Posted on 07/10/2009 12:43:42 PM PDT by neverdem
Gun rights advocates scored a victory Thursday as the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects.
The amendment, by Tom Price , R‑Ga., would bar any housing authority from restricting legal ownership of guns. It was adopted, 38-31, as the committee continued its markup of a housing bill (HR 3045) that the panel is expected to approve next week.
“Seniors and other individuals have the right to protect themselves,” said Joe Baca of California, one of 13 Democrats who voted for the amendment. “Those guns would be registered, and those individuals have a right, in public housing or any other place, to protect themselves.”
While the Department of Housing and Urban Development does not have a specific policy concerning guns in public housing, several local agencies have banned them in an effort to reduce violent crime in housing projects. Major urban centers began to adopt gun bans in the 1990s, and advocates of such steps argue that the bans have improved the safety of public housing.
“There was a time during the ’70s and ’80s when public housing developments were considered killing grounds,” said Emanuel Cleaver II , D-Mo., who grew up in public housing. “It is just foolhardy to place guns in developments of poor people, many of whom are unemployed, and place these guns around children. . . . Why would we try to put guns in the most densely populated areas in the urban core? It’s just unbelievable.”
Only two Republicans — Peter T. King of New York and Michael N. Castle of Delaware — voted against the amendment.
Carolyn McCarthy , D-N.Y., a longtime gun control advocate, said opponents of the Price amendment would try to remove the language from the bill at a later point in the legislative process, without subjecting the issue to a recorded vote.
“What we’re trying to do will not involve votes,” McCarthy said.
Several Democrats also backed a separate Price amendment that would require anyone applying for Section 8 rent vouchers to produce a biometric ID card, such as a passport or other identification approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The committee adopted the amendment, 37-31.
Opponents of the amendment argued that the measure, if intended to weed out illegal immigrants, was redundant, as they are already prohibited from receiving public housing assistance.
“This just hurts Americans,” said Baca, who said the measure would likely keep those who cannot afford to pay for such identification, such as the chronically poor and homeless, or the eligible relatives of uncooperative applicants, from getting the public subsidy vouchers.
Democrats blocked a series of GOP amendments aimed at reducing the supply of 150,000 additional Section 8 vouchers authorized under the bill, or requiring offsets before such new vouchers can be issued.
The last remaining hurdle to the bill is resolution on the Moving to Work program, an incentive-based initiative to get people into jobs that would in turn move them off Section 8 housing vouchers.
Democrats have resisted making broad expansions to the work incentives program, opting for a 10-year reauthorization with new initiatives limited and closely monitored under the bill. Republicans want time limits and back-to-work conditions on Section 8 vouchers in an effort to reduce what they criticize as unchecked dependency on the program.
and isn't it great how the left wants to protect these people's 'right' to free living by fighting against ID requirement but the 2nd Amendment means nothing to them
It's a permanently stupid outlook on the world.
So a NY democrat wants to do away with the right to keep and bear arms with a procedure which doesn’t require votes! If the left can’t rig the vote, it will do away with it. Charming.
That's me and you after Obamacare and his other big socialist projects!
So the older people and young families that are there have no way to defend themselves against the gun toting thugs that infest public housing. Yeah that’s smart. s/
Carolyn McCarthy, progressive?
She ran on the Democratic line in 1996 but only after the New York GOP rebuffed her when she announced her intentions to challenge then-Rep. Dan Frisa in a primary. The Democrats wisely recruited her and she flipped the seat in the 1996 election. That didn't stop her from having conversations with the GOP about returning to her roots in 1998. Furthermore, though she was caucusing with the Democrats in Congress, she didn't officially change her voter registration from "R" to "D" until 2002. Six years after she was elected.
Other than being a rabid gun grabber, she's not much of a wingnut. She voted for the Iraq war authorization.
My argument is that permitting guns in public housing doesn’t go far enough. That is, many of the people in public housing were never raised with any form of legitimate “gun culture”, so they deserve some special training, likely provided by the NRA, to help them regain “family knowledge” of proper gun use and safety.
It’s the same idea as giving people training in the proper use of a table saw (admittedly a far more dangerous tool than a gun), if they had no familiarity with it, either.
So the question becomes: How can the training be made available to people who are otherwise poor?
In principle, since the housing authority has deprived them of their 2nd Amendment rights all these years, it would not be outrageous to require them to pay for at least a few group classes, for those individuals legally permitted to own firearms (no felons or mentally ill.)
On the plus side, once a gun culture has taken root, it will provide immediate dividends by strongly reducing crime and its associated costs.
We can give them California. The liberals (Socialists) in California and the Taliban should get along just fine.
Space’s ATF Reform Legislation Gains Support of 100 Defenders of the Second Amendment
http://space.house.gov | July 9, 2009 | NA
Posted on 07/10/2009 1:53:21 PM PDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2289945/posts
Firearms Freedom Act Introduced in Florida
Tenth Amendment Center | 07-10-09 | Tenth Amendment Center
Posted on 07/10/2009 9:33:03 AM PDT by sovereignty2
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2289757/posts
ALLOWED? To exercise a RIGHT? Next thing you know they will be “allowed” to speak publicly and to go to the church of their choice. But only after proper permission has been given.
Joe, you need to see this one.
In Tennessee there is a law that prohibits the police from charging you with a crime if you use a gun in self defense even if you are illegally carrying one. That law should apply to EVERYONE. Even felons have a right to protect themselves.
I have conflicting views on felons using guns, even for self defense.
To start with, many post-release felons are very aware of the value of having a gun to protect themselves, and will make the extra effort to go before a judge to have that right restored. And it is likewise very common for judges to permit this.
However, the restoration of this right needs judgment. There are many violent, repeat offenders for whom a gun and gun violence is an essential part of their preferred criminal activity. Having a gun may also be essential to their maintaining their criminal associations, or even their “territory”, in the case of street mobs.
Others know that violent retribution likely waits for their release from prison, and knowing that they cannot even use a gun for self defense after release would make them far more cooperative with the authorities in preventing the future crime against them.
Finally, there is the argument of the “situation of self defense”. The laws concerning self defense is predicated on a “normal” citizen being confronted with unexpected aggression and violence; not on someone “looking for a fight”, who finds one that escalates beyond what they wanted. However, all too often, the latter case is the reality.
And with felons, especially those with aggression problems, which is common, only by keeping them disarmed is their aggression undermined. Again, a case for judgment, because while such aggression is borderline to mental illness, it is not typically seen as being mentally ill “enough” to deny a non-felon a gun.
Which of course also brings to light the sad fact that many felons are mentally ill, even if undiagnosed as such, and cannot even determine correctly if they are in a self defense situation.
Put it all together I would have to say, don’t make the use of a gun by a felon for self defense automatic. Let a judge have their say, first.
I understand about gang bangers going back to the same gang when they get out of jail and I would make an exception for that. I saw a 48 Hours show where an ex-felon was dragged out of a barber shop by two thugs who were going to kill him (yes, he was still hanging in the part of town where he always did). Luckily for him he was carrying and shot and killed one thug and injured the other. But the police STILL arrested him and charged him with illegally possessing a fire arm.
Each case should stand on its own merits, but as a rule, EVERYONE has a right to self defense.
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.