Gun ruling may become a model for the nation

[SecularMotion]

WILMINGTON, Del. -- In a decision that may become a model for the nation, a federal judge here ruled that gun restrictions imposed by the Wilmington Housing Authority on its residents are constitutional.

The housing authority's policy of prohibiting residents from openly carrying firearms in "common areas" of public housing buildings is reasonable and does not unduly restrict residents' Second Amendment right to own and possess a gun, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark wrote in a 42-page opinion.

"It is a good day for the residents of public housing," the housing authority's executive director, Frederick S. Purnell, said Tuesday, adding the policy is designed to protect the safety of tenants, not limit their rights.

The plaintiffs in the National Rifle Association-financed lawsuit, residents Charles Boone and a woman only identified as "Jane Doe," could not be reached for comment. But their lawyer, Francis X. Pileggi, said the federal suit originally was filed to overturn a blanket ban on gun ownership in this city's public housing, "and that was changed after we filed a lawsuit."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-01/gun-restrictions-wilmington/56644990/1

[Missycim]

1. So in other words

If you are living in public housing you lose some Constitution rights?

[safeinOhio]

2. Aaccording to the SC and

It's most right wing member, there is no Constitutional right to carry any gun any where, only to own a handgun, in your own home. See the majority opinion by Scalia in McDonald vs Chicago. Every Constittuional right we have has some restriction. Perhaps you can come up with any other right that has no restriction?

[NewMoonTherian]

4. 3rd amendment?

Seriously though, I think you're on the wrong side of this one. A private apartment building - fine, they can set their own rules. A government housing authority should not be able to tell residents what they can't do in their homes, because they have no other option. And it absolutely is meant to limit their rights, despite the official's statement to the contrary, because no one can provide any factual evidence that open carry presents a threat to safety.

[safeinOhio]

5. "common areas" of a government owned area?

To change this they would also have to allow open carry in schools, courts and for jail visits.

[NewMoonTherian]

12. What constitutes common areas?

If this ruling allowed the authority to ban open carry in lounges and courtyards, it would be different. The article describes common areas as to include halls, so I can only assume it includes any publicly accessible part of the property. In that case, a resident can't move to or from his or her home without violating the ban.

I don't think they would have to change policy regarding any other place. Public housing deals with the homes of people who can't easily choose to live anywhere else. Special consideration has to be given to protect their rights.

[geckosfeet]

7. Disagree. Citizens brought the suit. They did not like open carry in common public areas.

I am ok with that. Conceal it and everyone is better off - including the person carrying.

Many states have brandishing laws - IMO this is no different.

[PavePusher]

13. In other words, poll taxes are O.K.?

Disgusting.

[geckosfeet]

24. Whaaaa? How did your brain make the jump to poll taxes?

But if you want to make conceptual leaps here's one - you don't walk around with you dick hanging out, please conceal your gun too.

[PavePusher]

25. Since one must pay a fee to exercise this Constitutional Right....

Poll tax. No leap at all, it's exactly the same thing.

[geckosfeet]

30. Well. If you say so. But disagree.

[Callisto32]

14. It is VERY different.

Walking around with a holstered firearm in plain view is NOT brandishing.

Think about it, all the uniformed police would be "brandishing" all the time. Unless they get special rules, but no animals are ever more equal than other animals, right?

[geckosfeet]

23. There are and they do.

[baldguy]

3. Someone didn't read the OP.

[ileus]

6. This is why we can't give an inch to these people.

the grabbers know no limits...

First this threat to life and family, next a total ban.


What a sad day for the 99% across America.

[geckosfeet]

8. Oh. Brother.

Have another glass of kewlade.

The NRA declined comment on the restrictions or Stark's ruling. NRA spokeswoman Jacqueline Otto said the important thing is that the right of residents of public housing to have a gun was upheld.

Gun ruling may become a model for the nation

[safeinOhio]

9. Another reason to not give an inch

To crazy gun nuts. Next they'll want to remove restrictions on mass murders open carrying and making it legal for anyone to carry chemical weapons for self defense. Then they'll want no restrictions on third graders carrying guns to school. It is a slippery slope to give in on any restrictions to them.

[spin]

10. Is pepper spray a chemical weapon in your opinion?

I legally carry pepper spray in Florida and I bought my spray from Amazon.com.

[4th law of robotics]

28. Mass murderers are not allowed to own fire arms

as they would necessarily be felons.

Unless you're talking about stripping them of their rights pre-emptively on the assumption that one day they may misuse those rights.

If so I must ask, why stop with the 2nd? We could do far more good to prevent pre-crime by doing away with the 4th and 5th amendments and of course that pernicious first amendment.

[rDigital]

20. You can't give an inch

because all they want is an outright gun ban. However, they are too cowardly to come out and say it. So they take the salami approach. One slice at a time.

First, they'll try and take semi-auto rifles.
Then, handguns.
Then pump shotguns.
Finally your hunting rifle, sorry I meant high powered sniper rifle.

[ileus]

22. well yeah most know that...

but they know first they have to jump our rights thru a bunch of hoops before they can justify their final destination for the 2A.

They don't really expect criminals to obey laws but understand they can bully legal owners, businesses, manufactures and 2A groups with ever increasing laws.

[bongbong]

26. LOL

More hilarity from the "I'm too scared to walk out of my house without a gun!" crowd.

[rDigital]

27. Cool story, bro

[shadowrider]

31. Is that the sniper rifle with the heat seeking bullets?

[spin]

11. All the articles I found talked only about open carry ...

Would a person with a legal concealed weapons permit be allowed to carry his weapon on the common grounds of the Wilmington Housing Authority buildings?

I understand that Delaware does allow concealed carry in the state although it is a "May Issue" state not a "Shall Issue " state. Open carry is "Unrestricted; however, local ordinances prohibiting open carry may exist."
sources:
http://www.concealandcarryhq.com/index.php/delaware-concealed-carry-laws/
http://www.usacarry.com/delaware_concealed_carry_permit_information.html#delaware_concealed_carry_map)

It is unfortunately true that gun control efforts in our nation have a long history of discrimination against the poorer members of our society and minority groups. That's why I oppose "May Issue" as "Shall Issue" is color blind.

(In all fairness my question is probably irrelevant as the reality is that in a state with a "May Issue" concealed carry law would never obtain permission from the authorities to be able to legally carry a concealed handgun for self defense as that privilege would be reserved for the "better members" of society;, the rich, the famous and the politically connected few.)

Oddly enough I can carry a legally concealed weapon in Delaware as I posses a Florida Concealed weapons permit and am a resident of Florida. (No, I am not a vigilante or a fool like Zimmerman. I don't go looking for trouble.)
(source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html)

I find it strange that as one of the 800,000 residents of Florida I have more gun rights in Delaware than the citizens of that state. (Of course it could be argued that open carry in Delaware is possible but restricted while it Florida it is forbidden in public.)

[davepc]

15. Poor people have less rights then rich people...the American way

[4th law of robotics]

29. Poor *law abiding* citizens have fewer rights now

the criminals will still carry.

Fortunately law abiding citizens will be disarmed and helpless which is good because . . . something something.

[slackmaster]

16. Less freedom for poor people

That's messed up.

[Jenoch]

17. It seems that many have misunderstood the point of

the legal action. Before this court ruling the housing authority banned the residents of these buildings from having guns in their apartments. The lawsuit was about getting that right restored.

"...their lawyer, Francis X. Pileggi, said the federal suit originally was filed to overturn a blanket ban on gun ownership in this city's public housing, "and that was changed after we filed a lawsuit."

[Glassunion]

18. This sounds all too familiar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=366156#367478

At least they are not going door to door... Yet.

[aikoaiko]

19. If I understand correctly, it is not illegal to openly carry in common areas of multi-units in...

...private housing but it is for these people in public housing. What is it about these people that they can't be trusted with the same liberty?

Is it because they are poor? Is it because they are people of color (at least one of the complainants was black)? I wonder what classist, racist patrician attitudes make this ok for some people.

[petronius]

21. But the owner of a private apartment complex would be able

to open-carry in common areas, I would assume. And a public housing complex isn't really 'public space' in the way a street or a park would be. So I'm not really convinced this decision is wrong: even though the property owner is a state agency, it seems reasonable to let it behave like a private owner in some respects...