Submitted by Russ Fulcher (R-ID 1st):
Resolving that jurisdictions seeking to dismantle or reduce funding for the jurisdiction’s police force should not unduly burden residents who seek to defend themselves.
Whereas the killing of George Floyd was a horrific and despicable act;
Whereas racism in any form is wrong and should not be tolerated;
Whereas adequate and accountable police departments are vital to helping people to defend themselves and their property; and
Whereas the right to defend oneself is a God-given natural right enshrined in the Constitution and upheld in English common law and recent Supreme Court cases: Now, therefore, be it that –
(1) any jurisdiction in the United States, which seeks to dismantle or reduce funding for a police force, should undertake a review of its local rules to ensure such rules do not place an undue burden on its residents who seek to defend themselves, including the legal purchase of a firearm and any training services such individuals choose;
(2) such a review should be based on the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in the cases District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which confirmed the Second Amendment to the Constitution to be an individual right and that no law can prohibit an individual from possessing and using a firearm in the home for self-defense; and
(3) any jurisdiction which seeks to dismantle or reduce funding for police agencies must ensure they remove rules that hinder individual gun ownership or access to firearms.
That’s it. That’s the whole bill.
You want to defund the police, you have to let the people have guns.
Seems simple enough.
I’d love for this to pass then watch New York City and the rest of Lefty La-La-Land squirm.
It’s just a resolution, not a bill. No force of law here.
Put this with force of law behind it and throw liability onto places that bar the private carrying of guns for good measure and you’ll heat the entire midwest this winter with the warm glow from my black little heart.
Kind of long winded, namby pamby way of saying “shall not be infringed”…
It wouldn’t matter if it DID have force of law behind it. They would ignore it and undermine it like the do the 2A. Then SCOTUS would punt. They we are right back where we are now.
As lovely as it is, it is not enough.
1) Stand you ground for defence of life (and property! ) outside your home.
In my state porch or deck or attached garage without direct entrance to the house are not ‘home’. The perps need to be over the threshold for us to get green light from our overlords to defend our lives.
2) And even if our betters decide not to criminally prosecute you, the loving family of the thug will drag you to civil court. And even if you win, against ‘preponderance of evidence’ and rabidly left wing judges directing the farce, you are bancroupt in the end.
In other words, in a free constitutional Republic one would have a constitutional carry with SYG for life and property and no double jeopardy for protecting your constitutional rights.
But we have a corrupt SCOTUS and at least half of the population brainwashed to love communist slavery.
?
It, like every law pointed at government officials, needs:
4) Any elected official who votes for a reduction in police staff or funding without first eliminating any and all restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms shall be guilty of a Class 1 felony, punishable by a prison sentence of not less than 5 years and not more than 20.
(You need to make disobeying the law hurt, and if it’s endangering people, yo need to make it hurt a lot)
O2HeN2
Sounds like18 USC 241 and 242, which have been on the books since shortly after the Civil War. They didn’t do much good then, and they still don’t.
Apparently the notion of “qualified immunity” was invented by the Warren Court, that notorious bunch of fabulists, for the specific purpose of gutting those statutes.
PS. Is O2HeN2 a compound, or just the scuba gas mix? If a compound it sounds about as stable as ClF3…