H.R. 73 Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2007

[csharpdev]

Anybody think it has a chance of passing?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h73:

It sounds like a good bill to me.

What I'm wondering is, would it be worth writing my rep about a bill while it's in sub committee if he's not on that subcommittee? Or should you write to a rep that is on the subcommittee, would they care if you're not one of their constituants?

 

[sksguns]

it needs to include a hold harmless clause for the victim in the event of any injury or death to the assailant. The family nor the perp should be entitled to any restitution of any kind and they need to eliminate any loohole some slick lawyer can find to jump through to get money for his client.

A guy breaks in your house and you shoot him dead...all they need do is scrape him off the floor and dump him in a hole. The homeowner or resident should go to sleep without a worry in the world. No law suits for him or anyone on his behalf.

 

[csharpdev]

it needs to include a hold harmless clause for the victim in the event of any injury or death to the assailant. The family nor the perp should be entitled to any restitution of any kind and they need to eliminate any loohole some slick lawyer can find to jump through to get money for his client.

A guy breaks in your house and you shoot him dead...all they need do is scrape him off the floor and dump him in a hole. The homeowner or resident should go to sleep without a worry in the world. No law suits for him or anyone on his behalf.

This is an ammendment that the house subcommittee should add, isn't that part of their job in debating the bill? So we should contact the members of the subcommittee not our own rep?

If the bill passed granting you the right to defend yourself and you did would this bill protect you from the murder charges you would most likely face here in our protect the criminal not the victim state? If charges are filed could you counter sue the state for dening you your right after the fact and sue for damages and leagal fees?

 

[Chuck]

it needs to include a hold harmless clause for the victim in the event of any injury or death to the assailant.

Seems to me that it is:

(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.

Of course, the scum bags lawyers are still gonna try...

-= chuck

 

[TomH]

The wording is bad, it shouldn't matter whether the criminal is a "violent felon" probably meaning has past convictions, if they threaten your family its the same either way.

 

[sksguns]

Seems to me that it is:
(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.

Of course, the scum bags lawyers are still gonna try...

-= chuck

lots of interp[retation go into this phrase. it leaves the door wide open for law suits....

victims need the same immunity as they give to the cops. If it is self defence then immunity from prosecution and civil liabilities needs to be guaranteed.

 

[KMaurer]

lots of interp[retation go into this phrase. it leaves the door wide open for law suits....

victims need the same immunity as they give to the cops. If it is self defence then immunity from prosecution and civil liabilities needs to be guaranteed.

Absolutely no interpretation necessary. That language is simply one of the "findings" presented as a reason for the legislation; there's nothing at all in the bill itself that would affect civil suits by goblins who did a poor job of victim selection (or their surviving families).

Ken