Civil Rights in Public Housing Advances
Gun rights advocates scored a victory Thursday as the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects.
The amendment, by Tom Price , R‑Ga., would bar any housing authority from restricting legal ownership of guns. It was adopted, 38-31, as the committee continued its markup of a housing bill (HR 3045) that the panel is expected to approve next week.
“Seniors and other individuals have the right to protect themselves,” said Joe Baca of California, one of 13 Democrats who voted for the amendment. “Those guns would be registered, and those individuals have a right, in public housing or any other place, to protect themselves.”
[…]
“There was a time during the ’70s and ’80s when public housing developments were considered killing grounds,” said Emanuel Cleaver II , D-Mo., who grew up in public housing. “It is just foolhardy to place guns in developments of poor people, many of whom are unemployed, and place these guns around children. . . . Why would we try to put guns in the most densely populated areas in the urban core? It’s just unbelievable.”
I included that last paragraph because Rep. Cleaver should be shamed by his statement. Is he really saying that just because someone is poor they are not entitled to all the rights enumerated by our Constitution? Is he claiming that the unemployed — which now represents about 10% of the work force — aren’t entitled to protect themselves from criminal elements? His statement almost borders on racism since, frankly, a large percentage of public housing residents, at least in the urban areas he refers to, are black.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is, naturally, promising to strip the amendment out of the bill before a final vote. We’ll see if it stalls the bill the way the civil rights for DC residents bill has been held-up.
20 Responses to “Civil Rights in Public Housing Advances”
Leave a Reply
(Be sure to answer the anti-spam question!)
on 10 Jul 2009 at 7:49 am # dustydog
‘Those guns would be registered’?
I guess half a right is better than none.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:52 pm # Archelon
Well, perhaps poor people shouldn’t be allowed to exercise other fundamental personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution…like voting. Just saying!
on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:53 pm # mariner
In Kalifornia they would be.
In other states not.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 9:01 pm # Big Boy
Minnesota law provides:
[quote] A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or [b]possession[/b] of firearms by tenants or their guests.[/quote]
Minn. Stat. sec. 624.714, subd. 17(e) enacted in 2003.
The sky has not fallen.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 9:05 pm # milesfromkansas
I’ve known of E Cleaver since he was mayor of KC in the early 90s. He’s a reverend, you know. What he finds unbelievable is that anyone would rather assume the defense of their own lives instead of relying on government agencies for their protection. After all, most of his constituency is dependent on the government for their sustenance and their jobs. This sort of individualism cannot be countenanced!
on 10 Jul 2009 at 9:21 pm # notahack
There aren’t guns in the projects already??????? Its a cliche but a true one. An armed society is a polite society. Law abiding citizens shouldn’t be at a disadvantage.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 9:43 pm # somebody
Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 10:06 pm # TmjUtah
Poor folk?
Heck, they’re just supposed to hang out on the steps until November, then go vote for the right folk.
What do they need guns for?
They gave up their freedom generations ago. For food stamps, AFDC, and the right to kill their babies.
Some kind of world we live in, ain’t it?
Hope AND change.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 10:49 pm # WP Zeller
Even creepier in Cleaver’s conceptualization is that the government, according to his phrasing, is “placing” the guns in these low-income homes.
That’s the way a true statist thinks- the government does EVERYTHING. Evidently, if these poor folks have something, it’s because The State gave it to them.
That’s how deep the sickness runs.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 11:58 pm # wuzzagrunt
Barack Obama believes the same. He said, in relation to having localities make their own (unconstitutional) gun laws: “I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities…”. As we all know, “inner cities” is a longstanding euphemism for minority neighborhoods. And not Asian minorities, either.
Of course, BO doesn’t believe white suburbanites should be allowed to own guns either. He just said that to avoid scaring rural Democrats who own sniper…er…deer rifles.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 12:19 am # 3DOGMAN
My only question would be if those white folks in Akron,Ohio that were attacked while watching the fireworks would have had a shotgun and fired only one shot into the air how many of the gang of 50 black youths would have ran away instead of attacking them.
All Americans black, white,pink,red,yellow,green or any other citizen has the right to protect themselves when they are attacked.
You can disagree with me if you want but this elected official is not to be listened to on matters of our 2ND Amendment which gives every American the right to carry a weapon concealed or in the open regardless of their income level.
Just another demon-crat telling us what to do with our guns while he runs around DC with a taxpayer provided armed bodyguard.
We have listened to them and watched Americans die by the thousands all over America in urban “easy kill zones”.
ITS TIME TO USE OUR WAY AND WATCH THE CRIME RATE GO TO DAMN NEAR “ZERO”.
Then, we wont have to pay for his armed bodyguard anymore.
I have just saved the American taxpayer more money than our great has since he took office in January 09.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 12:29 am # 3DOGMAN
PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE AND SEE THE CASE LAW WHY COPS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
THEY ARE ONLY REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUALS THEY HAVE IN CUSTODY OR PRISON.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ!!!!
HTTP://WWW.FRFROGSPAD.COM/FANTASY.HTM
THEN COME BACK TO THIS WEBSITE AND TELL ME THAT I OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER DOES NOT NEED A GUN.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 2:05 am # Curtis
Well I agree with the congresscritter. I don’t think we should let people who vote for democrats have guns either. You just can’t trust anybody that stupid with a gun.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 6:40 am # ajacksonian
Being able to protect yourself IS a civil right.
How could any representative be against civil rights?
As Amendment XIV provides the protection of the Constitution to all citizens, no State Constitution may cross out something it doesn’t like for convenience.
Now if a State wanted to put down voluntary organizing law for the unorganized militia, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, for defense of the State that is one thing. But the State could not stop any citizen from owning a weapon on that basis (or as many as they wanted) but would extend more rights and privileges to the militia for certain categories of arms and certain responsibilities for them via a self-organized and State recognized system. That was how it was done at the Revolution, and Washington depended on that for the Whisky Rebellion. Do note that the unorganized militia is every male between 17 and 45, and I am sure that those pushing for equal rights for women would want that extended to them, also.
Defending yourself is an inalienable right and that should be self-evident. Poor people, rich people, middle-class people: they are all part of We the People, and We the People only deny this most basic of rights for extreme cause and also recognize that when those deprived of such rights must take up arms to defend themselves due to Danger and then hold themselves accountable to society, we ACQUIT THEM. That happened during the aftermath of Katrina where a ex-con had to defend himself and then turned himself in for violating the law… and was acquitted as the civil law has its limits in times of Danger that will not admit delay. We deprive for civil times, not during times of Nature or War for those directly facing same to defend themselves. Thus it is not just a civil right, but an inborn, inalieanable and self-evident right given to us by Nature.
And changing that is above the pay grade of every living being.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 9:14 am # nadadhimmi
It’s ironic that the Dem Pols are the ones that consider poor people to be ignorant, stupid white trash and N’ ers unworthy of their Constitutional rights. They think the poor must be taken care of like your pet dog. It is astonishingly racist and classist discrimination. Perhaps these pols are correct because the poor vote them into office to addict them to welfare, squalor, and poverty. It’s like a pusher controlling his addicts. The power rush these pols get must be huge.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 3:36 pm # John C. Randolph
Cleaver demonstrates once again the great contempt that the left has for poor people. They are infantilized, never trusted, and expected to be dependent on the wise government bureaucrats who will tell them what to do, what to think, and how to vote.
The last thing a politician like Cleaver wants is for anyone to lift themselves out of poverty. To hell with him, and anyone of his ilk.
-jcr
on 11 Jul 2009 at 9:32 pm # Andrew
So was Rep. Cleaver born dumb, or did he ingest lead based paint after the fact while being raised in public housing?
“Registered” Bad phrase that sets my alarm off.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 7:48 am # lsi
“Archelon
Well, perhaps poor people shouldn’t be allowed to exercise other fundamental personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution…like voting. Just saying! ”
Wrong! there is no right to vote in the constitution.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 8:33 am # RAH
I had a thought that since Cleever grew ip in the projects he grew up in the total freedom of anarchy without any law and order protecting the weak. So of course only the bullies and bad guys had guns illegally and the rest cold not afford them.
He does not come from the perpective that guns defend against bad guys, so that concept is foreign to him.
The blatant racism in his comment that poor in public housing should not have guns for any reason is horrifying. However it aligns with his experiences.
It show that public housing works against instilling the American ethics of self responsibility ,independence and self reliance.
All that is taught is to depend on the authorities to help them rather than they help themselves. So Ok with police having guns but not ok for the poor having guns.
on 19 Jul 2009 at 7:28 pm # Jacob Turk
Cleaver did not grow up in the projects of a large city. He grew up in public housing Wichita Falls, TX a city of about 100,000 when he lived there. He is just anti-2nd amendment as part of being a far left progressive liberal.