Guns

Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Gun Rights for Public-Housing Tenants

|

In a decision issued Tuesday, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that a Wilmington public-housing authority violated the state constitution's right to keep and bear arms by forbidding public-housing tenants from carrying otherwise lawful firearms in common areas, such as in the laundry rooms of their buildings. "With the Common Area Provision in force under penalty of eviction," the opinion in Boone v. Wilmington Housing Authority declared, "reasonable, law-abiding adults become disarmed and unable to repel an intruder by force in any common living areas when the intervention of society on their behalf may be too late to prevent an injury."

The opinion rests in part on the U.S. Supreme Court's rationale in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which recognized a "core" Second Amendment right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense. The Wilmington restriction, the Delaware Supreme Court argued, similarly undermined gun rights "by functionally disallowing armed self-defense in areas that Residents, their families, and guests may occupy as part of their living space."

The opinion in Boone v. Wilmington Housing Authority is available here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Gadsden Flag: Too Racist for Government Buildings, But Just Right for Obamacare Propaganda!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So – it’s OK for public housing tenants to carry an otherwise-legal weapon firearm, as long as they’re not near or holding or wearing on their shirt a Gadsden flag? That’s what this means. Right?

    1. Sort of. If they are attending a rally supporting Obamacare, then they can carry while also holding or wearing a Gadsden flag.

      1. Mmmmm, mmmmm, MMMMMMMMMMMmmmmm!!

  2. The Progressive Know-It-Alls must be foaming to the mouth over this.

    1. Time for an Oath of Fealty.

    2. I can’t wait to ask one of them “you know most public housing tenants are minority right? So you just are afraid of a strong black man aren’t you?”

      1. the troof hurts, don’t it?

        1. I love to turn the race card on them. The reality is that most Progs are upper class white people who are terrified of the idea of young black men with guns. They can’t admit this publicly. So they hide it by pretending it is all about evil gun toting white hillbillies.

          In any other context Progs would immediately call out someone mentioning “criminals” and “access” as engaging in a racist dog whistle. But with guns, they always talk about “criminals getting access to guns” and pretend that isn’t a dog whistle for “black people getting guns”.

          As much as I think the idea of a “dog whistle” is misused and bullshit, this is one time where the charge is probably valid.

          1. The reality is that most Progs are upper class white people who are terrified of the idea of young black men with guns.

            I think that’s somewhat true; however, much like sarcasmic, I see it more as projection of what they believe they’re liable to do with a firearm.

            The only reason people are scared of guns is because they imagine what they’d do with a firearm themselves.

            1. I am sure there is some of that but less than some claim. The progs I know are just terrified of guns and really don’t understand them. I don’t think they worry about what they would do with a gun since they don’t understand guns well enough to know.

              A lot of them really are animists about guns. They honestly think that guns have their own agency and a gun’s presence causes bad things to happen.

              1. Allow me to elaborate a bit, because I think we’re saying the same thing. Here’s proglodyte thought on guns:

                “Why would I want a gun? Guns are for killing people. I’d only want a gun if I wanted to kill someone with it.”

                Never does it cross their mind that:
                1: Sometimes people need killing.
                2: Often times those people that need killing aren’t going to be deterred by laws that most citizens abide
                3: Guns are fun (hunting, target shooting, etc.)
                4: Guns are useful tools.

                They discard these claims as a pretense for just wanting to kill people, because in their mind that’s the only purpose a firearm serves.

                1. In my experience anon is correct. Most supporters of gun control I know think all violence is ‘icky’ and deplorable, with no distinction between it being used for self defense or as an aggressor, and so they think ‘guns are violent things, violence is bad, ick!’

                2. I think they are naive about the need for guns. But in fairness a lot of pro gun people are naive about the effectiveness of guns. Understand I am a gun owner and a complete fanatic about gun rights. But I find some pro gun people underestimate the seriousness of both carrying a weapon and introducing it to a situation. I think anyone who, outside of their own home or intervening in a real no kidding life threatening attack (think Kitty Genovese) would confront someone with a gun is a nut. I frankly don’t think it is worth it to kill someone over property or anything except mine or my family’s safety. If someone breaks into my house and I am on the first floor, I am running out the back and going to my neighbors. If they are there to kill me and they shoot me in the back as I run, well it sucks to be me. If I am upstairs, I am calling the cops and waiting up there for them and will kill him if they come up to confront me. But no way in hell am I confronting them and risking shooting an unarmed person or killing someone over a television.

                  1. Maybe part of the problem is all the use of guns by police. They are so irresponsible there are stories every day to prove it. And those are “the good guys.” So everyone else must be an even looser cannon! (despite the evidence to the contrary)

                  2. If I am upstairs, I am calling the cops and waiting up there for them and will kill him if they come up to confront me. But no way in hell am I confronting them and risking shooting an unarmed person or killing someone over a television.

                    So the cops can come to your house and shoot you instead…and your dogs.

                    1. Sadly Francisco, that is a risk I have to assume. But it is better than confronting someone and getting into a gun fight right there. And if I go down there and shoot the guy, the cops are coming no matter what. So I am better off to sit tight and at least hopefully avoid there being a dead body when the cops arrive.

                      But yeah, that is a risk I have thought about. If I ever shot someone breaking into my home my first thought after “holy shit I just shot the guy” will be “how the fuck do I make sure some trigger happy pig doesn’t kill me, my wife or my dog when the cops finally get here?”

                      It is a real problem without an easy solution.

                  3. But no way in hell am I confronting them and risking shooting an unarmed person or killing someone over a television.

                    I agree with your overall sentiment.

                    I’ve always envisioned this dilemna in the form of a street mugging. Unless I believe the person might really hurt me, I’d rather lose my wallet than kill him. That said, I don’t believe that someone who shoots a mugger has committed any crime at all.

                    In my home, though, once someone has entered unbidden, I have no intention of fleeing, and would (hopefully) have no compunction about shooting him. Fortunately I live in a state that respects the castle doctrine.

                    1. Karl,

                      The problem with defending yourself against a mugger is that you don’t know who he is or how crazy or desperate he is. Forget his life, it is not worth it to risk yours. If he just wants your shit and doesn’t attack you, give it to him and go home alive and safe.

                      That calculus only changes if he attacks you or wants you to get in a car or go somewhere. Then you either attack him or just run. Never under any circumstances should you willingly let someone take you away from a pubic place. That is pretty much signing your own death warrant. Once they take you they are looking at kidnapping and probably life and will more than likely get up the nerve to kill you figuring they have nothing to lose.

                      And running is a surprisingly effective technique. It takes a lot of nerve to shoot someone who is not attacking you. And it takes a lot more skill to actually hit a moving target than you think. Chances are they will be so surprised by your running they won’t even shoot and even if they do they are unlikely to hit you.

                    2. John,

                      The problem with not defending yourself against a mugger is that you don’t know who he is or how crazy or desperate he is.

                    3. NEM,

                      If you immediately defend yourself, you will definitely find out just how crazy or desperate he is. If you just give him your shit and give him a chance to walk away, you might avoid having to find that out. That is the idea.

                      As I said, maybe he attacks you or tries to get you to leave a public place. Then, you have to defend yourself because he has left you no choice. But as long as he is just asking for your shit, you can go along and hopefully not risk finding out just how crazy or desperate he is.

                      I have no love for muggers and feel no sorry when they run into someone with a gun and get themselves killed. It is just that I would avoid getting into a life and death struggle if I possibly could do so and that includes giving up my watch and wallet if doing so is necessary.

                    4. He’s already threatened me or we wouldn’t be in this position, right? And he’s not “asking” for my stuff.

                      I carry at about 5:00. If I think I can come out with the gun rather than the wallet — I carry with one in the pipe and the safety off — without substantially raising the risk to me or my family — that is, he doesn’t already have a gun pointed or whatever — I will shoot him where he stands.

                    5. If I think I can come out with the gun rather than the wallet —

                      And I salute you. I am just saying I am not that brave. I am not going to risk not beating him to the punch just to save my wallet. Again, if he gives me no choice, I will take my chances and shoot him and never lose a minute of sleep over it. But I am not doing that unless I have no other choice.

                    6. And my point is that by the time you realize you have no other choice, you may not be in a position to do anything except bleed.

                    7. Perhaps NEM. And at point it just sucks to be me. But I honestly don’t think most muggers get into it looking for a murder rap. They just want their loot and to leave if they can. Sure, the guy may be a crazy and deranged lunatic there to kill me. And if that is the case, I have a big problem no matter what I do. But he probably isn’t. And my drawing a gun tends to have the effect of making someone a desperate lunatic when they were not before. I think it is smarter to bet on the guy not being a lunatic and taking the chance you can avoid an armed confrontation.

                      But that is just me. If you ever shoot a mugger, I will be the first to say you had a right to do so.

                    8. The problem with defending yourself against a mugger is that you don’t know who he is or how crazy or desperate he is.

                      He’s not crazy or desperate at all when he’s laying dead in a puddle of blood.

                      And running is a surprisingly effective technique.

                      Of course, you’ve left him alive to do it again to someone else.

                      Not saying there’s anything wrong with not shooting them. In such a situation you may not get the opportunity and you should always do the cost-benefit analysis. But if the opportunity presents itself, I have no problem with anyone deciding to drop the fucker.

                    9. I don’t think there is anything wrong with shooting him either Francisco. But I also understand that gun fights really suck. If he had a knife and I had a gun, I would probably pull my gun and tell him to fuck off and shoot him if he didn’t.

                      But if he has a gun, even if I have a gun, I am not pulling mine unless I have to. He has the drop on me. Maybe I beat and shoot him and maybe I don’t. I really don’t want to find out.

                      And if I don’t have a gun, there is no way in hell I am getting into a physical confrontation with him unless I have no other choice. Who knows who this guy is or how good of a fighter he is. I might kick his ass or he might bash my brains all over the sidewalk. Again, I don’t want to find out the answer to that question if I don’t have to.

                3. I think gun people sometimes act like confronting someone with a weapon is anything but a last resort in a desperate circumstance. For example, there is a guy that instapundit is often linking to who claims everyone should keep a loaded weapon in every room of their house and have a plan to get to it in case of home invasion. Really? Maybe if you live in the middle of nowhere and have nowhere to run. But in town, just go out the back. They will be so surprised by you running, they are unlikely to shoot you. And your chances of getting away are a lot better than your chances in a gun fight.

                  1. Most anti-gunners I’ve known were people who saw no difference between self defense and vigilante justice. No difference at all.

                    To them a woman shooting a man in the face for trying to rape her in the parking lot is no different than the same woman shooting the man in the back a week after the incident.

                    They really see no difference. All they see is someone who is not a member of government using a gun. That’s it.

                    1. I have seen that too sarcasmic. But more often the anti-gun people seem to not really understand guns and think that they have an agency of their own. I know a good number of anti-gun people. And none of them object to self defense. They think that owning a gun creates such danger that it outweighs the benefits it conveys in what they view as the unlikely event that you would need to for self defense. They honestly thing weapons just go off or magically cause otherwise reasonable people to pull them out and shoot someone over a petty argument.

                      What they don’t get is the overall deterrence factor of general gun ownership. They rightfully understand that the chances of their being the victim of a live breakin as being very small and think “why does anyone need a gun?” What they don’t understand is the fact that widespread gun ownership in this country is the reason why live break ins are so much more rare here than in countries like the UK that have strict gun laws.

                    2. Whenever I hear people talk about how dangerous guns are, I want to scream.

                      No, idiot, guns are not dangerous! People are dangerous! And that’s why we need guns!

                    3. I think you and these people are talking past each other here. Guns in the hands of a dangerous person makes that person exponentially more dangerous. What they are missing is that guns in the hands of a non-dangerous person are very, very safe things, and it is in those hands that most guns can be found.

                    4. What they are missing is that guns in the hands of a non-dangerous person are very, very safe things, and it is in those hands that most guns can be found.

                      We’re talking about people who think anyone who is not a government agent is potentially dangerous, and the only possible way to know someone is not dangerous is if government says so.

                      When history shows that government agents are the most dangerous people of all.

                    5. My prog friends (I swear I didn’t know they were so stupid when I befriended them) think I’m dangerous because I think people should pay for their own healthcare. So imagine their fear of the likes of me with a gun. I’m too stupid to vote their way so I must be psychotic.

                    6. I don’t have any prog friends anymore. They’re too tolerant to tolerate my intolerance.

                    7. Good point. Why is vigilante justice so bad? Justice is justice. The courts get it wrong just as often, if not more, than vigilantes. What makes them so special? Juries have even less info (and more obstacles to knowledge – lawyers, judges, procedure, time, distance) than your average vigilante who was probably witness to the crime.

                      I don’t need it wrapped in a bow by the government to be satisfied with the outcome when some evil sumbitch got what he deserved. There’s a reason Batman is a popular character.

                      And bonus, vigilantes do it for free!

                    8. Why is vigilante justice so bad?

                      Because it not in any way systematic and dependent entirely on the victim or victim’s family to do violence rather than any objection view of fairness or justice. Second, it creates blood feuds by giving the family of the accused a grievance against the victim rather than the government.

                      Suppose for example, my neighbor’s son rapes my daughter. So I take the law into my own hands and shoot him. Well, justice is served there except that what if his parents, being biased, refuse to believe their son was guilty? Then from their point of view I am the scumbag who murdered their son. They then take justice into their own hands and kill me. And my family responds in kind and so on.

                      We don’t have a criminal law system to deter people. We do, but it is not the only way to deter people from committing crimes. In fact, vigilante justice is probably better at deterrence since it can be so swift and deadly.

                      We have a criminal justice system to provide a way to mediate conflicts between people in a way that doesn’t lead to cycles of revenge. When you look at it that way, you understand very quickly why victimless crimes are completely counter to any proper criminal justice system.

                    9. The people I’m talking about don’t think Batman when the subject of vigilante justice comes up. They think KKK. And you know where it goes after that. (Racists bitter clingers who want to kill black people!)

                    10. And since they are completely ignorant of history, it never occurs to them that the only reason the KKK was able to terrorize blacks is because Southern States did everything they could to disarm blacks. An armed population takes all of the fun out of night riding and burning crosses.

                    11. They would just reply that the armed part of the population was the problem there (in other words, if the average Southerner did not have access to firearms the KKK would not have had them).

                    12. They would just reply that the armed part of the population was the problem there (in other words, if the average Southerner did not have access to firearms the KKK would not have had them).

                      Which is of course an assumption (that laws actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals) that has never once been borne out in practice.

                    13. I am not sure about that. I think a criminal in England is probably less likely to have a gun than a criminal in the US (of course, the non-criminals in the UK have even less access, hence the very high assault rates).

                    14. There’s also a cultural difference between the US and England. They’ve been disarmed for generations, while Americans have been armed from the beginning.

                    15. I think a criminal in England is probably less likely to have a gun than a criminal in the US

                      And they have 4 times the rate of violent crime.

                    16. Agreed, that is why I pointed to the assault rates. Basically what gun control proponents would get us is a society where the murder rate would likely fall some, but all other violent crime would skyrocket. That’s England nowadays from what I understand.

                    17. I’m sure they’ll counter not by agreeing that blacks would be safer if armed, but by saying everyone should be disarmed.

                    18. I think gun rights supporters often exaggerate what could have been done in the Southern racist gun control laws had not come into effect. Armed resistance by blacks then would have likely led to quite harsh and collective responses by more and better armed whites.

                    19. I think gun rights supporters often exaggerate what could have been done in the Southern racist gun control laws had not come into effect. Armed resistance by blacks then would have likely led to quite harsh and collective responses by more and better armed whites.

                      You’re missing the point. People tend to think twice before terrorizing people who are capable of armed resistance.

                    20. I agree, but I think the people we are talking about were pretty intent on terrorizing blacks, and with attitudes what they were blacks successfully resisting that with guns would have been used as an excuse for more numerous and better armed groups of whites to inflict some pretty savage and broad punishment. Think about the old race riots (many of which occurred in Northern cities) where for some pretty small slights entire black neighborhoods were razed. Now imagine the perceived slight were not such slights but were killings of whites by blacks (even whites who were engaged in terrorizing blacks).

                    21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co5xVHsMRV0

                      Instructive video.

                      Men who attack people in their homes at night with their faces covered are cowards. Burning crosses is all fun and games until one of your drinking buddies gets a hole shot in him.

                    22. Again, you’re missing the point. People think twice about terrorizing neighborhoods where every home potentially has a rifle barrel pointing out of one of the windows. Unless you think these people were so intent on terrorizing blacks that they totally disregarded any sense of self preservation. If so, that’s pretty dumb on your part.

                    23. I think they were very intent on terrorizing blacks, and they often had broad support in the community, and these communities were more numerous and better armed than the black communities that were the victims of terror. They were itching to terrorize and kill blacks, the slightest excuse often became a pretense. If armed blacks were killing whites, even in self defense, that would have been used to really gin up support for these terrorists and broaden their efforts.

                    24. If armed blacks were killing whites, even in self defense, that would have been used to really gin up support for these terrorists and broaden their efforts.

                      Or it would have made them think twice. Again, the only reason whites got away with terrorizing blacks was because most blacks were disarmed. The whole point of disarming them was to be able to terrorize them without any worry of them shooting back. If they were armed and able to shoot back, there would be no terrorizing.

                      Some days you’re as dense as a progressive gun-grabber.

                    25. You’re missing the point. People tend to think twice before terrorizing people who are capable of armed resistance.

                      This. It’s like standing up to the high school bully. You are most likely going to get your ass beat. But he likely won’t pick on you again if he knows he’ll have to go through a fight if he does, making it too much hassle for him.

                    26. As a general life principle I agree, but in the context of the 19th century South do you really think that Southern white communities would react to the killing of white(s), albeit in self defense, by armed blacks with anything other than organizing and killing many black people in response? I seriously doubt they would have said ‘well, those guys are tough so we better let them be.’ They went out of their way to turn whistling into something to be in a panicked frenzy about, an armed black man killing whites would have been like a spark on dry hay.

                    27. Southern whites were only able to exact vigilante justice on blacks because they were unarmed. My gods you’re dense.

                    28. “were only able to exact vigilante justice on blacks because they were unarmed”

                      A person with a gun is in a bad spot when he faces 10 people with better guns.

                      That would have been the position of armed black men in the South.

                    29. A person with a gun is in a bad spot when he faces 10 people with better guns.

                      At least one of those ten people is going to die. Who will volunteer? That’s right. None of them.

                    30. Many of these Southern whites had just fought a very bloody war, in which they were quite outnumbered in most encounters, in part to maintain a lifestyle part of which was black deference to whites. I doubt they would have been so terrified.

                    31. We’re talking just after the war now? Talk about moving the goalposts. And I never said anything about being terrified. Only that people with a sense of self preservation prefer unarmed victims over people who can shoot at them, and that people willing to terrorize unarmed victims might be less willing to terrorize people who can shoot at them.

                      You’ve got no argument.

                      Whatevs.

                    32. I don’t know that there’s one answer. I suspect there was a pretty large contingent of those whites who’d just as soon go on with other business as be shot dead over trying to intimidate the blacks. I suspect the die-hards, so to speak, wouldn’t be deterred.

                    33. When you had armed whites terrorizing relatively unarmed blacks, the support for the former in the white communities was still remarkably high. However, many just tacitly agreed or refused to object and went about their business, because try as they might black men whistling at young women, though a justification for organized terror of blacks, was not seen as justification for many to get worked up about.

                      But if black men began to arm and kill white men? That would have been exactly what groups like the KKK would want to go spread the word about. White fence setters would get off that fence, and they were much more likely, even absent gun control, to have access to more and better firearms and military training/experience to boot. I think entire black communities would have been slaughtered.

                    34. But if black men began to arm and kill white men?

                      That’s not what I’m talking about. Are you intentionally being dishonest? Disarmed means they were armed once. Had they never been disarmed, as in had they always been armed, then do you think the terrorizing would have ever happened? The whole point of disarming them was to terrorize them with impunity. Talking about military weaponry is totally moving the goalposts.
                      Yeah, you’re not being honest.
                      Go fuck yourself for wasting my time.

                    35. Perhaps, but they’d have had it out and it’d have been a straight up fight, with the north likely intervening, rather than the terrorist cowardly bullshit that went on.

                      They wouldn’t be pulling blacks out of their beds at night and hanging them.

                    36. There might be something to be said for having it out in a straight fight rather than being terrorized indefinitely, but having entire communities razed is pretty bad too.

                      Maybe the North would have been prodded to intervene, but I am not sure it would not have been on the whites side. After Reconstruction the Birth of a Nation view of black-white Southern relations was becoming more common in the North, and news of blacks arming and killing whites would have just as likely fed into that as anything else.

                  2. But in town, just go out the back.

                    “You’re on your own, kids!!”

                    Bullshit.

              2. They have dicks and know what they do with those. They fuck pussies, Chuck. Even if it was consensual, a man fucking a woman is penetrative by nature. Or if they are women, they know they are getting penetrated. And that’s “entering” so by default is a “violation,” or some such bullshit. So, do it because it feels good, but by Science you better feel bad about it afterwards!

                Having a gun is like having a dick. No one who has either can be trusted. /prog

                1. But dicks ALSO fuck assholes!

                  Although probably not enough in the case of progtards and gummint “officials”.

              3. Personally, I’m a little afraid of guns. But I can see past that because the principles surrounding owning a gun and knowing how to use is is way more important.

                As always, it boils down to a lack of principle on the parts of gun grabbers (both progs and RINOs like Governor Fatass)

        2. Why don’t you aks me to my face?

          1. you so vain! prolly think this song iz boutchoo, dontcha? well, dontcha?

            sheet – jes like I thought…

  3. Poor people have constitutional rights!
    My god, we’ll have to add that to police training. Always more training for the popos.

    1. Poor people have constitutional rights!

      HAH! In this administration, nobody has constitutional rights.

      1. Except Di-Fi. And other select members of our class of overlords.

  4. Also a win this week in the 9th Circuit, holding Hawaii gun control measures unconstitutional.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l-for-now/

    1. I’ve been rathered pleasantly surprised with the 9th Cir. on this issue, given they are arguably the most liberal federal circuit in the country.

  5. Coming Soon:
    Delaware man doing laundry shot by police.

  6. common areas, such as in the laundry rooms of their buildings.

    This “common area” business opens up a can of worms.

    Clearly, if the laundry room is a “common area”, so is the playground. If the playground is a “common area”, so is the street. Etc.

    1. It’s almost like our right of self-defense should not be infringed upon anywhere. What will these activist judges think of next?

  7. If one is not willing with the policing used in NYC to deal with guns, just get rid of these stupid gun control laws.

    The registration process is like a futile exercise for gun owners that will most likely not commit a crime with their guns.

    Criminals, so-called terrorist, and the mentally ill will just acquire the guns illegally and no Law or registration process will be effective.

    ————————————

    What we need to understand is that we should live and let live.
    Some parts of this country are OK with heavy policing and no guns.
    Some parts of this country are OK with the risk of the wrong people having guns.

    New York did a pretty good job with the guns. They did a terrible job giving so many people criminal records for minor drug offenses during the Stop-And-Frisk.

    As a compromise, looks our new Major is compromising on Stop and Frisk. The new thing is officers will continue the program but will no longer ask for Identification and will no longer enforce other ordinance. Let’s see how this works.

    1. Just keep compromising. Rights are just suggestions, really. Who needs ’em?

    2. Some parts of this country are OK with heavy policing and no guns.
      Some parts of this country are OK with the risk of the wrong people having guns.

      There are no parts of this country without guns.

      You are truly the dumbest person who comments here.

      1. I think he was saying that ‘some parts of the country’ would be OK with such a situation, not that that is what they have.

        I do not agree though, because the Second Amendment grants an individual, not a group right, so who cares what ‘some parts of the country’ (which just means ‘a majority of voters’) would ‘be OK with.’

        1. That’s what I mean and respect your difference of opinion.

          Supreme Court, as usual, has ruled in two conflicting ways.

          Yes, you can have the gun.
          And yes, the government has a right to regulate…whatever that means.

          1. Oh so the government has a right to regulate. Please expand on what you think are ok gun regulations. Cause you seemed so proud of New Yorks gun laws when you posted on the ATF raiding a gunshop in California.

            1. I was raised in Washington Heights and in the Bronx.

              My old neighborhood is much safer. And as I mentioned below, to me, the second ammendment right to bare arms is a Special Interest.

              1. It’s bear not bare. And im still waiting for an answer to my question.

                1. Sorry, I will answer “What I think are ok gun regulations.” Just keep in mind, to me personally, in NYC, the importance of Gun Possession is a special interest.
                  —————————————-
                  The the people of the states make gun laws that work for them.

                  In NY State, you can have a gun, but it can’t be carried in your pocket if you go through some silly registration policy. Since guns are present, the registration is silly. So, Criminals have an easy access. Much easier than the individual that has no intention on committing a crime.

                  So, Stop and Frisk worked. We scared people to death about carrying around a gun casually. Have we stopped a person who intends on committing a crime with a gun 100%, no. But our murder rate is way way down. And our gun violence is way way down.

                  Many people don’t like this in other parts of the country. The only complaint in NYC is that people got criminal records (collateral damage) during the search. The Mayor says he is addressing this by not asking for ID and not enforcing drug offenses beyond the weight of drug that would render felony grade.

                  Other parts of the country I can’t speak for.

                  1. So you think state laws trump federal laws, even specific amendments spelled out in the constitution, and that we still have an individual right. And you approve of government using thug tactics. So what do you think of registration licensing background checks waiting periods gun specific type limitations magazine size limits?

                    1. Completely and utterly useless. They’ve never stopped a single criminal from obtaining a gun.

                      I can take a metal pipe, ball bearings, gun powder,and a few other things hand make a weapon.

                      Since we’ll never ever be able to control this, the most effective is policing and harsh sentencing for possession. But this is only in places where the prohibition of firearms is desired.

                      BTW, something that you’ll really hate is that NYC has several imaging cameras they are trying out in time square to scan masses for guns. Probably just as invasive as the airport scanning machine. I haven’t seen it.

                      DH, I’m not going to florida or texas or any of those other nice places and demand people give up their guys. They can keep them.

                    2. As far as State Law Trumping Federal Law, I really think I’m for it now.

                      If Alabama wants to make black people slaves, go for it. I’ll stay out of Alabama.

                      If Arizona wants to run out the latinos, I’ll stay out of Arizona.

                      I’m all for it. Get rid of US constitution and have State constitution be in effect.

                    3. So you think gun laws are pointless but you like gun control because of the results?

                    4. You can simply have a law that says gun possession is illegal here. Like they have in some churches, cities, airports, etc.

                      And, in those places, I’m ok with Police enforcement as long as it’s not abusive. And, I know that is a challenge.

                      All registration laws and outlawing types of guns has proven to be laughable in the USA.

        2. She (not he) is a nitwit, and everything she’s ever posted has only further proven that fact. She’s like Tony, but she’s nicer. Except for the whole being a statist thug.

          1. I’m a 49year old Family Man.

            Not a She.

            1. You may be male, but you sure as hell aren’t a man.

            2. You may have male genitalia, but you certainly aren’t a man.

              Men defend their rights.

              1. The definition of a SPECIAL INTEREST:

                A Special Interest is a derogatory name for Interest that the beholder is not especially interested in.

                People consider gay rights as a special interest, if you are not gay. Gays see it as an important interest.

                White People consider efforts like affirmative action as a special interest. Blacks see this as important.

                People that smoke weed see legalization as an important issue. People that don’t see it as a special interest.

                I’m one of those for guns. :

                1. You certainly are “special”

  8. How nice of the court to uphold a right that everyone with two brain cells to rub together already knows people have. Though it is shameful that such a ruling is both surprising and satisfying.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.