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

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).
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"Why are we paying other people's rent? "

So they won't move in with us. :)

The residents had to sign a contract/lease to live in public housing. Just like an HOA, if you don't like the rules, don't go there.

John
 
However, we return to the issue of rights. HOAs used to be able to discriminate on race, religion, ethnicity. Now they can't and that is a good thing.

Many feel that self-defense is an intrinsic property of folks that cannot be used as a basis to discriminate. While it is not now a protected class, so to speak - the same concept should apply.

Esp. if this is housing has a governmental supervision - then such rights should not be constrained.
 
The case was filed back in May of 2010 in the Delaware Court of the Chancery. It was later moved to federal District Court, by whom? The NRA or by Wilmington Housing Authority?

At any rate, I tried searching Justia last night and couldn't find the case. Anyone know the actual name of the case?
 
But I do! ... Back in a few moments...

The Docket will be here in a few minutes (until the archive is refreshed, you will get a "404 Not Found" error).

Unlike the (what's become) traditional 2A civil rights cases we have been following, this one is proceeding at a normal pace - real slow - lots of discovery. This is more how Chicago wants to go (and we may see it yet), in Benson v. Chicago. I have made the 2nd Amended Complaint (#40) and the defendants MSJ (#89) available to read.
 
After reading the complaint (as amended) and the response that the WHA gave, the methods the Housing Authority went into revising its policies and the manner in which the NRA recruited the plaintiffs and refusal to participate in the revisions of the leasing policies (defendants MSJ #89), I find that the court will most likely dismiss the entire suit.

At best, this was a reach for the NRA. At worst, it was ill conceived as a method of litigation. The plaintiffs simply do not have standing.

Is there an actual case here? Yes, but not in the manner the NRA has executed this debacle.
 
Thanks, Al, for putting up the links to those two documents.

This is just.... pathetic. I especially liked the part where the two plaintiffs, in their depositions, allowed as how they thought the restrictions at issue in the lawsuit (on weapons in public areas) were actually a pretty good idea. "Straw plaintiffs," indeed.

Sheesh. What a waste. The NRA should've known better.
 
I will say I was tempted to download a few more filings... Until I finished reading the complaint and the defendants MSJ.

The problem I see is that the NRA (actually, the NRA associate attorney) did not do a good job of vetting their clients. Nor did they do a particularly good job in mitigating the damages (failing to attend and input their views at the public meetings - mitigation of damages is required by law).

This could have been a decent lawsuit. It could have set some decent precedence in public housing. As it stands however, it may have the exact opposite effect. sigh. Strategy was good, tactics were abhorrent.
 
I Thought there was a case from the 70s or 80s dealing with possessing firearms in Public Housing. Don't remember the particulars. It may not be realivant.
 
"However, we return to the issue of rights."

There are limits to rights, especially when a person agrees to forgo an activity. Example: When you buy a ticket to a movie you agree not to be disruptive. And they can throw you out for exercising your first amendment rights during the screening.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-01/gun-restrictions-wilmington/56644990/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&************=Feed

The headline reads, "Gun ruling may become a model for the nation" but that's Brady fueled optimism on the part of the MSM over a ruling upholding the prohibition of open carry in common areas by the Wilmington Housing Authority. :rolleyes:

The real news is that after the NRA sued them, they immediately rescinded their total ban on weapon possession for residents, then implemented this ban on open carry. While I disagree with the ban, it does appear Constitutional under Heller and McDonald in that it doesn't prohibit possession or concealed carry.

Ultimately it may be a good thing (although open-carry advocates may disagree). Historically, the fight has been to permit concealed carry, overcoming 19th Century rulings equating concealed carry to cowardice, treachery, and ambushing. I, for one, would welcome such provisions, if that means that concealed carry must then be allowed as a matter of law. That would strengthen the argument that concealed carry is a right that should not require a permit or license to be exercised. ;)
 
I can't find a link to the actual ruling, but if I recall, this was a follow-up to the Montag case brought (and settled) shortly after Heller.

Was carry a question in this case, or simply ownership?
 
Was carry a question in this case, or simply ownership?
Click to expand...

Originally it was possession, but Wilmington caved on that shortly after the NRA filed suit. Then they passed an ordinance against open carry in the common areas of the housing area, which the NRA continued to fight.

I thought I saw the case listed in your master list some time ago, but I don't remember the name of the case.

In any event, it looks to me like the NRA managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I just don't see prohibiting open carry as being that big a deal so long as concealed carry was available, and the prohibition on open carry could be used as an argument against discretionary issue. Now, the media are literally shouting in triumph that this is the beginning of a national trend... :rolleyes:
 
This is DELAWARE! Concealed carry is on a "may issue" basis so this ruling stinks to high heaven.

IF it had happened in a shall-issue CCW state, no big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top