Yet another court case affirming 2nd Amendment rights for the individual

[Lurks Often]

At the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/18/public-housing-tenants-have-a-right-to-bear-arms-even-in-common-areas/

I'm sure some will be along to complain that the poor in government housing shouldn't be able to protect themselves.

[Loudly]

1. Delaware doubling down on dumb.

More guns and ammo?

Yeah, just what public housing needs.

[uncommonlink]

2. What's wrong with residents of public housing having the same rights as residents of private homes?

[Loudly]

3. The same so-called "right" is the source of the same undeniable problem.

Misuse and lack of accountability for wrongful possession.

[uncommonlink]

4. So called "right"?

Do tell.
Of course you're wrong on that, it's an enumerated right, affirmed many times.
But again, why shouldn't residents of public housing have the same rights as residents of private homes?

[Loudly]

6. "So-called" as in imaginary.

How can there be a "right" to the means of conveniently depriving others of all their genuine rights?

One does not need to be a genius jurist to see the flaw in that logic lol.

[uncommonlink]

7. Why don't you ask the framer's of the Constitution, SCOTUS, numerous Constitutional Scholors?

They are diametrically opposed to your view point.
But that's not the issue here,
Why shouldn't residents of public housing enjoy the same rights as residents of private homes?
Can you give me an answer to that?

[Loudly]

14. Is the presence of persons legally disqualified from access to a gun

greater or less in public housing than in private homes?

That alone should explain the difference.

Not that I buy into the whole "gun rights" myth whatsoever, so it's a dubious premise to begin with.

[uncommonlink]

16. What difference does that make?

Even in private homes with a disqualified person, a gun can be present as long as it's not accessible to them, IOW, locked up without access to the key or combo.

If I understand you, because there might be some residents disqualified, then all the residents of public housing should be disqualified? That about right?

How authoritarian of you.

[Loudly]

18. Any more authoritarian than needing a doctor's prescription for an antibiotic?

Um, no.

[uncommonlink]

20. Prescriptions and antibiotic's aren't an enumerated right.

So, you've again failed to make your case.

Did I understand you correctly that because some in public housing may be disqualified then all should be disqualified, even if they've committed no crimes that would disqualify?

[Loudly]

23. Your willful misreading of the 2A is your own blind spot to overcome.

Together with your refusal to accept the fact that armed rebellion is not legitimate in this country. Having fought a Civil War to its decisive conclusion.

You can argue the desirability of guns and ammo in the hands of the public as something worthwhile of being suffered at whatever cost to society. Indulging some policy predilection of the fearful.

But it's futile to try to dress it up as a "right."

[uncommonlink]

26. I beg to differ, it's not me misreading the Second Amend.

but that's not an answer to my question to you.

Are we to understand that because some in public housing may be disqualified to own a firearm, then everyone in public housing should be disqualified, even if they've committed no crime that would disqualify them?

Where did I ever say anything about armed rebellion?

[Loudly]

34. Here. This is for you.

Homeless shooting homeless.

Seems appropos to your concern for public housing residents.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Persons-of-interest-sought-in-triple-killing-5330958.php

[uncommonlink]

35. Again, you refuse to answer the question.

So I'll just chalk it up to that you can't give a coherent answer and call it a day.

[Loudly]

37. I categorically reject your premise.

Nobody has the "right" of access to guns and ammunition.

Why quibble about the various reasons why this is true?

You really want me working on a list of reasons specific to public housing?

The uncontrolled presence of convicted criminals? Check.
The lack of disposable income to ensure the means of securing firearms from children? Check.
The danger of rounds penetrating windows and walls? Check.

Geesh.

Do you get how practical common sense only underscores how any such "right" cannot possibly exist?

The court had a simple choice of ruling in favor of safety or chaos, and it chose chaos.

So the downward spiral continues, at least for now.

[uncommonlink]

39. Ok, you're in favor of denying a right to lawful residents of public housing because some residents

might be disqualified?

How authoritarian of you, luckily, the courts don't agree with your brand of rights.

[beevul]

42. Then you categorically reject reality.

I categorically reject your premise.

Nobody has the "right" of access to guns and ammunition.

Why quibble about the various reasons why this is true?

Then you categorically reject reality.

ALL rights belong to people.

They are not "authorizations" granted by government.


You have no business lecturing anyone about "practical common sense" if you don't understand that simple reality.

[Loudly]

57. Here. This is for you.

Now you must accept it. Because it is the society you are promoting and asking for.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/palatine_rolling_meadows/chi-palatine-homicide-dad-son-found-shot-to-death-20140319,0,6546532.story

[uncommonlink]

61. But I thought that Cook County (Chicago) has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation?

[Loudly]

62. Indiana and downstate Illinois do not.

Which is why the solution must be pursued seamlessly from sea to shining sea.

[uncommonlink]

64. Again,

how long would it take voters to send the party that proposed or passed such laws packing?

[beevul]

75. What utter nonsense.

By that logic, YOU must accept every gun related death in Chicago. Because its the gun regulated society you are promoting and asking for.


Not a one of us who are pro-gun, promote or accept misuse/illegal use.


That you are unable to separate illegal/misuse of firearms from legal use and ownership, while it does explain every single argument you use, is still nonsense.

[Loudly]

76. Sorry, but if you're for guns in the hands of the public, it's all on you.

I, on the other hand, am absolved.

I'm on the side of the angels.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. Then you apparently accept the consequences for the attack of Amanda Collins.

Because it was one of your gun-free/free-rape zones where the attack occurred.

[Straw Man]

82. The side of the angels?

That's rich. You're on the side of the 1%. That becomes clearer with every post you make.

You seem to be blissfully aware of a little thing called the criminal code, which punishes misdeeds done with firearms and various other types of misdeeds. The framers of our republic tried to ensure that it could do so without infringing fundamental rights. Would that you could see their wisdom, but apparently that's too much to ask.

[uncommonlink]

43. Again,

the Framer's, the Courts, and numerous Constitutional Scholars disagree with you.

Whom to believe? You or those listed above?

[gejohnston]

9. It is also the best means of

keeping others from depriving those same rights from you.

[Loudly]

13. Depends on who shoots first, now doesn't it?

Which obviously promotes (1) carrying, and (2) shooting first.

Drags everyone down in a most corrosive way.

[gejohnston]

15. most violent attacks don't involve firearms

If the attacker is larger or wielding a tire iron, then yes by all means shoot first.

[beevul]

11. We get it. You find it uncomfortable being on the wrong side of history. N/T

[aznativ]

12. I'll throw a grenade into the middle of this...

" But again, why shouldn't residents of public housing have the same rights as residents of private homes?"

Perhaps LOUDLY does not want the same rights for them because they are more likely to be....wait for it....

Black!

and they will kill each other.

Maybe I am wrong, but hey maybe now we will get an answer.

[Loudly]

17. Perhaps, rather than play the race card, you can explain

whether property owners can decide whether to allow guns on their own property?

Or does your so-called "right" to carry triumph over that genuine right too?

Because it's public housing authorities which own public housing property.

[uncommonlink]

21. Sure, private property owners can,

but in this case, the housing project is publicly funded by the state, so they are subject to state law.

[jeepnstein]

24. What other rights do you want landlords to regulate?

Stomping on the Constitution is only fun when it's people you don't like who are being harmed. Or are you saying that only property owners should have the full protection of Constitutional Rights?

[Loudly]

30. It doesn't follow to decry harm when you advocate for guns.

That's blatantly non sequitur.

[jeepnstein]

36. Thanks, that's just what I thougt.

[aznativ]

78. Sure property owners can decide

that. Problem here is that the property owner is the government.

The government does not have the legal standing to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right except in a few situations.

One may say well the military prohibits weapons in the barracks. Sure that may be true, but that is because it is a security issue and the people affected are in the military who willingly forfeit free exercise of their civil rights in certain situations. The military wants control of the guns. On-base housing allows residents to possess firearms since they are living in what amounts to a rented domicile.

The way I look at it, section 8 or not, if the cops have to get a warrant to search it, well the govt cant prohibit you from having a gun in it.

As for the race thing...

-48% of population of public housing in the us is black.
-93% of blacks killed by homicide were killed by other blacks

A reasonable person would assume that if there is a high population of blacks in public housing and there is a murder....it will be a black person killed and the killer will be black....thats the fact jack. no race card about it.


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf
http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/spring95/spring95.html

So that being the case, and it is a fact that nationwide roughly half of all homicides are committed by blacks and about half the victims are black.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl03.xls

[Keefer]

45. Why doesn't a resident of public housing

deserve to protect themselves from those residents of the same public housing who own firearms gotten illegally? Those obtained illegally are responsible for more crimes than those who purchase firearms legally. Yet you want to disallow legal gun owners the right to defend themselves?

[Loudly]

49. Where do you think illegal guns come from??

They all emerge from the factory as "good."

What will be the natural result of encouraging their proliferation?

[Keefer]

52. Why don't we focus

our energy on disarming those who own guns illegally FIRST, then we'll see about working on the legal gun owners?

[Loudly]

53. Better idea is to turn off the spigot of new product (including ammo).

Let attrition take care of the proliferation problem.

[Keefer]

54. Highly unlikely,

not to mention unconstitutional.

[uncommonlink]

55. How do you turn off the spigot?

With a law?
How long do you think it would take the voters to oust the party that did that?

How long would it take the courts to overturn such a law as unconstitutional?

[Loudly]

56. You are trapped in a very small box.

How much of a leap do you think it is to find as a matter of law that there is no "right" to manufacture, import, distribute or sell?

Once SCOTUS is comprised of a majority who think that this "gun rights" nonsense is an evolutionary dead end?

[uncommonlink]

58. If what you say of SCOTUS were true,

then why hasn't Roe v Wade been overturned yet? It's a RW court after all?
Let me tell you why, the justices don't like messing with settled law, which is what Heller v DC is, and McDonald v Chicago is.

Now that we've blown that particular argument apart, what about the voters replacing the political party that tried that?
The majority of the country is against bans and would not look kindly upon any party trying to do what you suggest.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165563/remains-divided-passing-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

[Loudly]

60. Interesting, isn't it?

How Roe v. Wade can stand as such settled law while it's so increasingly difficult to obtain legal abortions in this country?

Mainly because there are fewer and fewer sources from which to buy one.

Good analogy!

[uncommonlink]

63. And the courts have consistently overturned those laws that states have passed

restricting a woman's right to an abortion.

But you haven't answered part 2
How long would the voters tolerate the party that tried to pass laws banning the production, and distribution of firearms and ammo?

Just until the next election and then they would be out in the wilderness and those laws would be repealed very quick, probably before the courts ruled them unconstitutional.

[Loudly]

65. Yes, it's a political struggle all right.

Nixon's southern strategy all over again.

Disgruntled white voters leaving the Democratic Party over LBJ's civil rights initiatives.

But desegregation prevailed!

[uncommonlink]

66. But you don't have the american population on your side of this.

Whereas, the majority of americans were in favor of desegregation, huge difference.


You live in IL. right? Your own state has instituted shall issue CC, not even the mighty Cook County (Chicago) could stop the will of the people, what do you think will happen nationally to the party that tried to do what you want?

[Loudly]

67. Gun proliferation is having a surge.

But sentiment will change as the slaughter inevitably grows.

[uncommonlink]

68. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that, I could've retired long before I actually did.

The opposite is happening, violent crime is going down, according to the FBI's UCR.
Can you tell us why that's happening despite the proliferation of firearms?

[Loudly]

69. I think you might be confusing statistics and atrocities.

Statistics don't carry much weight when a Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech incident occurs.

Besides, if violent crime was really going down, I would need to work a hell of a lot harder than I do to find stories of gun deaths. New ones flooding in several times a day.

[uncommonlink]

70. So the FBI is lying about the stats?

No, they're not, but the fact of the matter is that what you want is never going to happen.

[Straw Man]

83. Stats to Shares Loudly ...

... are like sunlight to vampires. He usually disappears at the first rays.

[bowens43]

5. the continued bastardization of the Constitution should not be celebrated.

[hack89]

8. However, the expansion of civil rights should be. nt

[Loudly]

19. Except the right not to have bullets enter your body.

A thoroughly meaningless right once they've already pierced flesh and bone.

[hack89]

22. Do you really think you have an absolute right to be perfectly safe?

think for a second what your attitude would result in if extended to things other than guns.

[Loudly]

25. All you really need to ask is if I have a right to be safe from guns.

Because your competing claim of a "right" to have guns is the wellspring of that threat.

[hack89]

28. No - I am asking if you are claiming an absolute right to be safe.

or are guns the only thing you feel you have a right to be safe from.

[uncommonlink]

29. Why do you keep putting the word, right, in these "?

It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

[Loudly]

32. The right of states to keep arms for the purpose of rebellion against a central government.

That is what is in the Bill of Rights.

And that is what the Covenant of Appomattox settled to the contrary for all time.

[uncommonlink]

33. What state constitution says that?

Link?

[sarisataka]

40. I finally understand

What all of this Covenant of Appomattox drivel is saying.

-the BoR guaranteed the right to rebel against the government
-by force of arms the government put down a rebellion,denying the citizens that right
-therefore the right does not exist

Correct?

[Loudly]

44. Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Which is why every candidate for high office should be asked directly:

"Do you believe there is a right of armed rebellion against the government?"

Anyone who answers in the affirmative needs to bear the consequences of their answer.

i.e. to be laughed off the public stage.

[uncommonlink]

46. Too bad for you the Courts and just about every Constitutional Scholar disagrees with you.

[Loudly]

47. Well, if you want to be precise, too bad for the nation. n/t

[uncommonlink]

50. Your opinion, not mine, nor the majority of the nation.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165563/remains-divided-passing-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

[sarisataka]

48. Have you considered

The logical extension of that argument is that we have NO rights...

[Loudly]

51. If you, as a candidate for high office, care to argue in favor of a "right" to armed rebellion

then you must bear the consequences of how that sounds to voters.

Voters *other* than Tea Partiers, who obviously eat that garbage up with a spoon and a smile.

[sarisataka]

59. Luckily I'm not a candidate for any office

but the argument erases all rights
*Remember I am accepting all of you premises as true*

If the BoR enumerates rights, one of which is the right to armed rebellion
And the Covenant of Appomattox validates the abrogation of an enumerated right in the BoR
therefore the enumerated rights, exemplified by the right of rebellion, may be validly abrogated by the government using force

If there are unenumerated rights as defined in the 9th and 10th amendments of the BoR
And the Covenant of Appomattox validates the abrogation of an enumerated right in the BoR
It follows that unenumerated rights protected by the BoR may validly be abrogated in similar means
As all unenumerated rights are protected by the BoR
Therefore all unenumerated rights may be abrogated by the government

If all enumerated and unenumerated rights may be validly abrogated
Then we actually have no rights

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Does that mean the right to criticize the government also ended at Appomatox?

[Loudly]

73. You're equating criticism with forcible overthrow.

Maybe you're a Citizens United fan?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. An astounding amount of wrong-ness in one short post.

1. Criticism is the antecedent to overthrowing the government.

2. If it weren't for forcible opposition to government -- initially begun as criticism -- there would be no 1st Amendment.

3. For the sake of accuracy, the Confederacy was secessionist, not a coup seeking to displace the government in Washington DC. They were wrong and anti-Constitutional, but they weren't seeking to overthrow the government, only establish their own. Ergo your point about overthrowing government is inaccurate, thus invalidating your point.

4. Abusus non tollit usum. Abuse does not abolish the use. Because the rebellion was unconstitutional its actions have no bearing on the Constitution anymore than one man's bigamy could invalidate another man's lawful marriage.

5. I would also add that at no point did the Union set aside the 2nd Amendment for its own citizens. As the Union safeguarded the rights of its citizens it thereby reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment rights of those citizens.

6. When the Civil War ended there was debate as to which rights the rebels would be allowed to retain. This decision, made well after Appomattox, reinstated all constitutional rights. No exception was made for the 2nd Amendment.

7. The 14th Amendment was crafted explicitly to extend all constitutional rights to the recently freed slaves. That included the 2nd Amendment and it is the basis upon which -- surprise, surprise -- Otis MacDonald (an African America) won his case against the city of Chicago.

8. Even if we accepted your unfounded, unrecognized assertion that the vanquished must submit to the conqueror you would still be forced to accept the fact that those who did not rebel against the Union were not subject to the terms at Appomattox, nor could it be legally imposed upon them. By way of my marriage analogy, the penalty for bigamy cannot be legally imposed on a man who is lawfully married.

9. I would then add that if all rights are subject to terms imposed by conquering force then you do not safeguard rights but all rights are then solely contingent upon the exercise of force. If that is to be the case then the ownership of guns ceases to be a right but rather it becomes an imperative.

Perhaps you should quit while you're behind.

[Loudly]

77. Then you, as a candidate for high office, should be asked directly

whether there is a "right" of armed rebellion against the government.

And be prepared to take the consequences for expressing such a belief.

Which would be support? or rejection? by the electorate for believing that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. Then you, as a candidate for high office, should be asked directly

whether governments have the "right" to exercise collective violence against their populations without deterrent or opposition.

However, it is interesting to note that you abandoned your absurd Appomattox talking point.

This nation was born by armed rebellion. You cannot claim to be an American and eschew armed response to violent government tyranny for all time in all circumstances. You are not a soothsayer and cannot claim to know whether such circumstances will ever arise again in the history of the nation.

If asked directly, do the American people -- or, indeed, any people anywhere -- possess the inherent right to resist the depredations of a violent government tyranny, I would proudly answer in the affirmative.

I dare you to say otherwise. Please tell us how you think the government should be allowed to violently crush the rights of their citizens wholesale and without check.

You strike me as nothing more than an authoritarian who demands to impose your designs based on nothing more than your own appetites. You ignore history, case precedent and the law to decide what is best for others. To you the power of the state is the only power and it is a power -- as you have expressed in your own words -- born solely of brute violence. You are everything the 2A was meant to stymie. You validate its every tenet.

Perhaps that is why you are so wildly opposed to it.

[HALO141]

86. Holy shitballs!

That is, without a doubt, the most delusional, myopic thing I've seen in a long time. (And that's saying a LOT.) It is also explicitly NOT what the Second Amendment says. In order for your assertion to be true:
1) Governments would have to have "rights." They do not. Only individuals have rights. Governments, be they federal, state or local, have authority granted them by a constitution or charter. "Authority" is not the same thing as a "right."
2) The phrase, "the people," would have to mean something different in that one amendment than it does everywhere else in the Constitution. In point of fact, that phrase has been held to be a term of art, consistent in its meaning, throughout the Constitution.
3) The Second Amendment would be the only amendment contained in the Bill of Rights that was not put there to protect the people against government excess/abuse.


As to your other point...

If your "Covenant of Appomattox" invalidated your "right of the states to rebel against a central government" then your "right to not have bullets enter your body" has been similarly invalidated by every shooting of a member of the general public by a government official whether that shooting was justified or not.


Rights, by their nature, exist independently of government and/or the capricious whims of society. Though an individual (or a whole society) may be denied his/her rights by the tyrannical application of force, those rights still exist. Though an individual (or a whole society) may refuse to recognize or defend their rights, those rights still exist. So, basically, it's not up to you, your friends, your community, your state or the feds. My rights exist and I will exercise them as I see fit. Any person with an understanding of firearms and fair mechanical skills can make a gun in his living room out of 10 dollars worth of junk purchased at Home Depot. It won't be sophisticated and it won't be pretty but it'll work well enough to acquire a factory made gun along with appropriate ammunition.

[gejohnston]

10. it is the only logically constant ruling possible

given the SCOTUS rulings. If the DE SC ruled that they don't have second amendment rights in public housing, another authoritarian (either from the right or left) could argue that they don't have fourth amendment rights either.
http://www.csmonitor.com/1994/0524/24191.html

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=41+Wayne+L.+Rev.+1469&key=15754800427a220de344612fa885a52e

[Lurks Often]

38. I'm sure the 1% appreciate your support n/t

[upaloopa]

27. Trashing

Tired of useless gunner pissing contest threads

[SQUEE]

41. otherwise known as the "Mary had a little lamb" gambit.

Usually done as fingers are stuffed in ears...

[Eleanors38]

31. WHA is not a paternalistic plantation where the Boss suspends rights.

A government has an obligation to recognize and defend a citizen's rights; local government cannot do thus due to the 14th Amendment.

We had a discussion some months back concerning a private landlord's powers to "ban" firearms in his/her lease agreement, but the government should not establish a constitutional free trade zone where it can abrogate rights which it deems "dangerous."

[oneshooter]

81. Are you referring to CastleBansaLot?

If so them they may complain that their rights are being removed.

[Eleanors38]

84. Don't know, do they have snow white Ionic or Corinthian columns?

[oneshooter]

85. I believe that they are white Greek style

All the better to hold up high the great truths that lie below.

[Eleanors38]

87. Probably Ironic columns.

[Token Republican]

71. Gun nutters win again

Its absurd that the bill of rights should apply to common areas in public housing.

Not only should the 2A be suspended, but the right to privacy and free speech should be eliminated as well for people in the common areas. Full cavity search? Go for it. Complain about it? Jail time.