[irishjuggler]

Would it be alright for the city to dictate how he votes? What church he attends? Which books or newspapers he reads?

Judges would probably say "No" to your questions, but I'm not so sure. If you want to sponge off of the government and live in public housing, perhaps you do give up your basic rights. If you want to live like a free citizen, don't ask me, as a taxpayer, to provide a home for you and pay the rent. The public housing resident is like a kid living in his parents' house. Can parents dictate what church a kid attends or whether he can read "Playboy" in their home? Darned right, they can.

I oppose gun control, and I oppose Gavin Newsom, but I'm not so sure that the NRA deserves to win this one.

[William Tell]

irishjuggler said: "... but I'm not so sure that the NRA deserves to win this one. "

I am. My tax dollars are not to be made available for any infringement whatever.

I had thought that this issue had already been laid to rest, but evidently the case that came up years ago, and was decided in favor of the renters, must have been public housing controlled by the feds. The feds CANNOT disarm people living in public housing. This was even re-addressed when refugess from Katrina were disarmed as a condition of living in emergency housing. The courts said, "No way", I think.

This case is public housing controlled by a state or a city and that makes it a suitable case for "incorporation" under the Fourteenth Amendment, causing the Second Amendment to apply to the states.

This is really good case because it puts the liberals into the position of having to argue that states and cities have the power to disarm poverty-stricken gays.