Federal Court rules Wilmington Housing Authority ban on open carry is Constitutional

[WolfMacabre]

Here is the link to the article: http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ational-impact

I was just wondering what everyone's opinions are. Personally I think there is a valid point for not wanting to allow guns in common areas of public housing

""He said no one would want the situation where "the guy with the gun gets to pick the channels.""

I agree with this in the sense that in a public area with children it might cause some undue anxiety. My feeling though is that maybe it should be allowed in the public areas as long as it's not displayed or is kept holstered the entire time. I definitely think a laundry room is a good place to have one though, lots of people use laundry rooms and if you're doing laundry late at night it might b comforting to have.


Anyone else have an opinion? sorry my post was poorly written, wanted to throw it on before i went to sleep.

[Don H]

Doesn't appear to be much different than the "blood will be running in the streets" argument used when CCW was proposed in a lot of states. If there isn't a demonstrated problem, why enact a law or regulation to restrict something that 'might' happen? The BG's are going to ignore it anyway.

[Patriot86]

Wow they had the BALLS to ban gun ownership for public housing types in the first place?
How about you ban free speech and freedom of religion in public housing because both might incite violence. Most incidents of historical violence start over a clash of ideas, or religions and have caused far more fatalities than law abiding gun owners.

This is way worse than a handgun ban, or a CCW ban, this is just blatantly unconstitutional.


This is just frightening to me as an American that any state or municipality have officials with so little regard to the constitution.

[thallub]

Doesn't appear to be much different than the "blood will be running in the streets" argument used when CCW was proposed in a lot of states.

+1

It makes me angry when gov't denies law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves. It's all about control.

[Mike Irwin]

"Personally I think there is a valid point for not wanting to allow guns in common areas of public housing."


Hum... Let me fix that for you...


Personally I think there is a valid point for not wanting to allow illegal guns in the hands of criminals in common areas of public housing."

There really should be a law against that sort of thing, don't you know.

[Standing Wolf]

Why are we paying other people's rent?

[MLeake]

Interestingly enough, we had a discussion about this sort of thing in another thread. I'd mentioned such an attempt had been shot down in Portland, ME, not that many years ago... some people seemed to think it was impossible a state or local government would try this.

But it's been tried before, and will probably be tried again.

[Davey]

Jada Battle said she wouldn't mind if the WHA brought back its ban on guns. "I don't think there should be any," she said. "I mean, my daughter can get into things in my room.

Another coward not willing to take responsibility for her own family's safety.

He said no one would want the situation where "the guy with the gun gets to pick the channels."

More of the "people shooting each other over parking spots" garbage.

This whole article seems like more of the "oh god won't someone please think of the children" tripe.

[Aguila Blanca]

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Some smart dudes wrote that a couple of hundred years or so ago. Works for me.

Your title says your post is about an NRA article. Where is it? The link takes me to a newspaper article, not to something by the NRA.

[LockedBreech]

As a university student I am vehemently against the stripping of Second Amendments rights in certain living locations for dubious reasons.

I have yet to hear a rebuttal when I argue with teachers and administrators at my University about the ban on guns in campus apartments or dorms.

"Oh, that many kids, with alcohol and immaturity, add guns and it's just a disaster."

"Okay, so any area where a bunch of people live close to each other and drink should suspend the Constitution of the United States?"

"Umm, errr, uhhh"

Infuriating. And as a college student, I'm constantly puffed by professors as being the upper edge of society. What an advantage you'll have by having your degree! So few do! Look at you! Never mind that some of the most successful business people you know never set foot on a campus!

Edited for veiled obscenity. GEM

Why can't I have a pistol and box of ammo to go along with my textbooks and laptop?

Because anti-gunners will find any logic, any reason, to strip your guns from you. No other reason at all.

[Eghad]

The Supreme Court has said that people have a right to own a firearm to defend themselves.

I looked and looked but I did not see an exception for folks who lived in government or government sponsored housing.

no brainer..they have a right to be able to defend themselves in any area of the housing development.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is probably fundamentally racist - interesting to break down the ethnicities in public housing to see a repeat of the origin of ban laws.

As far as campus carry, Scholar - I've explained the issue before in a previous post.

But if you don't want a degree and think YOU will be the next Bill Gates, go try it.

Also, there is more to an education than making a buck. I think if that's your sole goal in college, you are a waste of space.

Last, it is impressive to use veiled obscenities which I edited. Don't do that again.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by WolfMacabre

I agree with this in the sense that in a public area with children it might cause some undue anxiety. My feeling though is that maybe it should be allowed in the public areas as long as it's not displayed or is kept holstered the entire time.

Delaware is a state that allows open carry without a permit... so I can't see how allowing public housing residents to carry concealed, but not openly, would pass muster.

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"Personally I think there is a valid point for not wanting to allow guns in common areas of public housing."

Hum... Let me fix that for you...

Personally I think there is a valid point for not wanting to allow illegal guns in the hands of criminals in common areas of public housing."

And the ironic thing about this is that according to their website, the WHA does do criminal background checks on prospective tenants:

Criminal Background
WHA screens applicants for criminal activity. An applicant must be determined ineligible for life if they were convicted of selling methamphetamines on federally funded property or convicted of a crime that requires "lifetime" registration as a sex offender. For all other criminal activity, WHA specifically looks at those committed in the last 3 years. Other factors would be the number of arrests and the severity of the law broken. Crimes of violence, destruction of property, and drug related crimes are especially scrutinized. The WHA may consider arrests beyond the 3 year timeframe if needed to make a determination.

So, they don't automatically exclude anyone convicted of a felony, but based on this, the residents ought to be a "cleaner" bunch than, say, an age-and-income matched group not living in public housing... so any argument about giving prohibited persons easier access to guns falls sort of flat, it seems to me.

And, Glenn, you're probably right about the racism implicit in such a policy. It would be interesting to see the numbers.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

As far as campus carry, Scholar - I've explained the issue before in a previous post.

Can I ask which post so I can search it? A search for campus carry had too many results and I'm not sure how to search your post record when you have such a large post count.

Very sorry for the completely unintended "veiled obscenity". It was unintentional and I had no desire to impress any of these anonymous internet folks.

[carguychris]

Delaware is a state that allows open carry without a permit... so I can't see how allowing public housing residents to carry concealed, but not openly, would pass muster... And the ironic thing about this is that according to their website, the WHA does do criminal background checks on prospective tenants...

^^^ This. I cannot fathom any convincing legal argument that the common areas in a public housing complex are somehow any different than the common areas in a privately-owned apartment complex. With regard to guns, what is legal in the latter should be legal in the former. Period.

And, Glenn, you're probably right about the racism implicit in such a policy. It would be interesting to see the numbers.

Indeed. When discussing policies like this, many of the arguments amount to thinly-veiled racism. "It's important to recognize the criminal background of many of the, uh, people like the ones who, uh, typically live in these places." (Unfortunately, in my area, I've mostly seen this tripe used to argue why public housing shouldn't be located near established lily-white suburbs.)

[t4terrific]

I think all have the right to carry a firearm anywhere they go, unless they (as an individual) prove they can not be trusted.

On the other hand, if you agree to let someone else house you, then you must follow the rules they set for you. If you don't like it, move out. It's your choice. Would you rather pay your own way through life, and live like a free man, or live off of others, and be subjected to their preferences for you?

The Constitution doesn't guarantee public housing anyway.

[Aguila Blanca]

For some, recognizing and commenting on the overall character of people who live in public housing may be racist. For others, it's nothing but a reality check.

I used to work for the public housing authority in my state's second largest city. I know what the PHAs are dealing with. While there are a few good, decent people living in public housing, for the most part they are the elderly, living in the elderly projects. The family projects are bad enough that even "people of color" who don't live there won't go there. We had one project in which we hired a mid-size sitework contractor to completely renovate the grounds. New walks, new paving, new grass, get rid of old, dead trees and plant new ones, install new fencing. You might think that the residents would welcome such improvements. And some did ... but others did not. They decided it was a good idea to harass the workers and steal as many of the tools as they could.

That lasted three days. The police "declined" to investigate. So after a couple of days each of the work crews gained two non-working superintendents. Oh ... did I mention that we suspected the reason this particular contractor was able to underbid the competition was that he was part of the Mafia and they used the company to launder money? The neighborhood bad boys learned quickly that they weren't as bad as they thought they were. Mercifully, they were (barely) bright enough to understand they were outgunned and outclassed, so they backed off rather than engaging in any outright gun battles. That was a couple of decades ago -- the same situation today probably WOULD result in an outright gun battle.

When I first took my job, the executive director (black) personally took me around to each and every project in the authority. He made certain that people saw me arriving with him, and he made certain that he personally introduced me to the key players in each project. He told them all that I was one of the key members of his "personal staff." (Not much of a lie, in fact. Administratively there was one person between me and the exec, but functionally I reported directly to him.) Once that protocol had been observed, Sam told me I wouldn't have any trouble going to any project during the day, but that under no circumstances should I ever go to one at night.

Ooooooookay ...

[Uncle Buck]

Jada Battle said she wouldn't mind if the WHA brought back its ban on guns. "I don't think there should be any," she said. "I mean, my daughter can get into things in my room. We've got old people here that don't have it all. We've got kids that don't have it all. We've got adults that don't have it all. Half the people here don't have it all. Having guns around wouldn't help."

If she is qualified as a therapist to make that decision, isn't there a way she could enter it in to the "official" record and have it recorded in the NCIC data base that these people are mentally incompetent to own a fire arm?

If you look at the history of gun control, a lot (not all) of it is based on racism.

Vanya mentions the background checks done on applicants. Where the problem arises is once a person is allowed to move in, it is possible some of their "non-desirable" relatives might need a place to stay. I think this may be one of the dark horses in the closet they do not want to admit to.

My Personal Opinion: If the people who live there wish to give up their individual rights, let them, but do not make other who wish to preserve the freedoms and liberties we are entitled to, also give up theirs.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Uncle Buck

Vanya mentions the background checks done on applicants. Where the problem arises is once a person is allowed to move in, it is possible some of their "non-desirable" relatives might need a place to stay. I think this may be one of the dark horses in the closet they do not want to admit to.

Good point.

My Personal Opinion: If the people who live there wish to give up their individual rights, let them, but do not make other who wish to preserve the freedoms and liberties we are entitled to, also give up theirs.

It's somewhat the same problem as that of restricting the gun rights of the mentally ill, which people on our side often suggest as an alternative to gun bans in the aftermath of rampage shootings. Yes, OK, there may be reasons why a given population is more likely, statistically, to abuse those rights. But individuals, even if they're members of a "risky" population, ought not to be deprived of their rights without some form of due process; to allow this is to put the rights of all of us at risk.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since any group of folks of any background will demonstrate bad behavior based on social history and context, their identity is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. The issue is that all have rights and embedded in the crappy folk, there are good people.

They should not be disenfranchised, so to speak, from the right to defend themselves. If they can legally qualify to have a firearm, they should.

Whether they have crazy relatives visiting or criminal relatives is also irrelevant. If they qualify, they qualify. If they give the gun to Uncle Crook or Aunt Crazy, then if that breaks the law deal with it.

We cannot pre-empt their right based on a possibility of a crazy or crooked relative.

Are those folks in public housing perhaps more likely to have such - maybe but so what. It's not relevant as we don't brand folks for others actions or predicted actions.

[WolfMacabre]

I didn't mean it was an NRA article, it was a link to an article I got through the NRA, said it a bit wrong.

And I'm not saying I think it's right to ban it at all, or that it would be right to allow concealed carry only. I just personally think it would satisfy more people that way. The gun carriers get to have their guns (given they would need a ccw permit) and the people who rather pretend guns don't exist get to keep pretending.

I also feel that way just because I'm a parent, not because I don't want my kids around guns, because I do and will encourage them learning about guns. I say that more from the stand point of this is how I wish to raise my children, and I don't think anyone has the right to push their way of life on my kids. Basically, if someone decides they don't want their child around guns, who am I to decide that their opinion doesn't count and to cause issues for them (I feel the same way about people talking religion).

[carguychris]

We cannot pre-empt their right based on a possibility of a crazy or crooked relative... Are those folks in public housing perhaps more likely to have such - maybe but so what. It's not relevant as we don't brand folks for others actions or predicted actions.

To address Glenn's last point, I seriously doubt anyone could find a statistically meaningful difference between residents of public housing and residents of a nearby inexpensive private apartment complex- yet we don't have laws banning people from owning guns at their private apartment.*

If you add your local $150/week no-tell motel to the mix, I'll bet that's where you'll find the largest number of crazies, felons, drug addicts, and other assorted prohibited persons... but guns aren't banned there either.*

I just can't fathom a convincing argument why banning guns in public housing is a more legally sound idea than banning guns in all sorts of other public places. The presence of "risky" people doesn't equal justification for stripping rights away from the law-abiding.

The arguments for banning guns in public housing basically boil down to "Because We Can & It Makes Us Feel Good" and "It's Our Obligation As Fine Upstanding Citizens To Take Good Care Of The [insert "nice" racial epithet]s So They Can Learn To Be Like Us".

*In most places, anyway.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's because the power doesn't exist yet to ban guns in those places.

Note that major bans are fought for in areas with minority populations. That's why in states that have liberal (other use) carry laws, the cities with minorities try for special exemptions or local DAs argue they will ignore or try to circumvent the law.

[scud]

there are enough laws already why add to them?

[Derek Scammon]

If the residents of public housing are such a bunch of scumbags that they can't be trusted with firearms, we need to ban public housing, not the guns in them. Additionally, if such a preponderance of residents can't be trusted with firearms, by what right do we expect the one or two non-knuckleheads to trust their neighbors with their lives? If my neighbor is too crazy/criminal/hopped up to have a gun, I'm more likely to need one.

I'm not saying that residents of public housing are scumbags, just following the anti-gun argument's logic (illogic?) trail.