Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitators at The Trace don’t “do” irony. But they sure practice it. In their article The NRA’s Longstanding Campaign to Allow Guns in Public Housing Is Set for Its Latest Win, agitpropagandist Mike Spies seems blissfully unaware that he’s berating the NRA for doing exactly what his boss does. Like this . . .
The Maine bill [making it illegal to prohibit guns in public housing units] merely broadens the legal ruling made by the state Supreme Court in 1995, but its inevitable passage marks yet another symbolic victory for the NRA.
“That they’re going after the issue is not a surprise,” Spitzer says. “It’s part of their ongoing effort to press guns into every segment of public life.”
Chenette, a 24-year-old, second-term legislator, has found the experience bewildering.
“No group like the NRA should be able to fly into this state and tell lawmakers what to do,” he says.
No group like Everytown for Gun Safety? You know; the lobbying arm of Trace boss and New York resident Michael Bloomberg. The gun control group that’s parachuted money and personnel into Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington to influence legislators and promote civilian disarmament in every segment of public life.
Here’s an idea! Let’s rewrite Mr. Spies’ first paragraph substituting Everytown for the NRA.
As part of its broad campaign to sell the idea that guns belong nowhere in America, Everytown for Gun Safety has positioned itself as an advocate for the poor. Over several decades, the organization has worked assiduously to create gun bans across the country.
See how that works, Mike? No, I guess you don’t.
Oregon and oregon?
Not to mention Oregon. Sick as a dog today. Text amended.
I don’t consider a persons residence “public life” even if the state furnishes it. That being said it’s definitely something given with strings attached.
It’s also funny that these public housing complexes are some of the most likely places you’d need a gun for defensive use such as this gem by “mixed income” Chicago Public Housing.
Let’s get this straight; this “poor baby” was convicted of 2nd degree murder in 2009, and he’s wandering loose? And somebody thinks we have a gun problem? Good grief.
“yet another symbolic victory for the NRA.”
Remove the word “symbolic” and you’ll have a true statement.
“No group like the NRA should be able to fly into this state and tell lawmakers what to do,”
Damn straight! Only unions should be able to do that!
That attached photo is exactly what I see outside every “subsidized housing” building in my area every day, every hour.
It’s easy to understand why they can’t afford rent. If they paid rent, there wouldn’t be any money left for cigarettes, beer and tattoos.
I’ve had several employees over the years who have lived in “public housing”. They still paid rent, some to the point I asked them why they were in public housing – they were spending what they would spend in a far better neighborhood for an apt. The reply was always that they wanted to stay with their “community”.
Never understand not leaving the ghetto when you have the means, especially when through legitimate hard work. Generations of immigrants have done it, why (some) of our black citizens persist in such Quixotic behavior is really beyond me. I kind of get it, but I just don’t understand. Their successful black kids don’t get it either, but oh well.
The larger question here, which, at its core, is a question of gun rights vs. property rights, is an intriguing one, indeed.
As a property owner, do I have the right to prohibit firearms on my property? Seems like the answer should be yes. However…
As a lessee, do I have a right to bring firearms into the home I’m paying to rent? Some jurisdictions and courts have said yes.
As a resident of housing owned by someone else (the government), where the cost of said housing is being paid, at least in part, by someone else (the government), it seems to me that my individual rights could be limited by virtue of the charity that I have elected to receive. If the charity comes with conditions, I can reject the offer and go live somewhere else. Again, some courts in some jurisdictions have disagreed.
It’s generally nice to see courts favor gun rights, but I worry about my property rights at the same time.
I’d actually debate this at some level and here’s why:
1)If you go to a hotel room, for all intents and purposes that’s your domicile, and you may not own a piece of property outright but it is effectively under your control.
2)Committing an illegal act doesn’t make it legal because of property rights. You can’t just have an NFA gun because of private property. There are limitations to it.
3)agreed on the charity parts. It definitely makes a lot of difference when strings are attached. There are limitations to who can live in public housing and other things such as drug testing which is controversial at best.
I’m all for drug testing of anyone who receives government money. Let the bitchin’ begin in 3-2-1…..
A bunch of states did that a while ago. The results were not what you’d expect. It was a waste of time and money. The drug testing, that is.
Even if Moqui’sha has 10 kids, she isn’t getting the tax dollars to maintain even a $100 per day heroin habit. It’s a nice story, there are exception to prove it, but there are the overwhelming majority who have nothing to do with it.
Anyone? Member of Congress, military, social security recipients…
Unless you are in government housing because you genuinely have nowhere else to go. Mr. Lembo, the man this legislation is centered around is 68 and disabled. He is wheelchair bound and has been robbed of his prescription meds 5 times. He cannot go anywhere else. Paying for his medical care in his retirement had drained his finances. If he didn’t live in Gov. housing, he would be out on the street. He is forced to deal with crime because the lower side of society in the area knows that he wasn’t legally able to have a gun and wasn’t physically able to defend himself.
I understand the dichotomy of firearms rights vs property rights, but the Supreme Court has ruled that a person renting a property cannot have their 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights infringed by a property owner. Why is it ok for the SC to rule a rental is your domicile in regards to some amendments, but not for the 2nd?
As long as governments enforces zoning and other laws preventing people from putting a roof over their heads as best they see fit, for no other purpose than to artificially prop up the so called “value” of the houses of others better connected, the whole “private property” angle wrt housing, is little more than a lightly obfuscated sham and racket.
This is an easy question to answer. Just ask yourself if your property rights could take precedence over the tenant’s rights if it was one of the other enumerated rights involved.
Do you believe that a landlord should be able to curtail a tenant’s right to free speech, or to the religion of their choice, or to be free from the quartering of troops in their home? After all, the same logic still applies, yes? If your tenants don’t like the idea of your troops living in their home, or don’t want to go to your church, they can still move out right? Or else stop accepting the stipend that helps them pay their rent?
The large moral question is; should a landlord or a charity be allowed to legally use that position of superior strength to force his tenants into backing up his speeches, or going to his church, as a condition of staying in their home?
If you say no, then the same is true of the second amendment also.
Are U kidding me ? Since when do private landlords become barons of sovereign land , and their leaseholders their subjects? Since when is it common place for any government, private, or corporate entities to usurp, or prohibit another private citizens civil liberties? ! Especially under Deprivation of Rights, Due process, and the property rights of renter! I can imagine the uproar if you told a conservative Christian they couldn’t posess a bible in their dwelling…Or watch Fox news, or engage in political causes you don’t like…What next…Will you remove your residents bathroom doors…I’ve seen this stuff before…On the East coast, where private property management is targeting senior housing..Intimidating it’s residents to sign new leases “Banning 2nd amendment rights ” of its residents. But not limited to legal firearms; also including collectable knives and swords, bats, or anything that can be used as a weapon…I know, cause one of my elderly relatives–a Lawful US citizen, and vet. Who doesn’t own anything, but is frightened by the Nazis like repercussions. This something new from our own armchair lawyers from the [email protected] side ! Nothing like showing how some groups are at destroying liberty like the Socialist Marxist liberals. If property owners, banks, credit unions, mortgage brokers—*since most independent homeowners don’t actually own their own house. The financial institutions do.* Then most US citizens would have already been arbitrarily and capriciously stripped of their rights long ago …..
No government has ever earned a penny, therefore they own nothing. Yes, we have authorized them to codify some laws, but the “ownership” question is not a player, as a taxpayer I have more ownership in those projects than the entire government.
Watch the crime drop.
Poor people should NOT be allowed to own guns. Look them – they’re poor.
When poor people have guns, you can get a screaming deal on one from them when they get strapped for cash… 🙂
The peasants are revolting!…
You said it! They stink on ice… 🙂
The king is a fink!
I would suggest that you all read LD 1572. This bill directly conflicts with private property rights. This bill has nothing to do with housing authority owned properties and everything to do with privately owned properties that are willing to accept federal housing vouchers/public funds.
The ironic kicker here is that a landlord can still write in a no guns clause to a lease that is not in part or wholly subsidized by public funds.
Funny how they push for more public housing and then want to keep the people live there from protecting themselves.
“That they’re going after the issue is not a surprise,” Spitzer says. “It’s part of their ongoing effort to press guns into every segment of public life.”
Your private domicile is “public life”? Interesting take Mr. Spitzer has on the meaning of words.
‘Chenette, a 24-year-old, second-term legislator, has found the experience bewildering. No group like the NRA should be able to fly into this state and tell lawmakers what to do,” he says.’
So I guess the NRA flew in enough people and got them all registered as voting citizens of the State of Maine to get the law passed…or poor little Chenny doesn’t grasp how a democratic republic works. Since he’s only 24 and most likely a victim of public schooling I vote the latter.
Funny you should say that, because that’s exactly what Bloomberg did to get Universal Background Checks on the ballot as a so-called ‘citizens’ initiative’ measure. the citizens’ initiative process has been completely and utterly abused. Unfortunately, the majority of Mainers-in-two-counties decided otherwise. They’ll get theirs soon, and then they’ll be crying.
I wouldn’t be too fast to give the NRA all the credit. I’m a member of a grassroots organization in Maine. The group has been in the middle of dissolving the concealed carry permit requirement, the ban has been lifted on automatic knives and hunting with suppressors is now allowed again. They’ve set their sights on creating this bill. The NRA has done a world of good but Gun Owners of Maine has been a leading force to get all of these bills passed.
You must have forgotten Bloomberg inserting himself into Virginia politics, trying to get a foothold in the South. His money took away our choice in Governor and Attorney General, and has nearly cost us CHL reciprocity.
This “Landlords Property rights –where as, used to Deprive a Lawful US citizen of their Legal Civil rights” is a bunch of nonsense! Even the NRA has been guilty of spouting off the same falsehoods. Fellow [email protected] supporters, you need to stand up to this misdirection. I certainly call this a form of “Backdoor Gun Control/Anti -2nd amendment intuitives”. I wouldn’t be surprised if Liberal forces are invaded [email protected] organizations with this fuzzy-logic quiz to restrict liberty through private means. If this weren’t something new..There already would have been large segments of US citizens prohibited from exercising any of their civil liberties. Just because a landlord/landowner/Property management company said so..While taking your money….It’s a far cry to say a landlords decree to Ban the 2nd amendment, or restrictions of religious items on a premises–such as a bible…Would meet the same criteria has no pets allowed or no smoking… Sounds more like “Creeping Incrementalism” to me…
What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ” DOESN’T ANYONE UNDERSTAND? ! Do you believe that only “private homeowners, or landlords ” are exempt because their NOT a government entity? ! That the US Constitutional-Bill of Rights only applies to the Government? ! Remember, no one can restrict another private citizens civil rights! That’s Deprivation of Rights, of Due process, Discrimination, etc. It would be ironic if the banks started to tell landlords, and homeowners the same thing because “their “the organization that truly owns the property until the mortgage is paid off…The Financial institution–say Bank of America tells property owner *(@)* that not only do they not want 2 amendment restrictions on the premise.. But, they want prohibitions on Christian, or Catholic religious items because they may offend any Muslim within the area…Furthermore, The Financial institution wants to prohibit certain political actions on the property as well.. The Financial institution doesn’t support non-liberalism that maybe deamed “hateful to DNC voters”. Such as “Trump 2016”. It may cause others of another political persuasive to become upset and contact police because it may be perceived as a “hate crime”. The Financial institution doesn’t want to be legally obliged to provide Grief Counselors…Also, “No pets allowed, and NO Smoking” –(* Just like the German ₩ehrmacht Republic did…* )
I think this is a good thing.
Not everyone who lives in subsidized housing is a leach or a criminal, some are honest people who are down on their luck or who don’t have the education or skills to pull themselves out of the pit they’re in. Those people have just as much right as anyone else to have the means to defend themselves. You can bet that the gangers and criminals living in that same subsidized housing will have a gun if they want one, “Gun Free Zone” rules notwithstanding.
But of course, people like Bloomberg and his troop of trained Liberal apes feel like they should be able to dictate every aspect of other people’s lives. Well, to put it in the vernacular of a large proportion of the Liberal voting base . . . Homey don’t play dose games! Liberals need to back out of people’s lives and quit trying to rule the world.
I’m glad the “old white men” of the NRA are fighting for the civil rights of black people and anyone else living in public housing. I have followed their efforts since watching a black woman on night line with Ted Koppel interviewing her.
He was so surprised she got help from the NRA.
White liberals like him are just ignorant.
However it has been libertarians who said if you take from the government you have to give up your constitutional rights if asked. I listened to them all the time on talk radio in Virginia say it. Perhaps their view has changed.
But the NRA views have not changed. You never have to give up your gun rights.
I saw lost of blacks at the NRA convention in nashville Tn last year.