Posted on 03/17/2018 8:49:34 AM PDT by rktman
The Progressive left loves to assign "rights" to poor people who have no constitutional basis (the "right" to medical care, for instance) but is strangely reticent when it comes to your Second Amendment rights. Apparently, if you live in a housing project in East St. Louis, you had best surrender your guns at the door.
From the Belleville News Democrat:
The woman, who was identified in the lawsuit only as N. Doe, out of fear that her abusive ex-husband could find her if she was identified, has a valid Illinois FOID license and has been trained in firearm safety, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, which was filed through the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, argues a firearms ban in government-subsidized housing is unconstitutional. This ban, the lawsuit stated, only applies to low-income people who reside in public housing and deprives them the right to keep and bear arms because they can't afford private housing.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Is Free Speech banned in government housing?
Living in public housing means that you have accepted life in a socialist economy. Other people labor involuntarily to put a roof over their heads. Frankly, I wouldn’t even let them vote.
Fighting a court battle to protect your Second Amendment rights in a public housing project is like fighting a legal battle to protect your right to eat your own sh!t
If that lady started talking conservative she most likely would be kicked out of her apartment.
If they deny her right to be armed she’ll be the only person In an East St Louis Illinois public housing project without a gun...
It’s a condition for getting free housing.
I’m missing the delegated power given the federal to fund or regulate housing among the several States.
So when talking about public housing I wish we would obey the Law and not the schemes of so-called “progressives” first before we consider what State or Local funded public housing do.
Does a person in public housing also give up their constitutionally protected rights to:
- attend the church of their choosing or own a bible
- read books or news papers
- freedom from unreasonable searches?
- the right to vote
- etc
I am of the opinion that if they do not surrender those rights, why would they surrender their 2nd amendment rights?
If we want to reduce crime in public housing, they should issue a handgun to each resident.
Yes, it does.
Where is Ben Carson on this?
It’s right there next to the right to abortion clause.
It’s public housing that should be eliminated.
The question is whether they SHOULD — or even COULD — be ordered to surrender those rights. Your comparisons aren’t all valid because those rights attach to a PERSON, while the gun restrictions in question attach to the PREMISES. A landlord has every right to imose restrictions on the occupants of an apartment.
But they should be required to surrender the right to vote. George Washington and most of the Founders would have been horrified by the concept of public housing, much less voting by its occupants.
So, my suggestion would be the widespread promotion of frangible ammunition for home defense in densely occupied apartment buildings. What say you all?
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
If federal funding is involved in the referenced post-17th Amendment ratification housing project then the following needs to be addressed.
The states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate housing purposes.
This is evidenced by the following clarifications of the fed’s constitutionally limited powers by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Gun restrictions should certainly not apply where unconstitutional federal funding is concerned imo.
Patriots need to elect a Congress that will support Pres. Trump in leading the states to repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment can disappear too.
So say you, who hasn’t been “nudged” into public housing and socialist programs. It doesn’t begin with a choice. Communism is a creeping ruin. The only people who will seemingly be self supporting will are the elite, and they are supported by government also. They just have work requirements for that government. A Naval officer is just as dependent on the State as a crack ho living in a subsidized tenement. He just has work requirements, and better PR.
When the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights, the right to vote was limited to property owners.
Every person who signs a rental agreement gives up some 4A rights to the landlord in the form of periodic inspections of the property. If the landlord is the government government agents should be able to enter the property for inspections per the lease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.