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 ...
Our God-given natural right to defend ourselves and our families extends to every location on earth, and that right extends to keeping and bearing any and all necessary instruments for such protection. Our Second Amendment constitutional right, which has a uniquely high level of protection, certainly extends to all adult Americans wherever they may be. I would argue that this most fundamental of all rights extends to children too, subject only to parental permission.
I’d like to see even felons regain their rights as soon as they are no longer in prison, on probation, or on parole. If they are not safe to own guns around normal Americans, then they should have been given a longer prison sentence. The list of acceptable restrictions on our gun rights is presented in the Constitution: “shall not be infringed”.
Are they implying that because it is government housing or government subsidized housing that the residents give the right that expressly forbids the government from infringing on their right to bear arms?
Why stop at the 2nd? Do these people only give up 2A rights?
I agree, although the “less-than-lethal” ammo might also be a good option.
I thinking the beanbag rounds used in shotguns for such an environment.
but the latter ammo is illegal for civilians to own, and I have never figured out the reasoning for that.
>>So say you, who hasnt been nudged into public housing and socialist programs.
So says me. I’ve been so poor that I couldn’t afford more than peanut butter and mac and cheese. I downsized my life during those times. No one is “nudging” me into a life of dependency until I’m close enough to death that it doesn’t matter.
But, “nudge” or not, a person who can’t take care of their own basic needs has no business voting on how to run a nation. Sorry. That’s just common sense.
>>A Naval officer is just as dependent on the State as a crack ho living in a subsidized tenement.
Are you serious??
>>He just has work requirements, and better PR.
Oh. WORK. That isn’t a “just”. It is all the difference in the world. I was a Naval Petty Officer once. I got out with a high school diploma, no retirement, and come skills. I went to work. That’s not better PR. That’s a work ethic. Your crack ho needs to get that. Living on the dole is not the solution.
My point was all or nothing rather than the current approach. If a person is a ward of the state to the point where the state has to provide housing, electricity and other basic needs, then that person is defacto, no longer a citizen in the purest sense of the word. Wards of the state have their rights stripped from them. Citizens retain their rights. If they are a citizen, then the 1st, 2nd and all other rights are retained by the citizen.
I am convinced that the current mentality of rights for me but not for thee is going to lead to a civil war. It needs to be fixed and asap.
A person has a right to keep and bear arms, but that right can easily be abrogated on a VOLUNTARY basis when that person agrees to enter a certain premises where firearms are not allowed.
The operator of a sports arena, for example, does not violate anyone's constitutional rights when it refuses to allow fans to carry firearms inside. Anyone who doesn't want to meet those requirements is free to stay away.
This is EXACTLY why the Founders of this country had no illusions about extending all the rights of citizenship to everyone who could breathe on a mirror. If you didn't own property, you were considered a second-class citizen. Period.
If we want to reduce crime in public housing, they should issue a handgun to each resident.
Every person in the housing project has a gun. Maybe not legally.
There was case in 1983 in California whereby a 66 year -old woman was awarded Section 8 housing. She moved into an apartment and was immediately joined by her son and his bodyguard. The son was a drug dealer. He was armed and so was his big 300 pound bodyguard. The police allowed this individual and his bodyguard to live there in Section 8 with his mother so that they would be able to keep 24 hour surveillance on him. This situation lasted 3 years. The drug dealer and his bodyguard has pistols and automatic weapons in that apartment and on the Section 8 property, yet the police allowed it. Thus the police ignored the ordinances of the Section 8 regulations for their own ends. They tried to justify it in court. As a result, that case could be argued as the right to bear arms extends to everyone, even criminals, no matter where they live.
An actual true case.
Everything serves the State, that crack ho and the Naval Officer. The money comes from the state you work for, or sit on your ass for. Both people are dependents, one has a work requirement to reach a level of higher compensation. Are you better than a 70 year old former construction worker, who is now living on the welfare of SS, Medicare and food stamps?
In the case of a private landlord I would generally agree with you: the two parties are free to negotiate the terms of the lease and the tenant can go elsewhere to lease an apartment.
With a public housing authority (PHA)lease it becomes far more complicated. It involves matters such as who owns the PHA (Is it apart of a city /county government?), how the provision in the lease came about and how it effects the tenant in these particular circumstances.
"Whereas private landlord-tenant agreements provide freedom of contract and an opportunity for the parties to bargain,the lease between a public housing tenant and a PHA more closely mimics a contract of adhesion, where there is no opportunity to bargain terms."
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1030&context=lawreview
It could be catastrophic for this sick woman caring for a sick child to lose her PHA lease. Her specific circumstances may enter into the limited scope decision.
The court could also find the weapons ban to be an unconstitutional provision.i.e. if it is the exchange of an enumerated right for a government benefit it could be found unconstitutional. But courts tend to shy away from constitutional grounds and look for a simple explanation under contract law or public safety terms.
It should be interesting to see how it comes out in light of Heller and McDonald.
My objection is not with the property owner setting the requirement. I believe this is a valid and legit exercises of the 1st amendment freedom to assemble. However, the left also wants to have “public accommodation laws” that prevent the owner from exercising such rights and forces them owner to rent or sell to someone against their wishes.
My frustration is with the liberal mindset of having it both ways.
If someone wants to argue that the public ownership of a housing project somehow conveys rights to its occupants that they otherwise wouldn't have, then these housing projects should be treated no differently than a park or public street. Nobody should be allowed to lock their doors, and the public should be able to enter the apartments whenever they feel like it.
I would fully support the elimination of any “public accommodation” laws as they apply to private property. In most case, regulation that doesn’t involve public health, safety, or impacts on public infrastructure is excessive by defignition.
Actually, the private individual has the ability to negotiate and if the terms aren't to his liking he can go down the road and shop for a better price or better terms.
Some of the PHAs have long waiting lists and often have a "take it or leave" option for the tenant; it's this property right now or lose your place on the list. They have no ability to negotiate or find other options and few other options outside of a cardboard box in the alley.
>>I feel sorry for the ones that work hard but can’t pull themselves out of their situation and you I thank public schools and the democrats for that. They drop out, get pregnant, the fathers’ leave them, And they can tell you what’s politically incorrect but can’t fill out job applications
I do feel sorry for them, but we cannot afford to keep subsidizing that kind of behavior while taxing labor. during the Depression, people lost their jobs and went on public assistance, but the assistance came in the form of works projects. Bridges that my grandfather built in the CCC are still standing today.
Today, all it offers as a way off welfare is to be declared disabled and go on SSI for a big fat pay raise!
Yes you’re right.
The RKBA has no asterisks.
Shhhh. We’re not supposed to know. They are invisible and super secret placed there by the anti gun founders of the country. Only visible to uber left socialist pigs. ;-)
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.