Court OKs DE Housing Projects’ Gun Free Zones. Again. Still.

 

“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.

comments

  1. avatar USMCVeteran says:

    I have a fundamental human right to protect myself, with that said, you know what, I don’t care what these criminal judges say, I will have a firearm in my possession no matter where I go and no matter where I live! F**k them!

    1. avatar SDFreeman says:

      A plus, Been their done that and will continue because we have a clear fundamental right to do so. If we all stick together on this they can’t enforce their Unconstition Bs Laws

    2. avatar SD3 says:

      This is the quid pro quo most progessive folks disregard when they promote government intervention into people’s lives. The government *isn’t* “just here to help”. When it ‘gives’, it demands something in return.

      And that ‘something’, is almost invariable a piece or your freedom. Freedom of action, freedom to choose for yourself, freedom to dissent.

      Want free/subsidized housing? Sure, come on in. But now we get to treat you like empty-headed children & dictate the terms you’ll live under. It’s the “new slavery”.

  2. avatar jkp says:

    So…which Wilmington, exactly?

  3. avatar jwm says:

    the slavery issue was supposed to be settled in 1865. so long as the leftist and gun grabbers are still around i guess not.

  4. avatar gimlet says:

    “the policy is designed to protect the safety of tenants, not limit their rights”

    Oh right, because the mere presence of an inanimate object increases the risk of it just killing someone right there, so we must “protect” everyone from it. Fail.

    Also, I was quite amused with your word choice in describing the labyrinth that is D.C. gun registration laws. A farrago indeed, Farago.

  5. avatar James says:

    I think the underlying issue we need to get away from is this idea that somehow “public safety” (or “officer safety” or any other such “safety”) outweighs an individual’s rights.

    Rights are rights are rights. I’m tired of the restrictions and I’m tired of the compromises, which inevitably leads to some shitsack in a bathrobe commanding that I give up a little more of my rights to ensure some dumbass’s “safety”. All of which is a laughable farce anyway, being that government is obviously wholly incapable of keeping every individual safe at any given moment.

    1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      THIS times 1,000.

      I never understood how easy it was and still is for people to be brainwashed by this “in the name of public safety and security we should forfeit our rights” bullshit the progressives spew until I found this site. But hey, I guess that’s what happens when the government tricks stupid people into believing they’ll be “set for life” if they just give up one of those “inconvenient freedoms”. Yeah, inconvenient to a plan of absolute control of the public’s every move. Gimme a break.

      1. avatar James says:

        It’s not just “the progressives” that do it. Never forget that The Shrub initiated the largest and most costly expansion of government in the history of the nation.

        To denigrate one side of the Parasite Class while vaunting the other is the enabling process that allows them to get away with doing it.

    2. avatar Levi B says:

      The Bill of Rights (As Long As 5 Respectable Citizens Vouch for You)

  6. avatar Jay says:

    See what I am saying about this “reasonable regulation” BS.

    Heller only made it worse. Only idiots believed that it made it better. It only opened a door for the federal government.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Which door is that?

  7. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Sooo anyone want to march on Sacramento while open carrying, you know a fwe thousand of us perhaps.
    Maybe it might make a point, or cause the congress to have heart attacks! Either way it is a win win lol
    Then again I don’t want to go to jail, but hey if it is a few thousand of us I can run.. 😉

    Ok seriously though I understand the gripe I really do, but like Robert said DC already has massively legislated gun ownership to the point where you really have to jump through hoops to do much of anything.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Sanchanim,

      I have proposed this before only on a much more grand scale. If 30,000 or better yet 100,000 people marched on Sacramento carrying openly, there isn’t anything that law enforcement could do. They cannot physically arrest, process, and jail several tens of thousands of people — especially people whose “offense” was exercising their civil rights and demanding that government respect their civil rights. All they could do is threaten to arrest a few and hope that everyone would give up because no one wants to be one of those few.

      Well the civil rights movement started the same way and didn’t make any progress until tens of thousands marched and a few were finally willing to be arrested. The same thing has to happen here. No one is going to respect our civil rights if we do not demand respect. And harsh comments on a blog do not engender respect. Action engenders respect. It worked for minorities in the past. I see no reason why it wouldn’t work for citizens who expect government to recognize and respect their right to keep and bear arms.

      I also believe we need a major education campaign with local law enforcement. If we can show city and county law enforcement rank-and-file the clear meaning of the Second Amendment — which is part of the U.S. Constitution they swore to uphold — there wouldn’t be anyone to arrest the tens of thousands of people who march on Sacramento.

    2. avatar Gyufygy says:

      100,000 people marched on Sacramento…and no one cared. Why not? Because regardless of the state government being there, it’s still f$&;ing Sacramento! :p

      For the record, I grew up near there. Hail to the Kings.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Gyufygy,

        Did 100,000 people march on Sacramento carrying openly holstered handguns?

        I believe that would be a lot more interesting — especially since California has criminalized that civil right.

        1. avatar Gyufygy says:

          Sorry, totally messed up my phrasing. Meant that even if 100,000 marched on Sacatomato, nobody would care because it’s a rather boring city, in general.

          Although 100,000 people open carrying might spice the place up a bit.

  8. avatar Nobody says:

    While I am firmly behind the right to defend oneself, public housing is a different issue. If you want natural rights, support yourself.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      all americans, from the richest to the poorest, have the same rights. it doesn’t matter if you live at the white house or public housing. any thing less and we’re just another banana republic.

      1. avatar Nobody says:

        While your premise makes sense, your conclusion is difficult to understand. If you live under the jurisdiction of a “Daddy” then you go by his rules. The “Daddy” can be the government or your parents. Either way, when you are a dependent, you follow the rules of another.

        I don’t dispute the rights of one who is either poor or rich. I do, however, have a problem with anyone, living off of my dime, proclaiming their entitled rights. Rights are limited when you are a slave.

        Better to live in a tent and have my natural rights than be a slave and try to demand them.
        That seems to be MUCH different than a banana republic.

        I’m not trying to create an argument or controversy, but it seems we view this differently. If public housing were to be simply as “restrictive” as military barracks, and nonessential items inventoried, then perhaps the discussion would fade away to nothing. Oftentimes public housing is a refuge for the dependant mentality. They partially live on my dime. Just as living with “Daddy” there are sacrifices to be made.

        That doesn’t mean that I’m for completely eliminating their ability to defend themselves. It means I’m all for independence and natural liberty. One cannot live with Daddy and insist upon making the rules.

        I apologize if you perceived me as one who is creating an economic battle. That was not my intent.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          nobody, i take no offense. ypu’re entitled to your opinion. i stand by mine. all legal citizens of this country are entitled to the same rights regardless of where they live. not just public housing, but all states and territories as well. the leftist and big brother are the one’s saying we have to jump through hoops and maybe they’ll let us exercise our rights.

        2. avatar Nobody says:

          Frankly, I think we fundamentally agree much more than disagree. It seems that our primary difference is only in the allowance of letting Big Brother/Leftists into our lives to begin with. Your gracious response was appreciated. Thank you.

  9. avatar Aynonymous Randian says:

    > Court OKs DC Housing Projects’ Gun Free Zones.
    > To be clear, D.C. Housing Authority residents

    Unless I’m missing something, this has nothing to do with Washington, D.C.

    The lead for the story states “WILMINGTON, Del.”, which is Wilmington, Delaware.

    Also, since it cost “the housing authority nearly $500,000 to defend against the legal action”, I’m sure that the conservative and libertarian proponents of tort reform will be demanding that the losing plaintiffs be required to pay the defendant’s legal costs (cf “loser pays”).

  10. avatar Anon in CT says:

    I can’t care too much – if you want to live on the government teat, you will be treated like a little child. And little children are not eligible to own firearms. So sad, too bad. Become a productive member of society.

    1. avatar Merits says:

      Except that we all rely on the government. Remember, ‘You didn’t build that’? This might end up as those that use government roads and breathe EPA regulated air aren’t entitled to have firearms. Crazier things have already happened.

  11. avatar Aharon says:

    “the federal suit originally was filed to overturn a blanket ban on gun ownership in this city’s public housing, “and that was changed after we filed a lawsuit”

    “the NRA declined comment on the restrictions or Stark’s ruling. NRA spokeswoman Jacqueline Otto said the important thing is that the right of residents of public housing to have a gun was upheld”

  12. avatar Aharon says:

    I read through most of the follow up comments to the USAToday story and they were critical of the Court not proving 100% full right of the 2A to the residents. A few anti-gunners posted irrational comments that were easily ripped to shreds.

  13. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    How long will it be before the residents of “public housing” will be “required” to SUBMIT “a certificate signed by five “respectable” citizens of the district in which the applicant (note that the applicants aren’t referred to as citizens) resides” before those residents will be “permitted” to sit at the back of the bus or the lunch counter of their choice? And just who gets to define “respectable” anyway?

    “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.” 42 pages of ignorance, bigotry and pure, politically correct rubbish. Judge Stark should have a good long talk with Judge Benson Everett Legg to get schooled in the subtlety and nuance of exactly what it means to be a citizen in this country, whose citizens are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Rights, by the way, that apply to ALL citizens and mustn’t be selectively parceled out by some arrogant, elitist, black robed twit.

    I hope that Gura and SAF tear Judge Stark a new one upon appeal.

  14. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

    And yet, DE has open carry.

    http://www.deloc.org/docs/carrybrochure.pdf

    Still, Wilmington (aka Killmington) is a shithole. At 5:01pm the roads out are packed, by 5:25pm downtown is barren apart from some hobos and gang bangers (and the occasional mark staying at the Hotel DuPont for some business meeting).

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    This is what happens when decent people trade one plantation for another.

  16. avatar zeos says:

    This is one gun rights situation where I just say “meh,” if you’re on the dole you don’t get to choose. Its like when you live in your parent’s house they make the rules; when you’re living in the government’s house they make the rules. No one is forcing these people to live there.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email