Posted on 04/13/2019 1:34:23 PM PDT by aimhigh
All people in public housing should be provided with a .357 and 100 rounds of ammo.
“identified as N. Doe” - East St. Louis. Not likely to be W. Doe.
A federal judge that’s a Constitutionalist. That’s rare.
Noting that I know little about this case, it’s strange that the above paragraph makes this out to be a 2nd Amendment issue, which it is imo, the paragraph following it treating it like a 14th Amendment “equal protections” issue.
"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."
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphases added].”
Insights welcome.
I think even those states have to let you own a gun, even DC.
Why not apply this nationwide like the travel ban rulings?
A “Judge” determined that constitutional rights are being violated.
Seems only fair.
Sorry, no guns in NYC housing.
Sullivan gun laws.
No steenkin cons-tee-2-shun applies there
Ever been in the military?
How so?
The lady in the section 8 housing isn’t in the military. She still has her rights.
But the housing is still in the US and the Constitution is valid there too.
I served on a jury in a civil suit, in which a landlord was trying to evict a female Section 8 tenant, AND have her voucher revoked, for having fired a gun in her apartment complex.
The landlord’s argument was simply that the tenant violated a rule, and had caused an unsafe environment for other tenants.
The landlord characterised he incident in question as the tenant was “chatting on the phone” when she “inexplicably” began firing a weapon through her front door into the public area, threatening the lives of other residents.
Section 8, as required by their rules, provided an attorney to defend the tenant, but the lawyer was clearly incompetent& couldn’t speak in coherent sentences, so the defense was nonexistent. The landlord’s argument seemed to be winning until the tenant took the stand.
The tenant testified she had repeatedly complained to landlord & police about violence & drug activity. Police had regarded her as a nuisance and had seemed friendlier to the drug dealers, she said.
The gangs had slashed her tires and threatened to murder her son, who had cerebral palsy. Cops just asked the dealers if they did it, they said no & cops concluded she “might” have slashed her own tires. “It’s just your word against theirs,” she was told.
She purchased a gun from a pawn shop, got a friend to teach her how to use it, but continued complaining to police— and being ignored— while the gangs escalated threats & vandalism to her car. She’d found a dead cat with its throat slit in front of her door.
The tenant said she was calling 911 when 2 of the druggies literally kicked her door open & charged into her living room.
The landlord was shocked when the jury found in favor of the tenant. We decided, despite the judge’s instruction to consider ONLY the landlord’s claim (violation of rental contract & section 8 rules) that this was a 2nd Amendment issue.
She was in her home. Her home was being invaded. The fact that the bullets missed & flew past the door (as it was being kicked in) into the public area was irrelevant WRT to her RKBA.
One of the most terrifying nights of my life was spent in a phone booth in East St. Louis.
I was an 18 y.o. girl,took a wrong turn, it was snowing, my car ran out of gas.
I was trying to call for help when 3 characters surrounded the phone booth, & started rocking it, with me inside struggling to keep the door shut. They got tired & left, but everytime I’d start to make a run for it back to my car, more scary-ass creatures would slink out of the shadows. No cops or tow truck ever came & I ran out of coins. Finally the sun came up & I found my way to a corner grocery, where a cashier who looked like a hooker got her boyfriend to go get me some gas in a gas can.
I will start over. Your post:
“You can’t violate someone’s constitutional rights no matter where they live.”
Now, have you ever been in the military?
Did you call the cops?
Love the back of that T-shirt.
Great ruling! Now stop funding public housing with federal money because that is also Unconstitutional.
JoMa
Yep. They didn’t come. Nor a tow truck.
If this woman is a legal resident or a citizen of the United States and would not be prohibited from owning a firearm in any other circumstance, i.e. she was not a resident of public Lee funded housing, then I’m fine with this.
There are several different variables muddying the waters in this discussion. But it must always be remembered that we have a god-given right to defend ourselves if we are not the aggressor. That supersedes any of man’s laws
I don’t recall giving up your rights because of your living circumstance. Guns and ammo ought to be subsidized just like Obama Phones. If they want to make an economic argument against unprotected behaviors, you would have to look at that several grand of skin art, their piercings, their gold chains and their grills, just sayin’...
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.