The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 20, 2011, 04:19 PM   #26
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"Why are we paying other people's rent? "

So they won't move in with us.

The residents had to sign a contract/lease to live in public housing. Just like an HOA, if you don't like the rules, don't go there.

John
johnbt is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 10:58 AM   #27
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,684
However, we return to the issue of rights. HOAs used to be able to discriminate on race, religion, ethnicity. Now they can't and that is a good thing.

Many feel that self-defense is an intrinsic property of folks that cannot be used as a basis to discriminate. While it is not now a protected class, so to speak - the same concept should apply.

Esp. if this is housing has a governmental supervision - then such rights should not be constrained.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 12:55 PM   #28
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
The case was filed back in May of 2010 in the Delaware Court of the Chancery. It was later moved to federal District Court, by whom? The NRA or by Wilmington Housing Authority?

At any rate, I tried searching Justia last night and couldn't find the case. Anyone know the actual name of the case?
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 03:49 PM   #29
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
It's Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority et al.

Here's the link you want, Al:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/del...cv00473/44289/
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Housing/Accommodations
Cause: 28:1441
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: None
So, it looks like the judge took one look and said, "Nuh-uh, I'm passing this to the Feds."... ?

And that's all I know, as I don't have a subscription...
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 10:42 PM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
But I do! ... Back in a few moments...

The Docket will be here in a few minutes (until the archive is refreshed, you will get a "404 Not Found" error).

Unlike the (what's become) traditional 2A civil rights cases we have been following, this one is proceeding at a normal pace - real slow - lots of discovery. This is more how Chicago wants to go (and we may see it yet), in Benson v. Chicago. I have made the 2nd Amended Complaint (#40) and the defendants MSJ (#89) available to read.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 11:24 PM   #31
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Oh, and thanks for the Justia link, Vanya. I was looking for the wrong Judge on Justia.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 08:52 AM   #32
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
After reading the complaint (as amended) and the response that the WHA gave, the methods the Housing Authority went into revising its policies and the manner in which the NRA recruited the plaintiffs and refusal to participate in the revisions of the leasing policies (defendants MSJ #89), I find that the court will most likely dismiss the entire suit.

At best, this was a reach for the NRA. At worst, it was ill conceived as a method of litigation. The plaintiffs simply do not have standing.

Is there an actual case here? Yes, but not in the manner the NRA has executed this debacle.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 01:04 PM   #33
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Thanks, Al, for putting up the links to those two documents.

This is just.... pathetic. I especially liked the part where the two plaintiffs, in their depositions, allowed as how they thought the restrictions at issue in the lawsuit (on weapons in public areas) were actually a pretty good idea. "Straw plaintiffs," indeed.

Sheesh. What a waste. The NRA should've known better.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 01:35 PM   #34
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
I will say I was tempted to download a few more filings... Until I finished reading the complaint and the defendants MSJ.

The problem I see is that the NRA (actually, the NRA associate attorney) did not do a good job of vetting their clients. Nor did they do a particularly good job in mitigating the damages (failing to attend and input their views at the public meetings - mitigation of damages is required by law).

This could have been a decent lawsuit. It could have set some decent precedence in public housing. As it stands however, it may have the exact opposite effect. sigh. Strategy was good, tactics were abhorrent.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 24, 2011, 01:49 PM   #35
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
I Thought there was a case from the 70s or 80s dealing with possessing firearms in Public Housing. Don't remember the particulars. It may not be realivant.
ltc444 is offline  
Old July 25, 2011, 10:26 AM   #36
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"However, we return to the issue of rights."

There are limits to rights, especially when a person agrees to forgo an activity. Example: When you buy a ticket to a movie you agree not to be disruptive. And they can throw you out for exercising your first amendment rights during the screening.
johnbt is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 11:34 AM   #37
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,276
Federal Court rules Wilmington Housing Authority ban on open carry is Constitutional

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...*********=Feed

The headline reads, "Gun ruling may become a model for the nation" but that's Brady fueled optimism on the part of the MSM over a ruling upholding the prohibition of open carry in common areas by the Wilmington Housing Authority.

The real news is that after the NRA sued them, they immediately rescinded their total ban on weapon possession for residents, then implemented this ban on open carry. While I disagree with the ban, it does appear Constitutional under Heller and McDonald in that it doesn't prohibit possession or concealed carry.

Ultimately it may be a good thing (although open-carry advocates may disagree). Historically, the fight has been to permit concealed carry, overcoming 19th Century rulings equating concealed carry to cowardice, treachery, and ambushing. I, for one, would welcome such provisions, if that means that concealed carry must then be allowed as a matter of law. That would strengthen the argument that concealed carry is a right that should not require a permit or license to be exercised.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 12:27 PM   #38
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,317
I can't find a link to the actual ruling, but if I recall, this was a follow-up to the Montag case brought (and settled) shortly after Heller.

Was carry a question in this case, or simply ownership?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 02:58 PM   #39
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Was carry a question in this case, or simply ownership?
Originally it was possession, but Wilmington caved on that shortly after the NRA filed suit. Then they passed an ordinance against open carry in the common areas of the housing area, which the NRA continued to fight.

I thought I saw the case listed in your master list some time ago, but I don't remember the name of the case.

In any event, it looks to me like the NRA managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I just don't see prohibiting open carry as being that big a deal so long as concealed carry was available, and the prohibition on open carry could be used as an argument against discretionary issue. Now, the media are literally shouting in triumph that this is the beginning of a national trend...
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 05:22 PM   #40
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
This is DELAWARE! Concealed carry is on a "may issue" basis so this ruling stinks to high heaven.

IF it had happened in a shall-issue CCW state, no big deal.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 06:53 PM   #41
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,696
Just another District Court (trial court level) decision. Thus far, the thread court judges, except in Maryland, have been ruling against us in the "carrying outside the home" cases.

This is all just part of the preliminaries.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 08:55 PM   #42
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
The case is #53. Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority et al.

The docket is here and the opinion is here.

ETA: Merged new thread with old thread and changed thread title.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 09:38 PM   #43
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,317
Thanks, Al!

According to the court, Heller protects the possession and use of a firearm in the home. The court finds that "home" is an area from which a person exerts ownership and may exclude others. They find that the common areas in question do not qualify as "home."

One good note is on page 29, regarding the level of scrutiny required. The Brady Campaign argued for a "reasonable regulation" test, which the court finds lacking.

Quote:
Given the Third Circuit's application of intermediate scrutiny in Mazzarella, the Court concludes that the reasonable regulation test does not provide enough protection of the Second Amendment rights that are assumed to be at issue.
They find that, as time, place and manner regulations on 1st Amendment speech are acceptable, so they are with the 2nd.

I don't particularly like the decision, but I can see how the Court ended up there.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 1, 2012, 11:07 PM   #44
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...The court finds that "home" is an area from which a person exerts ownership and may exclude others. They find that the common areas in question do not qualify as "home."...
And that, standing alone, isn't an unreasonable or unsupportable conclusion. It is consistent with the principles of property law applicable in many contexts and for many purposes.

The case really needs to be understood in terms of the right to bear arms outside the home -- which is arguably also protected under the Second Amendment and as was so found in Heller and McDonald.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11343 seconds with 9 queries