I
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 78
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 4, 1995
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. DUNCAN,
Mr. CRANE, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. COBLE, Mr.
BURTON of Indiana, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr. DORNAN, Mr.
CRAPO, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. CAL-
VERT, Mr. GEKAS, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. QUILLEN,
Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. BARCIA,
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. HAYES, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr.
STUMP, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr.
CHRYSLER, and Mr. SCHAEFER), introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Citizens’ Self-Defense
Act of 1995’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(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 ex-
ample, in Warren v. District of Columbia Met-
ropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.
App. 1981), the court stated: ‘‘[C]ourts have
without exception concluded that when a mu-
nicipality or other governmental entity under-
takes to furnish police services, it assumes a
duty only to the public at large and not to indi-
vidual members of the community.’’.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim
Smith told Florida legislators that police re-
sponded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for
help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Jus-
tice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881
crimes of violence for which police had not re-
sponded within 1 hour.
(D) Currently, there are about 150,000 po-
lice officers on duty at any one time.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to de-
fend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 peo-
ple 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 pro-
tect the lives of honest citizens than to take
lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases,
more than 192,000 are by women defending
themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use
their guns to defend themselves every year, 92
percent merely brandish their gun or fire a
warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less
than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill
or wound his or her attacker.
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to pro-
vide for their families’ defense, are routinely pros-
ecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-
defense. For example:
(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Il-
linois, was shot at by 2 men who had just sto-
len $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his subur-
ban Chicago service station. The police arrested
Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban.
The police never caught the actual criminals.
(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, Michi-
gan, 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 sub-
ject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to
victimize them.
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND
TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF,
FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
(a) REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHT.—A person not pro-
hibited from receiving a firearm by Public Law 90–351
shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and
to use firearms—
(A) in defense of self or family against a
reasonably perceived threat of imminent and
unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury.
(B) 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
(C) in defense of the person’s home in the
course of the commission of a felony by another
person.
(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 Pub-
lic Law 99–408).
(c) ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT.—
(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.
(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE AT-
TORNEY’S FEE.—In an action brought under para-
graph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as
part of the costs.
(3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—An action may
not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year
period that begins with the date the violation de-
scribed in paragraph (1) is discovered.
Æ