Do We Need This Amendment.
A couple of months ago I posted a pair of changes that I felt the Constitution needed (specifically one making English our official language and one making it more difficult for the government to cede sovereignty to an international organization.)
I may be out of line as a mere citizen doing this, but here is another. (I would really rather sum it up in one or two simple sentences, but without hedging groups such as the ACLU would twist in into a legal nightmare, thus all the hedging.)
All citizens of the United States shall have the legal right and obligation to individually and collectively defend themselves, their property, their families, their communities and their nation against unlawful trespass, seizure, damage or destruction, in a manner appropriate to the nature, severity and immediacy of the threat.
If the threat is not immediate, then the citizenry shall allow lawful authorities to manage the situation, and armed mobs will not be allowed to replace the lawful authorities in enforcing the law; however, lawful authorities may organize an armed populace to deal with extreme situations. The actual right of a citizen to personally defend themselves is limited to crimes actually being commited or when there is clear and imminent danger of a crime about to be commited. Violent or destructive acts of revenge by individuals or groups are not protected by this constitution.
Citizens have the right to individually or collectively restrain a known or suspected criminal until lawful authorities are able to take the matter into hand. The lawful authorities must be alerted as quickly as possible and the citizens who restrain the assumed criminal must be willing to assume legal responsibility if they are shown to be wrong or mistaken.
This shall not be interpreted as allowing citizens to harm or threaten government officials performing legitimate duties; citizens have a duty to co-operate with and accept lawful means of trespass and seizure. In the event of a miscarriage of a lawful means they shall have full recourse to the courts and to public knowledge and pressure. Any seizure or destruction of private property in the process of or purpose of law enforcement, of value greater than three days' wages for an unskilled worker, by government agencies shall be subject to appeal by jury. Citizens have the right to compensation for unlawful seizure, damage or destruction of property by government agencies.
This posting is an expansion on a comment I made to a posting at Freedom, GUNZ, glory and EBYJO
I may be out of line as a mere citizen doing this, but here is another. (I would really rather sum it up in one or two simple sentences, but without hedging groups such as the ACLU would twist in into a legal nightmare, thus all the hedging.)
All citizens of the United States shall have the legal right and obligation to individually and collectively defend themselves, their property, their families, their communities and their nation against unlawful trespass, seizure, damage or destruction, in a manner appropriate to the nature, severity and immediacy of the threat.
If the threat is not immediate, then the citizenry shall allow lawful authorities to manage the situation, and armed mobs will not be allowed to replace the lawful authorities in enforcing the law; however, lawful authorities may organize an armed populace to deal with extreme situations. The actual right of a citizen to personally defend themselves is limited to crimes actually being commited or when there is clear and imminent danger of a crime about to be commited. Violent or destructive acts of revenge by individuals or groups are not protected by this constitution.
Citizens have the right to individually or collectively restrain a known or suspected criminal until lawful authorities are able to take the matter into hand. The lawful authorities must be alerted as quickly as possible and the citizens who restrain the assumed criminal must be willing to assume legal responsibility if they are shown to be wrong or mistaken.
This shall not be interpreted as allowing citizens to harm or threaten government officials performing legitimate duties; citizens have a duty to co-operate with and accept lawful means of trespass and seizure. In the event of a miscarriage of a lawful means they shall have full recourse to the courts and to public knowledge and pressure. Any seizure or destruction of private property in the process of or purpose of law enforcement, of value greater than three days' wages for an unskilled worker, by government agencies shall be subject to appeal by jury. Citizens have the right to compensation for unlawful seizure, damage or destruction of property by government agencies.
This posting is an expansion on a comment I made to a posting at Freedom, GUNZ, glory and EBYJO
posted by shoprat at 9:26 PM
6 Comments:
Where do I vote for this?
cug write your congressman
I would be happy if we could get merely half of it here in AU. Great job, Shoprat!
Outstanding Shoprat. That made extremely GREAT sense. Nothing wrong with that concept at all.
Certainly would keep us civilized and at the same time, and under the proper and legal circumstances allow one to protect themselves in the event law enforcement intervention is not practical or to far away to defend ones self, property of family. It's called good judgement and I don't think packing heat is good for trigger happy people that would totally kill the cause for law abiding gun owners. You can't go and shoot everyone but should be protected by law in an imminent life threatening situation. That is all we 2nd admendment folks are asking for across this country.
I agree with the rest of it also. :)
Semper Fi
We don't need an amendment as we already have that right and obligation but I wouldn't mind seeing Congress write a bill emphasizing it. Maybe liberals need to be reminded but they'll ignore it anyway.
Only wish we could even propose changes up here.... :-(
Great proposal Shoprat .. makes to much sense, they'll never adopt it.
Post a Comment
<< Home