7/02/2008

Can the government ban gun ownership in public housing?

The NRA and Second Amendment Foundation have filed an interesting lawsuit in San Francisco. In many ways this ban seems very similar to the DC gun ban. The main difference appears to me to be only whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority." . . .

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Rick M said...

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need MORE guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority." . . .

So Gavin Newson admits that there are guns in public housing currently. I take it that these are not legally held guns that he refers to. Mr. Newsom then goes onto say that "We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority" does a housing authority have rights? its not an individual so surely it has powers not rights also what about defending the rights of the residents?

7/02/2008 11:43 AM  
Blogger TYF said...

I don't agree with the ban on guns in public housing, but I'd argue that this is a case of "he who pays the piper calls the tune." If the government is paying for your housing, one downside is that you have to follow the government's rules. If a person wants more priveleges, he ought to pay for his own housing.

7/02/2008 1:17 PM  
Blogger sjeffh said...

I do not believe that banning handguns in public housing should be legal. I have always thought that the second amendment referred to the rights of individuals. I can't back this up with proof but I believe that most of the violence occurs outside of the public housing -units-. It is likely impossible to physically force these guns to be kept inside the units (absent a license to carry) but think about it. If that were possible, gun violence from the guns relating to the bans in question here, would decrease.

Not a solution but just a thought

Jeff
www.readwritereact.com

7/08/2008 9:11 AM  
Blogger DJK said...

"...the rights of the housing authority". What about the rights of the people? What about the right of the single mom who has an ex boyfriend that has threatened to kill her but she happens to live in the project?

7/15/2008 12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home