Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does the right to bear arms extend to public housing?
americanthinker.com ^ | 3/17/2018 | Timothy Birdnow

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; guncontrol; housing; hud; illinois
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
I keep missing the asterisk or footnote numbers in the 2nd amendment that point to the particular areas designated as parts that may be infringed upon. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
1 posted on 03/17/2018 8:49:34 AM PDT by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

Is Free Speech banned in government housing?


2 posted on 03/17/2018 8:54:50 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

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.


3 posted on 03/17/2018 8:59:12 AM PDT by Bryanw92 (Asking a pro athlete for political advice is like asking a cavalry horse for tactical advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
The Founders of this country would have vomited at the mere thought of "public housing."

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

4 posted on 03/17/2018 8:59:43 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

If that lady started talking conservative she most likely would be kicked out of her apartment.


5 posted on 03/17/2018 9:01:20 AM PDT by dforest (Never let a Muslim cut your hair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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...


6 posted on 03/17/2018 9:02:27 AM PDT by Sa-teef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman

It’s a condition for getting free housing.


7 posted on 03/17/2018 9:04:36 AM PDT by TexasGator (Z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
I agree. For the most part, these people are de facto wards of the state, as they rely on the state to provide them the basic necessities of life.
8 posted on 03/17/2018 9:05:13 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rktman

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.


9 posted on 03/17/2018 9:09:29 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

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?


10 posted on 03/17/2018 9:09:50 AM PDT by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

If we want to reduce crime in public housing, they should issue a handgun to each resident.


11 posted on 03/17/2018 9:10:47 AM PDT by Blue House Sue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Yes, it does.

Where is Ben Carson on this?


12 posted on 03/17/2018 9:17:06 AM PDT by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

It’s right there next to the right to abortion clause.


13 posted on 03/17/2018 9:18:10 AM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rktman

It’s public housing that should be eliminated.


14 posted on 03/17/2018 9:18:36 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

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.


15 posted on 03/17/2018 9:21:00 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

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.


16 posted on 03/17/2018 9:50:17 AM PDT by Cincinnatus.45-70 (What do DemocRats enjoy more than a truckload of dead babies? Unloading them with a pitchfork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rktman
One of the big gun safety rules is to know what is behind the target you are firing at. In an apartment building, what is behind your target is thin walls and another apartment. The crowded environment increases the chances of injuries to innocent bystanders in adjacent apartments.

So, my suggestion would be the widespread promotion of frangible ammunition for home defense in densely occupied apartment buildings. What say you all?

17 posted on 03/17/2018 9:51:46 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine ("Married with children.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman; All
"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 [emphasis added]."
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.

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.

18 posted on 03/17/2018 9:58:56 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

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.


19 posted on 03/17/2018 10:02:08 AM PDT by Glad2bnuts (If Republicans are not prepared to carry on the Revolution of 1776, prepare for a communist takeover)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
...I am of the opinion that if they do not surrender those rights, why would they surrender their 2nd amendment rights?...

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.

20 posted on 03/17/2018 10:02:14 AM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson