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

click here to read article


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

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”.


21 posted on 03/17/2018 10:13:18 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

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?


22 posted on 03/17/2018 10:14:18 AM PDT by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

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.


23 posted on 03/17/2018 10:20:20 AM PDT by txnativegop (The political left, Mankinds intellectual hemlock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Glad2bnuts

>>So say you, who hasn’t 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.


24 posted on 03/17/2018 10:31:14 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 19 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


25 posted on 03/17/2018 10:45:47 AM PDT by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
I would have no objection to your approach, but in this particular case the "current approach" is actually sound on principle.

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.

26 posted on 03/17/2018 11:12:39 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Blue House Sue

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.


27 posted on 03/17/2018 11:19:24 AM PDT by lucky american (Progressives are attac Iking our rights and y'all will sit there and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rktman

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.


28 posted on 03/17/2018 11:23:43 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 ((((("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")))))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

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?


29 posted on 03/17/2018 11:55:48 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 24 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"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."

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.

30 posted on 03/17/2018 12:35:18 PM PDT by Sa-teef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


31 posted on 03/17/2018 12:47:55 PM PDT by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sa-teef
Then you end up with a bizarre paradox where someone living in a public housing project on the taxpayer's dime has more rights than the taxpayer who pays his own bills and lives in a privately-owned apartment building.

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.

32 posted on 03/17/2018 12:50:45 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

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.


33 posted on 03/17/2018 12:57:33 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Then you end up with a bizarre paradox where someone living in a public housing project on the taxpayer's dime has more rights than the taxpayer who pays his own bills and lives in a privately-owned apartment building. "

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.

34 posted on 03/17/2018 1:10:08 PM PDT by Sa-teef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
Living in public housing means that you have accepted life in a socialist economy

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
35 posted on 03/17/2018 1:42:32 PM PDT by ssfromla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ssfromla

>>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!


36 posted on 03/17/2018 2:30:07 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Asking a pro athlete for political advice is like asking a cavalry horse for tactical advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Yes you’re right.


37 posted on 03/18/2018 2:16:15 AM PDT by ssfromla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rktman

The RKBA has no asterisks.


38 posted on 03/24/2018 11:09:26 AM PDT by arthurus (-------/;'ơ-----s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

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. ;-)


39 posted on 03/24/2018 11:11:49 AM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


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