“In a decision that may become a model for the nation, a federal judge here ruled that gun restrictions imposed by the Wilmington Housing Authority on its residents are constitutional,” usatoday.com reports. “The housing authority’s policy of prohibiting residents from openly carrying firearms in ‘common areas’ of public housing buildings is reasonable and does not unduly restrict residents’ Second Amendment right to own and possess a gun, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark wrote in a 42-page opinion.” To be clear, Housing Authority residents in the Small Wonder State are still allowed to keep and bear arms inside their apartments—provided they manage to negotiate the farrago of gun registration laws . . .
“It is a good day for the residents of public housing,” the housing authority’s executive director, Frederick S. Purnell, said Tuesday, adding the policy is designed to protect the safety of tenants, not limit their rights.
Limiting rights, like say, requiring that a Deleware applicant for a concealed carry license must . . .
supply a certificate signed by five “respectable” citizens of the district in which the applicant resides, stating that the applicant is a person of full age (21), sobriety and good moral character, that he bears a good reputation for peace and good order, and that the carrying of a concealed deadly weapon by the applicant is necessary for his protection, property or both.
Can you image requiring citizens seeking to exercise their right to vote to submit five references from “respectable” citizens? Once you remove lawyers, politicians and police from the potential pool of referees, who’s left?
Anyway, if you can’t stop people from buying weapon or carrying them, you can restrict the places where they may and may not carry. It’s all the same game: gun control in the name of safety.