Posted on 04/13/2019 1:34:23 PM PDT by aimhigh
A federal judge has ruled that the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s rule prohibiting public housing tenants from owning a firearm is unconstitutional.
The Belleville News-Democrat reported that U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert ruled that the ban was a violation of residents’ Second Amendment right to own a firearm for lawful purposes. The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association on behalf of a woman who contends that she needed a firearm to protect herself from an abusive ex-husband.
The lawsuit on behalf of the woman — identified as N. Doe —contends the ban is discriminatory against the poor because it does not give them the same right to bear arms that people who can afford private housing enjoy.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox17online.com ...
I mean, it only makes sense.
Won’t find any such judges in my neck of the woods. as evidenced in the SCOTUS case “Caetano v Massachusetts” politicians in my state have an open contempt for the 2nd Amendment.
A sane judge. Excellent that we still have a few.
It’s voluntary to live in the housing, they can make whatever rules they want.
It’s voluntary to live in the housing, they can make whatever rules they want.
Now, if only a\some judge(s) would correctly rule ‘public housing\welfare’ is a violation of the Takings clause, we’d be going somewhere...
It almost sounds as if they have US Citizens in their Public Housing?? Here in Pacoima it is 100% Illegal Aliens in the Projects and they will be thrilled with this ruling.
You can’t violate someone’s constitutional rights no matter where they live.
You’re missing a bit of the Constitution.
I guess they must also quarter the military.
Let’s not mince around with the REAL issue.
Liberals don’t want BLACK and HISPANIC people to have guns!
One too many of "their betters" ended up with holes in them and what do you know, all of a sudden we had to be protected from the evils of inexpensive handguns that poor folks could afford.
JMHo
East Saint Louis, Illinois, is probably one of the worst slums in America, and the most disreputable scum manage to survive there. It is so bad, I don’t think they even resettle Third World refugees there.
There are some relatively decent people who do live there, but they are trapped like flies in a spider web. Self-defense is their ONLY defense, as the cops are not exactly the most responsive there.
Public housing is where law abiding residents would most need to stay armed. Forbidding guns only disarms them and renders them victims to the gun toting non law abiding residents.
There is sanity on the federal bench...occasionaly.
5.56mm
My SIL’s brother is a prosperous blue collar man in Peabody. He has all the Liberal Massachusetts attitudes and rails against guns. He owns one whand says he has to because guns are’t banned and so bad guys have guns. The guy is actually pretty smart but WTF??
East St. Louis ? You’d be nuts not to be armed. Seriously.
What about “homeless” people?
Is it possible to even purchase a firearm without an address? I always thought that would be an interesting legal dilemma.
Yexcept California, New Jersey, New York, DC, Mass., etc.
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.