guns in public housing
NRA Files Suit Against Wilmington Housing Authority:
The National Rifle Association filed suit today against the Wilmington, Delaware Housing Authority in the case Jane Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA). The case centers around the WHA’s unconstitutional gun ban amongst its tenants, which denies these public housing residents their Second Amendment rights.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:32 am
I’m torn here. I want everyone to have the right to own firearms. But then I think landlords should be allowed to set rules for tenants, because the tenants don’t have to live there if they don’t want to. But the landlord in this case is the govt which shouldn’t infringe on people’s rights.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:59 am
If it was private property, I would agree that certain unnecessary risks could be prohibited by the property owner. This would be something left largely to their personal preference, but the would not be able to ban anything that does not present a clear and present danger, like the storage of flammable liquids, explosives (like Fireworks), or ownership of poisonous reptiles and other dangerous pets. The ownership of firearms is not something they would be able to prohibit, as they do not present a clear and present danger. They can recommend storage rules, carry rules, rules against brandishing, etc, but they cannot deny you the right to own them, which is what the government ban is.
Also, a property owner cannot deny your tenancy for things you do in the privacy of your leased dwelling unless it could be shown to do damage to the property. They can say you cannot smoke, but they cannot demand that you do not eat meat or any animal product. They can demand that you do not open a pornographic film studio in your apartment, but they cannot demand that you never engage in oral sex with your partner. And they certainly cannot deny you your civil rights! The absurdity and the illegality of this action is so vast and so obvious that only the federal government would have the audacity to even suggest such a rule, let alone pass it!
May 27th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Michael Bloomberg’s A-list friends, who are chauffered around in limos, can get a HCP in NYC, but the people who need to protect themselves the most (e.g. single moms living in housing projects) remain disarmed.
These people need to be able to exercise their 2A rights.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Considering that Delaware has a Keep and Bear article in it’s constitution, I have no idea how they’ve gotten away with this stuff.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
You’d think that, where the government was involved, rights would be more protected than most anywhere else, if you were naive.
In the real world, this just goes to show, yet again, what they do when they feel they can get away with it.