SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 
2011''.

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 example, 
                in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police 
                Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court 
                stated: ``[C]ourts have without exception concluded 
                that when a municipality or other governmental entity 
                undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a 
                duty only to the public at large and not to individual 
                members of the community.''.
                    (B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told 
                Florida legislators that police responded to only 
                200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County 
                authorities.
                    (C) The United States Department of Justice found 
                that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence 
                for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
            (2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend 
        themselves, as evidenced by the following:
                    (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people 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 protect 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 provide for their 
        families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or 
        using a firearm in self-defense. For example:
                    (A) In 2001, a grand jury had to rule on the case 
                of 2 brothers that used firearms to protect their lives 
                and their livelihood for their involvement in a fatal 
                shooting in Reisterstown, Maryland. The grand jury 
                decided not to press criminal charges. The brothers, at 
                the time, had encountered several burglaries at their 
                concrete business. The brothers spent the night in 
                their warehouse armed with shotguns. One night at 1:00 
                in the morning the burglars returned and the brothers 
                shot and killed 1 burglar and injured 2 of the others. 
                The 2 injured men were charged with burglary and 2 
                others were charged with burglary in connection with 
                burglaries that had occurred in a previous month at the 
                brother's warehouse. Burglary is known to be a violent 
                crime and the brothers were particularly worried when 
                they realized a gun of theirs had been stolen in a 
                previous break-in.
                    (B) In 2008, a Waukegan, Illinois, store clerk shot 
                and injured a robber. According to news reports, there 
                was potential the clerk could face criminal charges, 
                even though he acted in self-defense. The store clerk 
                did not have a firearm owner's identification card and 
                would be charged with a State firearms violation. 
                Additionally, Illinois law does not allow employees to 
                carry a gun in a place of business. Rather, the law 
                only allows individuals to carry a gun in a place of 
                business if that individual is the owner or has 
                proprietary interest.
                    (C) In September 2009, a Lithonia homeowner from 
                Dekalb County, Georgia, was charged with aggravated 
                assault after he shot someone who was trying to knock 
                down the door of his home as an attempt to break into 
                the residence. According to the neighbors, there had 
                been trouble in the neighborhood before. A police 
                spokesperson said the homeowner was charged because the 
                robber was technically not inside the home. The 
                suspected robber was charged with attempted burglary.
                    (D) In January 2004, Wilmette, Illinois, police 
                charged and convicted a homeowner with misdemeanors for 
                owning 2 handguns and violating the village handgun ban 
                ordinance. The homeowner was also faced with a 
                potential $750 fine for failing to renew his Illinois 
                firearm owner's identification card. These charges were 
                brought after he shot a home intruder. The resident 
                stated, ``My Plan A is to call 911 and keep the family 
                upstairs . . . But my Plan B is to have a loaded 
                firearm and put a bullet in the intruder.'' The 
                intruder entered the house 2 times, once through a dog 
                door and the second time with a stolen house key. The 
                homeowner had just put his children to bed when his 
                security system was set off. The homeowner went 
                downstairs and confronted and shot the intruder. The 
                intruder jumped through a window and stole the family's 
                car to go to the hospital. The intruder was charged 
                with 2 counts of residential burglary and 1 count of 
                possession of a stolen vehicle.
            (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.

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 prohibited from receiving 
a firearm by section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have 
the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--
            (1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably 
        perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious 
        bodily injury;
            (2) 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
            (3) 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 Public 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 attorney's fee.--In an 
        action brought under paragraph (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 described in paragraph (1) is 
        discovered.
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2011 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of: (1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury, (2) 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 (3) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.
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.