"Rights" and public assistance

[E Pluribus Unum]

Someone please set me straight on this because I seem to disagree on this one:

I am reffering to the lawsuit that Mr. Michel has filed in San Francisco. I was reading the post here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=108406

I did not want garbage up that thread so I figured I would take my dissenting opinion out here...

As I understand it, residents of the public housing units are trying to fight for their right to purchase and keep firearms in their homes. Currently San Francisco restricts their rights to do so.

While I agree we all have the right to own firearms, smoke cigarettes, drink alchohol et cetera, don't some of these rights go away while on public assistance?

If my rent is paid by the government, do I really have the right to go out at spend hundreds of dollars every month on cigarettes, alchohol, gambling, or drugs?

When I was a Casino dealer one of my co-workers worked down at the county and she would see welfare, wic, and other government assisted people coming down to the casino and losing hundreds of dollars. I would argue that we all have the right to play a few hands of poker but is it acceptable to lose rent money playing poker only to have the government pay the bill? Is it acceptable for the government to provide public housing and then the residents can better afford their vices like cigarettes and alchohol?

Take this a step further. If my government taxes are going to pay for a man to have a place to live, should he be free to spend $1200 on a brand new AR-15, or $500 on a brand new Glock? After all, that is money that could go towards rent.

What do you think because I am torn on this issue.

[PatriotnMore]

A right is just that, not a priviledge. Would they lose the right to freedom of speech also?

[Mute]

The right is not dependent on cost. Would such a person have any more of a right to purchase a POS Lorcin than a $1200 Colt Python? The only thing that could be put into question is whether this person should still be feeding on public trough if buying a $1200 gun is within grasp. However, that's irrelevant to the right to possess and use.

[PonchoTA]

They are fighting for the residents to have the right to HAVE a weapon to defend themselves. Right now, there is another entity (the city) that is dictating that they DO NOT have the right to defend themselves. That is wrong.

The suit is not saying that they HAVE to buy one, nor are they saying they must buy a $1200 rifle, or a $500 pistol either. They are saying that the residents should be ALLOWED to defend themselves in whatever manner they can without the city telling them they can't.

[USMC_2651_E5]

I agree that if somone can afford to go out and make large purchases, they should not be able to qualify for government assistance. It sickens me when I go to the section 8 area in the city I work and see Navigators and Benzs in the parking lot. I'd say that 60% of the cars there are better than mine. I also haven't been in one apartment there that doesn't have a big screen. It is ridiculous.

Although I'm disgusted with the fraudulant use of government assistance, I believe that scrutinizing a means of self-defense should not happen. In regards to other property, I wish that the controlling agency would come through the parking lot and run the plates. Anyone that owns a car that is clearly above the means of a poverty level should be forced to sell it to pay for housing or have thier government assistance stripped from them. Same for any other lavish purchases.

[postal]

What if they already owned the item before bad times were encountered in their life?

I point this out, because ever since 2004, I've bounced from 1 crap job to another, barely making ends meet. However, I still own a number of nice things I aquired before that.

Also, what if the guy wanted a braco 9mm for $80? Thank the state for protecting us by ridding the availability of inexpensive handguns. (Not that I would own a braco or jennings or what have you!)

I certainly understand your POV, but there are some other possibilities as well.

[E Pluribus Unum]

The suit is not saying that they HAVE to buy one, nor are they saying they must buy a $1200 rifle, or a $500 pistol either. They are saying that the residents should be ALLOWED to defend themselves in whatever manner they can without the city telling them they can't.

I realize that, and in principal, I agree.

If it were possible to come up with an acceptable defense firearm for $20 I would have no issue with it.

I have a right to own a Browning M2HB; if the government were paying my room and board I could save up the money to buy one but because it is beyond my means, I don't own one.

If a person is telling the government he cannot afford $200-$500 a month to pay for an apartment then how can he afford to buy a $500-$1500 weapon?

I guess my point is that, yes they should have the right, but if they can afford to excercise that right, then they don't really need the assistance.

[E Pluribus Unum]

What if they already owned the item before bad times were encountered in their life?

I point this out, because ever since 2004, I've bounced from 1 crap job to another, barely making ends meet. However, I still own a number of nice things I aquired before that.

Also, what if the guy wanted a braco 9mm for $80? Thank the state for protecting us by ridding the availability of inexpensive handguns. (Not that I would own a braco or jennings or what have you!)

I certainly understand your POV, but there are some other possibilities as well.

I have eaten Top Ramen for a month straight with my $1500 M1A at my side. I have sold everything I could for dirt cheap to pay for food rather than ask for government assistance.

Anyone who has nice things has not reached the point where they need assistance. It is supposed to be a point of last resort; if you have things of value, then you need to sell them.

If a rich investor buys his wife a million dollar diamond bracelet and then 10 years later is bankrupt, they should sell the bracelet before they go on Welfare.

[Adonlude]

If you want to limit the power of people on government assistance to purchase firearms on a monetary basis you have to apply that reasoning to all purchases. The governement would have to monitor their finances and set broad limits on the purchase of descressionary items.

This would probably be impractical to impliment but if it could be done I would be all for it.

[dfletcher]

You guys are really missing the obvious - the city of San Francisco needs to supplement their handgun purchase. I'm sure the folks at Highbridge will be more than happy to sell these folks a moderately priced handgun, shotgun or rifle.

[E Pluribus Unum]

If you want to limit the power of people on government assistance to purchase firearms on a monetary basis you have to apply that reasoning to all purchases. The government would have to monitor their finances and set broad limits on the purchase of discretionary items.

This would probably be impractical to impliment but if it could be done I would be all for it.

I agree... the current regulations are specific to firearms and for that, they are wrong.

I agree that all purchases would need to be regulated. The problem would be that the "man hours" it would take to monitor something like that would likely cost more than it would save the tax payers.

This brings up another interesting point; how is a group of people that is so broke, I'm paying their rent, able to afford the best firearms attorneys money can buy? Pro bono work? Where is my pro bono work? If I become a loser and live off society will they fight for my constitutional right to open carry?

I think there are better irons to fire than whether or not some social parasites have the right to buy expensive firearms or not.

[berto]

I realize that, and in principal, I agree.

If it were possible to come up with an acceptable defense firearm for $20 I would have no issue with it.

I have a right to own a Browning M2HB; if the government were paying my room and board I could save up the money to buy one but because it is beyond my means, I don't own one.

If a person is telling the government he cannot afford $200-$500 a month to pay for an apartment then how can he afford to buy a $500-$1500 weapon?

I guess my point is that, yes they should have the right, but if they can afford to excercise that right, then they don't really need the assistance.

Joe Poor-guy can save $50 a month for six months to a year and get himeslf a nice firearm for protection. That same savings doesn't do him a whole lot of good on the rent end. It's one gun or one month of rent.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

E

You are way off base with this arguments. First you want to deny citizens the right to bear arms if they are on public assistance because they shouldn't be able to afford a firearm...ever consider that they could be gifted a gun?

Secondly, you complain that they are represented by the best firearms attorney's...that the attorney's are likely working pro-bono...and where is YOUR pro-bono representation for open carry?

Are you serious? YOU have already benefited from the work of TMLLP so dont go crying about what YOU get. Do YOU not see that YOU do benefit from this lawsuit? Man, I think you either have an over active imagination or too much time on your hands...maybe both.

[CCWFacts]

This suit is about incorporation. We need to establish incorporation before doing anything else, and this set of circumstances provides the best opportunity for a clean case to do that.

They had to pick some circumstance where there was a (edit: non-Federal) government entity imposing a 100% ban of all arms on a class of citizens. There aren't many circumstances like that; even DC had a theoretical permit system, and did allow certain arms in non-functional condition. Well, lucky for us, SF has an absolute ban on all arms by everyone in public housing. That's why they picked it. Honestly, a large fraction of residents of public housing in SF are DQed from possessing arms, and an even larger fractions shouldn't have them even if they aren't DQed (yet). But there are some who qualify, and they have rights, and it presents the right set of legal circumstances for an incorporation suit.

[E Pluribus Unum]

You are way off base with this arguments. First you want to deny citizens the right to bear arms if they are on public assistance because they shouldn't be able to afford a firearm...ever consider that they could be gifted a gun?

Re-read what I said... I said they should have a RIGHT to own a gun... but if they can afford to buy one then they don't need assistance.


Secondly, you complain that they are represented by the best firearms attorney's...that the attorney's are likely working pro-bono...and where is YOUR pro-bono representation for open carry?

Are you serious? YOU have already benefited from the work of TMLLP so dont go crying about what YOU get. Do YOU not see that YOU do benefit from this lawsuit? Man, I think you either have an over active imagination or too much time on your hands...maybe both.

No, my point was that why would they choose to help "Joe poor guy" with a city ordinance in one single city like San Francisco... why not attack "shall issue CCW" or "open carry everywhere" or something that would benefit the entire state?

Joe Poor-guy can save $50 a month for six months to a year and get himeslf a nice firearm for protection. That same savings doesn't do him a whole lot of good on the rent end. It's one gun or one month of rent.

Then at the end of 6 months, Joe-Poor-guy can send his $300.00 to the state for paying his rent for the last 6 months. If the government is paying his rent, he has no extra money to put away.

Maybe I am just burnt that as a small business owner I have to sit down and write the government a check for 15% of my income to pay "Joe poor-guy's" rent.

I am not as compassionate as many of you here. In my utopia, I get to keep what I earn and those that are too lazy to accel go without.


This suit is about incorporation. We need to establish incorporation before doing anything else, and this set of circumstances provides the best opportunity for a clean case to do that.

They had to pick some circumstance where there was a government entity imposing a 100% ban of all arms on a class of citizens. There aren't many circumstances like that; even DC had a theoretical permit system, and did allow certain arms in non-functional condition. Well, lucky for us, SF has an absolute ban on all arms by everyone in public housing. That's why they picked it. Honestly, a large fraction of residents of public housing in SF are DQed from possessing arms, and an even larger fractions shouldn't have them even if they aren't DQed (yet). But there are some who qualify, and they have rights, and it presents the right set of legal circumstances for an incorporation suit.

Now that, makes sense.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Re-read what I said... I said they should have a RIGHT to own a gun... but if they can afford to buy one then they don't need assistance.

No, you said that when on public assistance certain rights "go away"...

While I agree we all have the right to own firearms, smoke cigarettes, drink alchohol et cetera, don't some of these rights go away while on public assistance?

[PonchoTA]

I realize that, and in principal, I agree.

...
That's as far as you need to go. The principal of the thing is all there is. It might be that a friend will sell a reliable pistol for much cheaper than the book because they know how much their friend might need one, or whatever. The how doesn't apply here. I don't care what kind of firearm/weapon they have, they should at least be able to have them.

It's the fact that people who are living there are PROHIBITED from being able to defend themselves against anybody who would bring them harm, by an arbitrary regulation by the city because they don't like it.

I say again, that is wrong.

[CCWFacts]

Now that, makes sense.

Thanks. You gotta have incorporation before you can attack any other issue. And this situation is ideal for creating incorporation because it's so "absolute". As a side benefit, you know that SF is going to fight this all the way, so it will be a thorough leave-no-lingering-doubts type of case. That's what we want. We don't want a situation where, ten years from now, there's still some question about incorporation. Well, SF is going to spend and borrow as much as it needs to fight this until every legal avenue is exhausted. Good.

We have a very clear situation (an absolute ban) imposed by an entity that will try every possible means of defending it. You couldn't ask for a better situation.

Also, in this one particular case, the plaintiff is gay. Fact: the residents of SF's public housing are largely uneducated blacks. Fact: one aspect of uneducated black culture is violent homophobia, in particular against other blacks who are gay. Fact: if this plaintiff is black and gay and living in public housing in SF, he's likely to be killed if his neighbors find out about it, and I can promise you, SFPD isn't going to do anything to protect this guy. Why is there this violent homophobia in black culture? I don't know, but it's a fact. It's present also in Africa, where anyone who is black and openly gay is likely to be killed.

I have a French-educated, sophisticated, intelligent friend from Gabon, and she once went off on a tirade to me about how she hates Westerners who are working for gay rights in Africa because there shouldn't be gays in Africa. And she was educated in France and is generally a liberal person. This is just the reality; this poor guy does have a need to be armed. He's in a class of people who are extremely likely to be targeted and he's living in one of the most dangerous communities in this state.

[E Pluribus Unum]

No, you said that when on public assistance certain rights "go away"...

The rights that "go away" are the right to smoke, drink, and lose your entire paycheck at the blackjack table. In that post I could see how you could have mistaken that I meant the right to own a gun is included in that...

You needed to read the rest of my post for clarification of my view:

If it were possible to come up with an acceptable defense firearm for $20 I would have no issue with it.

I have a right to own a Browning M2HB; if the government were paying my room and board I could save up the money to buy one but because it is beyond my means, I don't own one.

If a person is telling the government he cannot afford $200-$500 a month to pay for an apartment then how can he afford to buy a $500-$1500 weapon?

I guess my point is that, yes they should have the right, but if they can afford to excercise that right, then they don't really need the assistance.

I agree... the current regulations are specific to firearms and for that, they are wrong.

I agree that all purchases would need to be regulated. The problem would be that the "man hours" it would take to monitor something like that would likely cost more than it would save the tax payers.


It's the fact that people who are living there are PROHIBITED from being able to defend themselves against anybody who would bring them harm, by an arbitrary regulation by the city because they don't like it.

I say again, that is wrong.

I agree with all of that. I just believe that anyone that is taking my money for assistance loses personal freedoms like smoking, drinking, gambling, or any other task which costs money and does not lessen his burden on society. It should be a temporary "hand up" and not a "hand out". Demand that these people better themselves. I would rather pay for their education then their rent.

[E Pluribus Unum]

As a side benefit, you know that SF is going to fight this all the way, so it will be a thorough leave-no-lingering-doubts type of case

You forget... this is the 9th circus... this is the court that originally ruled that the second amendment did NOT apply to private citizens. You think they will simply take the Heller decision and say, "Oh... ok, I guess we got it wrong..."?

I think they will find some way to rule for San Francisco and it will be Mr. Michel filing an appeal at the Supreme Court.

[CCWFacts]

You forget... this is the 9th circus... this is the court that originally ruled that the second amendment did NOT apply to private citizens. You think they will simply take the Heller decision and say, "Oh... ok, I guess we got it wrong..."?

Yes. They have to. The 2A itself isn't clear, due to this "well-regulated militia" bit. The beauty of the Heller ruling is that is demolishes that.

I think they will find some way to rule for San Francisco and it will be Mr. Michel filing an appeal at the Supreme Court.

Which is also good. Ideally we would like to have a SCOTUS ruling on incorporation, to totally foreclose any possibility of some SCOTUS, 20 years from now, suddenly deciding, "woops, it's not incorporated". If Obama wins this term, and then Hillary or Edwards or whoever wins the next presidency, we could easily have a very ugly SCOTUS 20 years from now, that might rule that the 2A isn't incorporated. Right now we have a SCOTUS that has already said (in dicta) that they expect it to be incorporated. We want today's court to rule on this question; we don't want to leave it open to some possible post-Obama "I rule based on my feelings and what I learned in yoga class and what my cat wants me to do" court a decade or more from now.

A few cities in Illinois have already backed down from their gun bans. It's great that we have one city that will never back down, so we get to go for a totally solid ruling. I bet that the Brady Campaign wishes that DC had issued Mr. Heller a permit a few years ago, to deny him standing... Well, SF is just as bone-headed as DC in this regard. Good. Our enemies are helping us.

[M. Sage]

If a person is telling the government he cannot afford $200-$500 a month to pay for an apartment then how can he afford to buy a $500-$1500 weapon?

:smilielol5: You must not be familiar with Bay Area apartment pricing.

$200-$500 a month might get you a cardboard box on someone's back porch...

[bohoki]

how about if you lived in public housing you couldn't vote

[glockman19]

While I agree we all have the right to own firearms, smoke cigarettes, drink alchohol et cetera, don't some of these rights go away while on public assistance?
NO.

If my rent is paid by the government, do I really have the right to go out at spend hundreds of dollars every month on cigarettes, alchohol, gambling, or drugs?
YES

If my government taxes are going to pay for a man to have a place to live, should he be free to spend $1200 on a brand new AR-15, or $500 on a brand new Glock?
YES

It's the beauty of living in a democracy where everyone has the freedom of choice. You can choose to live any way you want, spend your money on what you want and yes spend the government handout on anything you want, except for food stamps, IIRC you can not buy alchohol or cigarettes with them.

I won't and don't want to restrict their liberties and freedoms and don't want them infringing on mine.

[heycorey]

Take this a step further ...

That is precisely what the socialists running the government of California intend to do.

[HowardW56]

Someone please set me straight on this because I seem to disagree on this one:

I am reffering to the lawsuit that Mr. Michel has filed in San Francisco. I was reading the post here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=108406

I did not want garbage up that thread so I figured I would take my dissenting opinion out here...

As I understand it, residents of the public housing units are trying to fight for their right to purchase and keep firearms in their homes. Currently San Francisco restricts their rights to do so.

While I agree we all have the right to own firearms, smoke cigarettes, drink alchohol et cetera, don't some of these rights go away while on public assistance?

If my rent is paid by the government, do I really have the right to go out at spend hundreds of dollars every month on cigarettes, alchohol, gambling, or drugs?

When I was a Casino dealer one of my co-workers worked down at the county and she would see welfare, wic, and other government assisted people coming down to the casino and losing hundreds of dollars. I would argue that we all have the right to play a few hands of poker but is it acceptable to lose rent money playing poker only to have the government pay the bill? Is it acceptable for the government to provide public housing and then the residents can better afford their vices like cigarettes and alchohol?

Take this a step further. If my government taxes are going to pay for a man to have a place to live, should he be free to spend $1200 on a brand new AR-15, or $500 on a brand new Glock? After all, that is money that could go towards rent.

What do you think because I am torn on this issue.

If the unfortunate person is out there buying guns, there may be a problem. Undisclosed income, illegal income, etc. What about the person that became ill or disabled and was forced to turn to public assistance, Would they have to give up their firearms? What if they had sold all but one to survive?

[berto]

Do you really want the govt. deciding what people can buy? We get pretty bent when the govt. limits our firearms choices, and rightfully so, but take a second and imagine how much worse it can get. No more cigs, booze, porn, fatty food, gas guzzlers, etc. And those are things that some in govt. already have their eyes on. After all, the govt. knows best and we really ought to think of the children. Don't let those clowns get a single foot in the door.

[Sarkoon]

If you were so poor you had to live in the projects, wouldn't you want to be able to keep a gun in the house? That's like the one place you really don't want to be without one!

[Nevermore]

A couple of things about the original post:

1) Simply being on government assistance doesn't make your civil rights moot; for instance, it would be unconstitutional for the City to say, 'In exchange for living here, we will conduct warrantless raids of your home to check for drugs, guns and illegal aliens. You do NOT give up your 4th Amendment rights in public house, nor your 1st, 5th or 8th Amendment rights. Why should you be forced to give up your 2nd?

2) If people were unhappy about the way their tax dollars are spent, then there's a political system to reduce those payments and tell recipients, 'Get a job.' Similarly, there's a way for anti-gun people to get their agenda across, by lobbying for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Using anything less to get the government to infringe on people's fundamental rights is dishonest. If you can't convince people of your side, maybe you have an unconvincing argument? To draw conclusions: Californians don't want to give up their social safety programs, the same way Americans don't want to give up their 2nd Amendment. There's a way to change the system (for the former, by voting out socialists; for the latter, through the Amendment process), and that should be the only way government actions against civil liberties and rights are affected.

[AJAX22]

creeping incramentalism cuts both ways.

This has all the features of a solid win with a plaintif that has standing, and a outright ban which is a direct parallel to the DC case.

we need to keep the ball rolling.

If we can get them to admit (in writing) that the 2a is individual not collective, then we can bring back the AW ban for review (remember they said it was ok because it was a collective right not individual?)

[yellowfin]

Discretionary issue was also justified under the collective right reasoning in Hickman v Block. In fact, that was the only justification given at all. So now it's void.

[CCWFacts]

Discretionary issue was also justified under the collective right reasoning in Hickman v Block. In fact, that was the only justification given at all. So now it's void.

Right, it now seems to me that the reasoning in Hickman is undermined and the Hickman decision could be reconsidered.

[dfletcher]

We don't always get the plaintiffs we want, but ultimately the person is of little consequence so long as they satisfy the needs of the case. Personally the only thing I care about is winning. I care about winning as clearly as possible as often as possible for as long as possible. Nothing else.

[odysseus]

I am a bit perturbed about this thread. We are all happy about what Heller affirmed, but then go about how this right is not acceptable for some??? The BIG picture here is that the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT, an individual right that cannot be infringed. Much like the 1st Amendment, yes?

So what are you going to also say that this person shouldn't be able to buy books because they are in public assisted housing? :rolleyes:

Look - the issue of public assisted housing is one thing. That is an issue in it of itself. Do not confuse an issue of poverty and what people should be able to afford, and abuses while on public assistance with this new suit in S.F. Heller vs. DC is about rooting out unconstitutional laws or rules which attack the individual rights and liberties people inherently have, no MATTER your financial station in life. These are seperate issues, and it is upsetting to see someone say that those people shouldn't be able to excercise them when the person is just upset about the state of public housing. Keep your arguments CLEAN. Damn!

.

[gd-bh]

perhaps what should be done is for someone to form a "guns for the underprivledged" type of charity. Just like the ACLU and others provide representation for some of their rights, wouldn't it be fitting for the pro gun folks to insure that people who happen to be down on their luck, are able to exercise that recently affirmed individual right? Heck, maybe the manufacturers would sell a particular model of gun at a significant discount to help insure that right is available to all Americans...

In other words, use the successful strategies the libs use to insure there are more safe, well educated, armed citizens, which would provide positive benefits in the future as the number of pro gun people were increased. Also, it would seem to be a wise move to get those in the bad areas trained and armed, and maybe see a reduction in crime...which again would only help the armed is good position.

But hey, what do I know?

[bohoki]

perhaps what should be done is for someone to form a "guns for the underprivledged" type of charity. Just like the ACLU and others provide representation for some of their rights, wouldn't it be fitting for the pro gun folks to insure that people who happen to be down on their luck, are able to exercise that recently affirmed individual right? Heck, maybe the manufacturers would sell a particular model of gun at a significant discount to help insure that right is available to all Americans...

In other words, use the successful strategies the libs use to insure there are more safe, well educated, armed citizens, which would provide positive benefits in the future as the number of pro gun people were increased. Also, it would seem to be a wise move to get those in the bad areas trained and armed, and maybe see a reduction in crime...which again would only help the armed is good position.

But hey, what do I know?

they used to have guns for the you could buy a raven 25 for $75 or a lorcin 380 for $85

now with the handgun safety tests there is no way to get a hi-point

http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/handguns/380acp/hi_point_380acp.html

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Housing projects and Welfare = Socialism

Micro-managing the finances of people in housing projects and on Welfare = even worse Socialism

Letting people in housing projects and on Welfare buy guns = less Socialism

It's an easy choice.

[mymonkeyman]

For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that, even though a person has no "right" to a valuable governmental benefit, and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to "produce a result which [it] could not command directly."

Unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Basically anti-constitutional rights animus isn't a a legitimate government purpose. Conditioning receiving a government benefit on the waiver of a constitutional right requires at least a rough proportionality and an essential nexus. It's doubtful that such a categorical firearms ban would be permitted since it isn't very proportional and doesn't seem to be logically connected.

[DarthSean]

Okay, look at it like this?
What is the difference between someone receiving government assistance saving up for a nice set of church clothes, saving up for a bicycle or little scooter, saving up for a laptop to get internet access, or saving up to by some type of gun that is suitable for their defense needs? Don't all these items listed serve some use for this hypothetical disadvantaged but law-abiding individual back on their feet and become a fully productive member of society again?

Anyone who is not familiar with Maslow's higherarchy of need should check the link and see that a suitable gun falls in/under the bottom two most fundamental levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs