What is the new Act dealing with Military self-defense and "firing once fired upon"?
912022
I do not know of any new act. \nThe military does have something called: Rules of Enagement\nor better known as ROE/\n\nit sets the orders for enaging hostiles in the area. Sometimes they set it as you have described to show the insurgents/enemy they do not wish to fight per se. The military does no activity go out and seek firefights with the enemy.\n\nThat is the way I understand it. But I am a 8 yr Navy vet not really a soldier. \n\nI do not believe it is an ACT as you say. More like a change in strategy per se
300233
The 'Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005' was rolled into the 'USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006'. \nIt is Title VII of that act. \nIt requires:\n    * Nationalize restrictions on retail sales by requiring ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products to be kept behind the counter or in a locked case; require purchasers to buy no more than 3.6 grams a day and 9 grams a month, show I.D. and sign a sales log, and require employees handling the products to be properly trained\n    * Toughen penalties against meth kingpins and smugglers and also meth cooks who endanger children or use federal property\n    * Step up the government's authority to monitor the flow of precursor chemicals from foreign manufacturers, including withholding aid to countries who are not fully cooperating with U.S. law enforcement\n    * Hold precursor chemical importers and exporters accountable if their product is diverted for illicit use\n    * Increase funding for assistance programs such as drug courts and those helping mothers or drug-endangered children\n    * Impose on manufacturers quotas for production and import of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine\n    * Pledge support to Mexico in its efforts to curb methamphetamine production \n\nIt was passed by Congress and signed by George Bush in March and will become effective Sept 31st.\n\nVERY patriotic.
340964
Invention of necessity. Look in to the History and development of the gun. Let the legal stuff be damn. Defense, defense, defense, or die. A rock will kill you just as easy.
950991
It is a tricky situation to protect yourself and your family, here in Kansas, a man shot and killed an intruder, he was free from federal prosecution, but he could have been held on civil charges by the intruder's family.\nIt is also true that if your dog bites an intruder, or he gets hurt on your property(cuts his arm breaking the window) you can be sued, also if you shoot him it cannot be in the back or it is consider that he is "running away" even if he is facing the wall your stereo is on.\nThe laws need to be changed to protect the people in general, and not the criminals.
630958
The first link below shows what has happened so far with the bill.\n\nBased on this link, it doesn't seem like the bill has been shelved because it is currently in the committee stage in the House of Lords.\n\nAlso, the votings on bill took place on April 26, 2006 the House of Lord. This shows that some progress is being made. (The number two links)\n\nThe third link is an article, I thought you might be interested in. It is about the British Association for Shooting and Conservation position on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill about airgun and imitation firearms.\n\nThe fourth link is to the actual text of the bill discussing imitation firearms.\n\nThe fifth link has the entire text of the Violent Crimes Reduction Bill when it was introduced to the House of Commons June 8, 2005.\n\nHope this helps.
314256
FL is joining Texas and Georgia as shoot first states.  Basicaly, you can shoot without a warning shot.  If you fire a warning shot, do not hit someone else or you will be charged with reckless endangerment (usually 2-5 years prison time).
485318
Ahem... No.\n\nIt is called assult with a deadly weapon - and drunk or not, it is illegal and not OK.
960870
It's gone for enemy combatants.  However the bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network. \n\nThe bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.
9391
You may want to ask the ATF about this. The ATF would be the place that protects this type of law if I recall.
1121689
fire dragon is right, after his capture was announced there were reports of sporadic small arms fire. It was the Iraqi's firing into the air in celebration.
887998
Actually, the bigger problem (assuming your'e talking about the US) is the changes made by the Military Commissions Act.\n\nIt retroactively changes the definition of war crime, so that even if a US official did something that was a felony war crime when the committed it, they cannot be prosecuted now.\n\nIt's like making child molestation no longer illegal, and even if you did it while it was illegal, you cannot be prosecuted anymore.
84090
i do not think there is anything by that name in the US. There is a bill by that name currently in Parliament in the UK.\nit (a) creates offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on\nreligious grounds, and\n(b) amends provisions relating to offences involving stirring up hatred\nagainst persons on racial grounds.
297567
OK nevadog, if you cant tell the differance between a SAW firing, and anything that the Iraqi's or insurgents fire, AK 47, RPK, or PKM, you are an IDIOT. If you can tell, why did you duck when you heard a SAW firing AWAY from you?  I simply say this to let everyone know that you are trying to write a colorful story about something that may or may not have happened. Regardless, you have the wrong perspective. If that story really happened. The soldier who did the firing was trying to protect his own life and yours. Overzealousness is better than overcautiousness .
586402
the National Firearms Act in 1934. Under its provisions, all owners of Thompson machine guns must register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) and agree to be subject to severe restrictions on the use, transfer and transport of the weapons, and all prospective buyers must likewise register with the government. This includes submitting to fingerprinting and a thorough background check upon declaration of intent to purchase. Further, after the purchase has been cleared (a process that normally takes up to four months), the owner is forbidden to move the gun out of his or her state of residence without notifying the BATFE. Further the Thompson and all other machine guns are under a legal ban in at least nine states and the District of Columbia.
949936
I am surprised a worldly man such as yourself, working on the fringe of military markets, needs much in the way of an education on laws, weapons and street violence, and I really do not have the time to educate you.  Nevertheless, allow me a cursory response:\n\n1) The US Constitution does not allow people to "play" with guns.  2) The "'right'" conveyed is simply that, and does not require quotation marks to belittle it.  3) You have no way of knowing who considered what before answering your last petty jab at the US and its military delivered in the guise of a question – at the time you conveyed no interest in the relevance of the 2nd Amendment.  \n\nYou say you live a country where guns are not available to civilians and there is very little gun crime.  Have you read Joyce Malcolm, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience"?  An English author, she writes: \n\n"With passage of the Firearms Act of 1997, “it was confidently assumed that the new legislation effectively banning handguns would have the direct effect of reducing certain types of violent crime by reducing access to weapons.” The news media promised that the “world’s toughest laws will help to keep weapons off the streets.”  \n\nYet faster than British gun-owners could surrender their handguns for destruction, guns began flooding into Great Britain from the international black market (especially from eastern Europe and from China), driven by the demands of the country’s rapidly developing criminal gun-culture."  Even The London Times, bastion of the UK, headlined with:  "Killings Rise As 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain" on January 16th, 2000.  I doubt little has changed in the last few years.\n\nAs for your last comment, regarding an armed civilian militia being no match for a modern professional army – ask your “mates” in Basra how things are going – urban warfare fighting against militias with light/captured weaponry is one of the most difficult things imaginable.\n\nUltimately, everything about your comments suggests to me that you are the kind of man who would walk into a bar and start mouthing off, simply to get a good fight started.  I am sure there are many people who would probably oblige you, but for my part I will simply say, if you are a professional, act like one.
726002
Ignoring the Constitutional complications that would arise from such a law, it would not be effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of the "bad guys."  It would, however, make it more difficult for "good guys" who are conscientious about obeying the law to defend themselves.\n\nYou point out that there are already laws against possession of drugs, and yet our prisons are filled with drug offenders.  This demonstrates that laws are not 100% effective at controlling behavior.  Even if all weapons were illegal, those who want them would find ways to get them.  Unfortunately, a large percentage of "those who want them" will be the bad guys out to do harm.\n\nThere will always be people who have weapons.  If you feel threatened by them, you might want to study how to defend yourself against them.  Warning:  this might mean you will have to take up a weapon yourself.  But at least you won't have to be scared anymore.\n\nIt is also important to teach children what to do in the presence of weapons.  It is far easier to teach your children not to touch weapons than it is to prevent them from ever coming in contact with one.
526073
There are none.  The idea of pre-emptive strike is totally illogical.  If I thought that a police officer was going to engage in unjust brutality against me, should I be allowed to preemptively shoot him to prevent this?\n\nSimilarly, war based on nothing more that a hunch is foolish.