Oh, So That’s What the Taxpayer Funded Condoms for Gaza Were Used For
Townhall Is Hiring!
Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Have Significant Ramifications for Federal Immunity
Pete Buttigieg Eyes Michigan Senate Seat: Is a Progressive Turn Coming for Michigan?
You Won't Believe What NYMag Was Just Caught Doing
J6 Prisoner Who Was Pardoned by Trump, Shot and Killed by Sheriff
Kristi Noem Joins ICE Raids to Tackle Illegal Immigration
Trump Signs Executive Order Ending Federal Funding for Medical Mutilation of Minors
DeSantis Criticizes State Legislature for Opposition to Immigration Bill
Trump Proposes Buyouts for Federal Workers Who Refuse to Return to In-Person Work
Jim Acosta Quits CNN, Walks Away from Falling Network Amid Growing Criticism
Trump Tells American Tech Companies to Compete Harder With China
The Media Just Can't Help Themselves Over Trump's Approval Rating
Did ICE Agents Try to Raid a Chicago Public School?
Sean Duffy Easily Confirmed for Secretary of Transportation, Despite Temper Tantrum From D...
Tipsheet
Premium

Court Rules NY Can't Deny Second Amendment Rights to Poor People

Jonathan Miano/The Times via AP

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.

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement