NRA Sues D.C. Over Guns in Public Housing
Current District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) rules forbid law-abiding residents from owning a firearm for any lawful purpose. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is supporting and financing a lawsuit to challenge this policy. The case is Scott v. District of Columbia Housing Authority.
DCHA residents, just like all Americans, have a fundamental, individual right to keep firearms in their homes for self-defense. This right, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Heller and McDonald decisions, is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Denying anyone a basic right based on their zip code or tax bracket is unacceptable.
The NRA will continue our fight to ensure that all law-abiding Americans can fully exercise their constitutional freedoms. The NRA has successfully challenged a similar ban on firearms in public housing in San Francisco and is currently challenging one in Delaware.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Make your own sex toys least myoblast
.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
We don't have a right to have basic cable, much less to have someone else pay for it. This regulation isn't about someone else buying welfare recipients a firearm, its about them not being allowed to have one at all. So even if someone bought them one to legally keep in their home(no cost to you, I, or any other taxpayer), they wouldn't be allowed to be in possession of it.
This isn't about money at all, its about agenda.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Again, if you cannot afford the responsibilities associated with a particular right, that is your problem and not the government's. We all absorb the costs of certain rights like voting, and we all agree to do this. No one would agree to having public money being spent to support gun ownership of a welfare recipient. If you feel strongly, set up a charity and put your money where your mouth is.
The "agenda" is to discourage people from owning guns in *PUBLIC* housing, and to require them to use these assets another way.
When someone in public housing is spending money to maintain their gun, store it safely, and to train with it, they are not using that money to feed themselves, to cloth themselves, or to improve their situation in any way.
When someone goes bankrupt or has a negative debt settlement, they can be required to turn in guns or to sell them to offset an obligation. The gun is an asset and nothing more. When that person is in a better financial situation, they are perfectly eligible to go and purchase a new gun Why is welfare any different? The answer: it's not! There is nothing preventing a welfare recipient living in public housing from purchasing any weapon they want - once they are off the public dole.
So if persons in public housing or on welfare spend any money on anything other than food clothing and transportation to and from a job/school then they should be required to return the item or be banned from purchasing it in the first place?
Well at least all other "rights" related assests or costs are covered by the taxpayer. Some have no problem with you and I paying for someones' free speech rights through the public library buying an authors' books and furthering their message or providing a computer and internet access so the poor can post comments on sites like these, but try checking out a firearm from a government source at taxpayer expense if they don't even want you to be able to keep a single one that you yourself paid for.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Nope, everyone's life is worth the same. However, public aid recipients are usually required to spend down many disposable assets, including computers, stereos, etc. If this individual doesn't have a gun safe or proper gun locks, how could they afford to buy them? Guns are very easy to sell/pawn.
It is very unlikely that someone living in public housing could afford the training and/or the classes necessary to be proficient enough with a gun to use it for self-defense. If you own a gun, and you intend to use it for self-defense, you better practice and you better be schooled in gun safety.
Gun ownership is only a right if you have the personal assets to do so responsibly.
Um, nope. Gun ownership is always a right. I see no such "responsible spending" addendum in the constitution.
No... actually, when you apply for public assistance your must first spend down your disposable assets for programs other than simple food stamps.
*PRIVATE* gun ownership means that *YOU* have the responsibility to bear the costs, the risks, and the consequences of exercising that right. If you lack the funds to support ownership of your personal gun, that is your problem and not the government's. No right in the constitution is unlimited nor without responsibility, including the second amendment.
People like you make me nuts. You want to kick everyone off welfare and slash taxes. You complain when someone on welfare has basic cable TV. However, if someone has a gun, then by all means that right supersedes everything else.
NEWSFLASH: You have to be destitute before you can be on welfare, which means no unnecessary personal assets. This includes personal firearms. The simple choice is that if you want to keep your gun, then don't apply for public assistance.
People like me drive you nuts huh? You presume a lot about me and with that presumption you appear to try and take the moral high ground by defaming the charitable attribute of my character. Shame on you.
Next what exactly categorizes a "disposable asset" ? Seems to me the mention of TVs and such would be more disposable than a means of defense in low income areas where conglomerated populations of desperate individuals would increase the risk of being the victim of some sort of crime.
"no unnecessary personal assets" - the right to defend oneself certainly isn't necessary to you is it?
Also if someone already owns a gun and ammunition for the aforementioned gun and it is not considered a disposable asset then why should they be banned? They shouldn't be, the end.