict with the owners. Second, just how often are homeowners prosecuted for injuring or killing an intruder?

I don't have any problems with a homeowner putting a .357 round in a burglar's face but do the police?

You don't think that regulating/controlling/prosecuting murder is a right of the national government?

Nope, unless it occurs on federal property, involves kidnapping across state lines, or is somehow connected to kiddie porn, organized crime, or terrorism (I think I covered the bases there).

What law does the government pass that doesn't fall under this? Sometimes it's more with a big stick than direct law (ie no federal dollars for highways if you sell alcohol to < 21 year olds) but just as often it isn't (ie abortion is/is not permissible under whatever circumstances). If the 10th amendment as actually adherd to, the federal government would be so small that no one would recognize it anymore. Not that I'm calling that a negative...

Gun laws only hurt legitamite, law-biding gun owners. Guns will always be sold illegally.

Murder is a state, not federal crime

The only thing the Feds are doing here is merely telling the states that self-defense is not defined as murder so the states won't prosecute them.

Agentzak has it right. This isn't so much infringing on the "rights" of states as keeping the states from infringing on the peoples rights.

And yes, almost every self-defense shooting in certain states (New Jersey, Illinois, etc.) is prosecuted. Many times if someone makes a report "someone attacked me with a knife, and I pulled a gun and they ran away" they are arrested immediately even if they have a permit. In some southern states, a woman who kills a former lover will go to jail for murder because of the "good ol' boy" or "shoulda listened to her man" mentality.

Right now, many law-abiding citizens must choose between being killed on the street or going to jail.

I will agree that many shootings, even in self-defense, are investigated, I highly doubt that the majority of those law-abiding citizens are sitting in jail because of it. If a guy is running away and you shoot him in the back, ya, that should be punished. Guy tackles you to the ground and holds a knife to your throat and you shoot him, you shouldn't see the inside of a courtroom for that.

The problems I have seen, though, are civil cases. You can still be free and out of jail, but if you just wing them, and like break their arm or something, they can sue you for that. Hence why cops are trained now to kill and to empty the entire clip into them, just to be sure they are dead.