Why is it that the most progressive states--the states that claim to be about the benefit of all--are so blasted discriminatory when it comes to guns? First, we have New Jersey's naked racism, and now we have their neighboring state getting smacked down in court over a law that tried to deny gun rights to poor folks.
Well, not all poor folks, mind you. Just the one who had no choice but to turn to the government for help as opposed to being homeless.
See, the law barred them from having guns in public housing. Past tense.
In layman’s terms: NY cannot prohibit residents in public housing from owning firearms, transporting or using firearms in self-defense.
New York State was told on Tuesday that they can’t infringe on residents’ Second Amendment rights just because they live in public housing.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb stated:
This is not the first time SAF has successfully challenged a gun ban in a public housing authority facility. Whenever we are alerted to this sort of thing, we are prepared to challenge it. Bringing these cases simply fulfills our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.
In a case backed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and three private citizens, Robert Hunter, Elmer Irwin, and Doug Merrin, the judge ruled in favor of the Second Amendment and the plaintiffs. The case, known as Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, saw a judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issue a permanent injunction against Cortland County, New York’s ban on the possession of firearms in its public housing.
However, the decision noted that:
…tenants and non-tenants are and shall continue to be prohibited from displaying firearms outside resident units, other than for transportation of firearms and for defense of self or others, and doing so by a resident shall constitute a Lease violation, except for the purposes of transporting firearms to and from their residences, self-defense, and/or defense of others in accordance with applicable law.
Basically, they can't brandish guns and claim that they're lawful to do so. They also can't open carry, but since they can't do that lawfully in most circumstances anyway--not in New York, anyway--then calling it a lease violation isn't the biggest issue someone is going to run into.
But I'm bothered by the fact that anyone thought they could do this in the first place.
The government should never have the power to tell someone, "We'll help you, but only if you give up at least some of your rights."
If we're going to do that, why not at least start with voting rights? Anyone who is living off of government largesse has a vested interest in keeping certain parties in power for their own profit, after all, so we could argue it's vote-buying unless they give up voting while living in government-owned housing.
Yet if we tried that, people would howl, and not without at least some reason to.
So why was this ever considered an option?
Well, it's not now. nor should it ever be going forward.
