Is Free Speech banned in government housing?
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.
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
It’s a condition for getting free housing.
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.
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?
If we want to reduce crime in public housing, they should issue a handgun to each resident.
Yes, it does.
Where is Ben Carson on this?
It’s public housing that should be eliminated.
So, my suggestion would be the widespread promotion of frangible ammunition for home defense in densely occupied apartment buildings. What say you all?
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.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
The RKBA has no asterisks.