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.
See, I guess the problem is that I strongly oppose the idea of public housing. In a free society, I shouldn’t be forced to pay to provide homes for the numerous able-bodied folks who reside in public housing. No one pays to house me, and I don’t ask anyone else to do so. Thus, I say, if someone wishes to be the ward of the taxpayers, that person forfeits the rights of a free citizen. In my mind, it wouldn’t be inappropriate for the public to impose essentially any punitive restrictions (curfews, drug tests, etc.) on public housing residents that the majority deems appropriate.