- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
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
Comments
Make your own sex toys least
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
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
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
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
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
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
Um, nope. Gun ownership is always a right. I see no such "responsible spending" addendum in the constitution.
No... actually, when you
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
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.
Yeah CRW because your life
Yeah CRW because your life isn't worth protecting if you have financial trouble right?
If you are in public
If you are in public assistance, you are by definition in financial trouble. You should *not* be spending a penny on weapons.
What if you already own one?
What if you already own one? Should the government be able to force you to surrender it to move into public housing, or is that an infringment?
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
When you are on public
When you are on public assistance you are required to do an asset spend down. I would think pawning or selling off a gun would be an important asset spend down.
This isn't about stockpiles.
This isn't about stockpiles. This is every last firearm, to include the .25 caliber that would bring in no more than $25, but not the $250 crossbow.
You may as well make them sell their last pot or pan if you're going to make them sell their last firearm.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Crazy talk! Your point is
Crazy talk!
Your point is completely absurd. Most people do *NOT* own guns and do just fine. A gun won't bring a poor person work, food, or shelter unless they are robbing someone else.
Bread vs. bullets... hmmm... I think $25 worth of bread goes much further than $25 worth of bullets.
Yes.. some people use guns for self-defense. Most do not. The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. So... let's tell the most hopeless and desperate people in our population that owning a gun is a good thing.
Brilliant response, just like most of your posts.
Hmm back at ya. Twenty five
Hmm back at ya. Twenty five dollars worth of bread may extend your life for a few more weeks whereas twenty five dollars worth of ammunition can extend your life by years.
Since firearms are used far more in self defense than in suicide, perhaps we would be better served to tell the suicidal that suicide isn't the answer instead of telling them that suicide by firearm isn't the answer. It would be a shame if we had to ban over the counter medication, rope, tall buildings, high bridges, and all sorts of other useful things that they would replace a firearm with.
If what you're saying is that our rights are based on how the majority chooses to use them and not the intent of the right, I can live with being absurd instead of your form of reasonable.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Completely missed my point...
Completely missed my point... again.
Rights come with responsibilities. For example, I have the right to free speech except I cannot commit libel or slander. Moreover, I can't lie to congress, lie in court, lie to the police, etc. Similarly, my right to free speech does not give me the right to insist my ideas be published in a newspaper or TV. I have to *buy* time or *buy* space or I have to have a sponsor. Free speech comes with responsibilities, limits, and financial burdens depending on how I wish to express myself.
The right to bear arms comes with similar responsibilities. I cannot harm others except in self-defense, law enforcement or the military. Similarly, it is my responsibility to ensure I handle my weapon safely, to properly train with my weapon if I intend to use it, and to bear all of the *COSTS* of gun ownership.
A person going into public housing obviously cannot bear the costs of responsible gun ownership.
Duh! Poor people cannot afford to buy blog space, newspaper space or TV time. Is this a violation of their first amendment rights?? Of course not. Telling poor people they need to give up their guns to live in *PUBLIC* housing is no different.
I'll respond to both comments
I'll respond to both comments here to save us a bit of time. Forgive me if I miss something from your other comment.
I'm not missing your point at all, and it looks like I need to clear up a couple of misconceptions. First, I never suggested that the right to own firearms allowed for the commission of a crime, so I don't know why you mentioned any of that. Second, I never came anywhere close to saying that someone is owed a tax payer provided firearm because of our right to own them. My contention is that you're labeling an unconstitutional ban as a financial responsibility. I will use your sponsor analogy to demonstrate.
If someone on government assistance was given blog space(with monetary value) to post an article on racism, the government wouldn't force the recipient to sell that donation to pay off a debt instead of using it themselves. However, if I, me, ShawninMo was to buy my government assistance receiving child the gift of a firearm to protect his family while they had to live in the projects, you say the government is forcing the surrendering of it to pay his debt. The two don't jive.
If I was to buy them a $25 tv from the pawn shop, would they be forced to sell that as well? Would they be prosecuted or lose their assistance for possessing that new asset that has value and could be sold to pay a debt? No, they wouldnt. However, no firearms are allowed within 1000 feet of DC public housing. So, even if I took my sons' family to the range every Saturday on my dime so they could be proficient, responsible gun owners, they still can't possess a firearm. That's not discouraging the ownership of firearms, that's outlawing the ownership of firearms. That's a ban, not the restitution of a debt.
I did forget something from your other comment. You mentioned that we have to absorb the costs related to our rights which I take to mean that a recipient isn't to spend five dollars on a cab, or a quarter on the bus, to get to their polling place to vote.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
When a recipient is on public
When a recipient is on public assistance, they agree to give up ownership of some assets even when they are a gift.... so most of your argument falls apart. A simple policy statement that a gun is a spendable asset, and there you go. It is constitutional.
In a previous comment, I did say that there are certain rights that of which we all agree to share the cost. For example, the majority of people support the idea of a public defender, the costs of casting a vote, etc. Gun ownership is not something that the government will supplement, nor does the average citizen feel that any gun ownership costs should ever be supplement. By not requiring people on public assistance to treat guns like other spendable assets, we are in effect providing a government sponsorship of gun ownership.
Public assistance includes allowances for assets that improve the chances that a family will achieve independence. For example, some government social services agencies will pay for a car repair, or provide a refrigerator, etc., with limits on the value of these assets and a clearly defined need.
Regardless of your opinion to the contrary, a gun is a liquid asset, which is *not* essential to a family achieving independence.
We'll just have to wait and see how the courts rule.
It falls apart, really? Did
It falls apart, really? Did you notice in the original story that my argument and my opinion were already tried and won in court?
The ruling telling San Francisco that they can't restrict firearm ownership shows that firearms are more than just an asset, they're a right that can't be infriged. Sorry, but when you couple that with the federal government setting asset limits at $2000, $3000 for the disabled and those over 60, and DC asset limits anywhere from $2000 to no limit, it looks like you do get to subsidize firearm ownership after all.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
This type of case needs to go
This type of case needs to go to the supreme court to be decided once and for all. Each of the housing authorities that have been challenged have simply rolled over or given up after one court loss.
They're "rolling over"
They're "rolling over" because its already been to the supreme court. Heller decided the second amendment was an individual right and demonstrated that it couldn't be taken away simply because of where someone lived.
Now I would love to see the idiot that would argue for the government to take our rights away based on our financial or social standing.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.