from the article: “WHA is not a municipality. It’s not a government at all,” he [Barry Willoughby, an attorney for the WHA] said. “It’s a state agency.”
I wonder if he managed to say that with a straight face. Maybe he is too stupid (or just thinks others are too stupid) to connect “government” in the first sentence with “state” in the second.
I guess they shouldn’t be allowed to vote either… or speak, or even be searched without a warrant or probable cause. Honestly, I really don’t think they should be able to vote considering they are being bought and paid for by the welfare state. It’s a conflict of interest. .02
I attended a conference of national public-housing-authority executive directors a couple of years ago at which there was a presentation on guns in public housing, and not only was the anti-gun presenter depressed and pessimistic about the possibilities of evicting tenants for gun possession (darn that pesky Heller ruling!) but also a good number of the executive directors in the audience, including several from, IIRC, Chicago, Detroit and other super-urban PHAs, were vocally skeptical of the concept, in some cases to my delight expressing support for a pro-2nd-amendment view. (“Why should I kick out a perfectly good tenant just because they want to protect themselves!” was one quote. I have the recordings lying around somewhere. It was a hoot.)
Kinda surprised this idea is still kicking around. It’s been litigated away in California, I thought.
December 19th, 2013 at 10:15 pm
from the article: “WHA is not a municipality. It’s not a government at all,” he [Barry Willoughby, an attorney for the WHA] said. “It’s a state agency.”
I wonder if he managed to say that with a straight face. Maybe he is too stupid (or just thinks others are too stupid) to connect “government” in the first sentence with “state” in the second.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:50 pm
I guess they shouldn’t be allowed to vote either… or speak, or even be searched without a warrant or probable cause. Honestly, I really don’t think they should be able to vote considering they are being bought and paid for by the welfare state. It’s a conflict of interest. .02
DWH
December 20th, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Can you speak, or vote, or worship in .gov housing? Or is abortion the only “constitutional right” you have any more?
December 20th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
I attended a conference of national public-housing-authority executive directors a couple of years ago at which there was a presentation on guns in public housing, and not only was the anti-gun presenter depressed and pessimistic about the possibilities of evicting tenants for gun possession (darn that pesky Heller ruling!) but also a good number of the executive directors in the audience, including several from, IIRC, Chicago, Detroit and other super-urban PHAs, were vocally skeptical of the concept, in some cases to my delight expressing support for a pro-2nd-amendment view. (“Why should I kick out a perfectly good tenant just because they want to protect themselves!” was one quote. I have the recordings lying around somewhere. It was a hoot.)
Kinda surprised this idea is still kicking around. It’s been litigated away in California, I thought.