Results 1 to 6 of 6

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

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post 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?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    The legislation in question was introduced in order to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on another case involving a housing authority.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    So essentially, Gov. Markel has no grounds?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post 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/2009-01-1...-gun-advocates

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

    http://criblog.wordpress.com/2010/02...draws-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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post 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.



  6. #6
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post 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

    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •