• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gov. Markel wants to give Housing Auth. the right to ban guns

OneShot

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
83
Location
Dover, Delaware, USA
imported post

"Delaware Gov. Jack Markell has blasted proposed legislation that would bar Delaware's housing authorities from prohibiting their tenants to own firearms." - Delawareonline

He wants to allow the Housing Authority to be able to ban Law-Abiding citizens from owning firearms.

The legislation in question would ban the Delaware housing authority from prohibiting their tenants to own firearms.

How will the Law-Abiding people defend themselves from the thugs that carry illegally?
Will a police officer be assigned to each family for protection? Will my taxes go up to support the new officers?

What is he thinking?
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,143
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Might not have been a SCOTUS case (sorry 'bout that), but, the NRA filed a federal suit against the San Francisco Housing Authority. Once Heller came out, stating that possession of a firearm in one's home, was a right, not a privilege, Frisco folded and settled.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-14/bay-area/17197604_1_handgun-ban-san-francisco-housing-authority-gun-advocates

Rather than face a lawsuit, the Newark (Delaware) Housing Authority scrapped its prohibition on firearms.

http://criblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/breaking-news-newark-housing-authority-withdraws-gun-ban/

So, yes, Gov. Markel has no grounds because if it comes to a post-Heller lawsuit, the state will lose. The legislation reinforces the post-Heller firearms viewpoint.

If you really want to see that Gov. Markel has no grounds for his fee-good statements, just Google "firearms housing authority" or "housing authority gun ban" and get overloaded with results.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
imported post

The Case, that is referenced, never, in my belief and to the best of my knowledge, went to any Court, less I am mistken.

It was between the NRA and San Francisco Housing Authority, I believe.

At any rate, considering in light of Heller, The Housing Authority rescinded on their partially-Preempted Firearms Ordinance in California.

Wisely, they (The City-owned Housing Authority) came to the realization that the Rule/Policy would be ultra vires with The Supreme Court's ruling that allows any Law-abiding American Citizen, who is not otherwise prohibited under Federal/State Law, to have a Firearm in the House for protection and self-defense.

Under California Law it is Legal to have a Firearm in ones Home, however; I am uncertain if there exsist any type of disassembly Laws in California for Children protection. Regardless though, any such Law is contrary The Supreme Courts Ruling, and thus, has no meaning under Law.
 

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
imported post

aadvark wrote:
The Case, that is referenced, never, in my belief and to the best of my knowledge, went to any Court, less I am mistken.

It was between the NRA and San Francisco Housing Authority, I believe.

At any rate, considering in light of Heller, The Housing Authority rescinded on their partially-Preempted Firearms Ordinance in California.

Wisely, they (The City-owned Housing Authority) came to the realization that the Rule/Policy would be ultra vires with The Supreme Court's ruling that allows any Law-abiding American Citizen, who is not otherwise prohibited under Federal/State Law, to have a Firearm in the House for protection and self-defense.

Under California Law it is Legal to have a Firearm in ones Home, however; I am uncertain if there exsist any type of disassembly Laws in California for Children protection. Regardless though, any such Law is contrary The Supreme Courts Ruling, and thus, has no meaning under Law.

What do you mean by "partially-Preempted"? That sounds like being partially pregnant........Please explain. Thanks in advance!

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
 
Top