Housing Authority to allow firearms ...

[spin]

Housing authority 'waves white flag' on gun ownership
By SEAN O'SULLIVAN • The News Journal • August 9, 2010

WILMINGTON -- Residents of public housing in Wilmington will now be allowed to legally keep firearms in their units.

The Wilmington Housing Authority suspended its ban on firearm ownership by tenants because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and a National Rifle Association-funded lawsuit filed in May that charges the ban is unconstitutional, according to attorneys and officials.

WHA Executive Director Frederick Purnell Sr. said an outright ban still would be in the best interest of public safety, but after a reviewing the recent high court ruling that tossed out a handgun ban in Chicago, "We felt we had no choice but to amend the policy. ... We are going to comply with the law but hopefully, from a managerial standpoint, we will be able to put some controls in place to keep residents as safe as possible."

The WHA now is in the process of adopting new regulations related to firearms in WHA buildings and will be accepting public comments before they are enacted.

The reaction among some of the WHA's 3,500 tenants in more than 16 buildings and dozens of town houses was sharply divided, with some literally cheering the change and others cursing it.

"I'm not happy," said Sandra Lee Dennis, 50, a resident of Compton Towers, adding that guns will cause more problems than they will solve. "I oppose it."

In contrast, Phyllis LeCompte, 49, a WHA tenant on East Fourth Street, smiled broadly when she heard the news. "All right. Sign me up," she said.

"Praise the Lord," said Virginia Robinson, 61, a resident of Compton Towers who said she has had problems with security at her residence. She said the change will allow elderly residents to protect themselves.

"Too much is going on in here. ... Someone needs to take action," she said.

Diana Dorn, 55, sitting outside Compton Towers on Friday, shook her head as Robinson talked. Dorn said she would rather have the right to veto who was allowed to live in her building than have the right to possess a firearm.

She fears that irresponsible 19- or 20-year-olds will be bringing guns into the building. "Some of the young folks in here just don't give a damn," she said, and will cause trouble with a gun. If a resident is worried about safety, she said, "Get a bat."
(2 of 3)

She acknowledged that some irresponsible people may already have firearms in their units illegally, but she said making possession legal in public housing could increase the number of guns and the potential danger.

"Someone is going to get shot," she said, either by a fearful senior who overreacts or perhaps by a burglar who finds or takes a gun away from a resident.

But despite the apparent resolution of the main issue -- the right to legally possess a gun in public housing -- the legal wrangling between plaintiffs funded by the National Rifle Association and the WHA is expected to continue for some time.

At a late June meeting with U.S. Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark, plaintiffs' attorney Francis X. Pileggi said he is not satisfied with WHA simply "waving the white flag" and wants a ruling of some kind from the court to lock in the policy and prevent WHA from ever renewing the ban.

Pileggi also said new regulations that WHA is proposing -- which place some limits on firearms possession -- also may be unconstitutional, according to a court transcript.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100809/NEWS02/8090332/Housing-authority-waves-white-flag-on-gun-ownership

[slackmaster]

1. People who are so inept that they can't afford their own housing can't be trusted with guns.

:sarcasm:

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. This should work well.

:hide:

[slackmaster]

6. Yes, it's a racist conspiracy to get all those darkies and mud people to kill each other off

:sarcasm:

[Recursion]

22. Was the ban working well? NT

[virginia mountainman]

3. Lets change two terms..for the sake of clarifying this issue..

WILMINGTON -- Residents of public housing in Wilmington will now be allowed to legally keep books in their units.

The Wilmington Housing Authority suspended its ban on book ownership by tenants because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and a International Reading Association-funded lawsuit filed in May that charges the ban is unconstitutional, according to attorneys and officials.

WHA Executive Director Frederick Purnell Sr. said an outright ban still would be in the best interest of public safety, but after a reviewing the recent high court ruling that tossed out a book ban in Chicago, "We felt we had no choice but to amend the policy. ... We are going to comply with the law but hopefully, from a managerial standpoint, we will be able to put some controls in place to keep residents as safe as possible."

The WHA now is in the process of adopting new regulations related to books in WHA buildings and will be accepting public comments before they are enacted.

[Statistical]

4. +1 n/t

[Statistical]

5. "The WHA now is in the process of adopting new regulations related to firearms in WHA buildings" WF?

What regulations? Once again why should the poor be subject to more regulations (which is a nice way of saying restrictions or infringement) than the rest of the residents of a state.

If the gun laws need to be tougher shouldn't they be tougher for all residents poor and rich. If the gun laws are "tough enough" for rich residents then why would WHA need more regulations?

Once again everyone is equal just some people are more equal than others.

As soon as the regulations are finalized the NRA should fire off another lawsuit. Equal protection under the law and all that.

[spin]

7. Here's the proposed regulations ...

Pileggi also said new regulations that WHA is proposing -- which place some limits on firearms possession -- also may be unconstitutional, according to a court transcript.

Among the things Pileggi said were objectionable in the draft regulations is a proposed ban on carrying weapons in "common areas" of WHA buildings. He said the rule appears aimed at preventing "someone from just hanging out" with a firearm and is an improper restriction of Second Amendment rights.

He also objected to a proposed requirement that anyone who has a gun in a WHA building be prepared to produce a permit showing he is allowed to carry it.

"That is a little bit reminiscent of that issue they are having in Arizona," Pileggi said, referring to that state's controversial law that requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork documenting their status or face possible arrest.

Pileggi also objected to a proposed ban on anyone under 18 possessing a gun in WHA buildings, claiming state law allows people as young as 16 to legally possess a firearm.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100809/NEWS02/8090332/Housing-authority-waves-white-flag-on-gun-ownership

[Callisto32]

9. Economic status is the "okay" criterion for discrimination in this country.

Unfortunately, an economy such as ours causes a lot of people to think that poor people deserve to be that way, because they didn't pull their bootstraps hard enough.

While I have no problem with people being in different economic classes based upon their ability to turn a profit, I certainly think that the belief that the rich are somehow inherently superior to the poor is utter B.S. The only difference between the rich and the poor, for these purposes, is buying power. Both should always be subjected to the same rules of conduct, lest they be truly stripped of their right to equal opportunity.

Unfortunately, government regulation always disproportionately falls upon the poor.

Take, for example, the new lead regulations for toy makers. All models of toys must be tested and certified to be allowed to sell them targeted at people under 12 years of age. For playskool, this isn't a big deal. When they come out with a new model, of which they will make thousands of units, they can easily eat the $4k cost of the test, or whatever it costs. The local toymaker who makes building blocks out of unfinished wood still needs to have it tested, but doesn't have the billfold to afford the test, and thus cannot sell. Thus competition is killed, and the poor are harmed more than the rich.

This places the poor into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. When the regulation is equal, they are disproportionately affected by the costs incurred through that regulation. If the rich are making the rules (they are) it is unsurprising that they are made to the detriment of poor people.

Solution: Remove government regulation, and allow individuals to decide.

Some housing units might ban guns. That is the owner's right. If not required to under color of law, many won't. People that want guns banned can go to the places where it is banned, and vice versa.

[rrneck]

10. I don't understand.

There are dangerous chemicals in toys because materials using them are cheaper, thus increasing profits.

It is fairly inexpensive for large corporations to test for those chemicals, but much more expensive for smaller concerns to do so.

So the solution is to deregulate the industry and let the people decide - what?

How are all the poor people upon whom regulations disproportionally fall to know whether or not the products they use are safe? If they lack sufficient information to make an intelligent decision about the products they use, meaningful choices are impossible.

Your post would make more sense if you could claim to have been asleep for the last thirty years. Deregulation has been the root cause of some of the largest environmental and economic disasters this country has suffered since the Regan administration.

[Callisto32]

13. So, a company wants to kill/harm its clients?

I don't think so. They want to make products that get people to buy more of their products.

Poor people aren't stupid.

Do government regulations keep toxic things from getting into products in the first place? Of course not.How about that dog food, or the Chinese drywall?

No, people learn it is dangerous and stop using it/have a fit about it, and the legislature has a "look like we are doing something" session.

There are more government regulations on the books now than ever before.

EDIT:

Deregulation the cause of environmental disasters? What about this recent oil spill. Regulation encouraged unsafe practices by placing a cap on liability. If people were actually just held responsible for the damage they cause, rather than having a maze of "this is okay, this isn't, because we say so" we would be better off.

[rrneck]

14. How do you hold people accountable without regulations?

Hold them accountable to what?

[Callisto32]

19. People should be held liable for the actual harm that they cause.

Not some spectre of harm that might occur.

I agree that there will always be unscrupulous people that will be willing to harm others to make a buck. I get that. I just don't think a massive, essentially arbitrary regulatory code is necessary, and in general it does nothing but add barriers to entry that harm exactly those people whom it purports to protect.

The fact that our regulatory code often encourages irresponsible behavior (as with BP) is just one of the results of the "law" of unintended consequences. I believe that this occurs because a central command-and-control structure, like the U.S. federal government, is by its nature plodding, and incapable of solving problems as they arise at a local level. Such one-size-fits-all approaches often turn out to not fit anything quite right. As a result of this view, I think we would be generally better served by groups like Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports to deal with product safety issues. Being private organizations, they have incentive to be as efficient and effective as possible. If they aren't they will soon go out of business. Government, on the other hand, has no such incentive. If government fails, they can simply yell "but we just need more money and bureaucrats!"

[rrneck]

23. Government, on the other hand, has no such incentive.

Because it is awash in money from big business.

You mean private organizations like Moodys and Standard and Poors?

[Callisto32]

24. I'm not sure what your point is.

Last I checked, the .gov doesn't care if they are awash in money or not. They will spend billions they don't have while continuing to extract massive amounts of real wealth from society to spend on ineffective projects that mostly just pay bureaucrats far more for jobs that the market has proven are worth less.

[rrneck]

25. Check again.

They do care. There are over eleven thousand lobbyists in Washington who spent almost 3.5 billion dollars to influence elected officials in 2009. The vast bulk of those lobbyists and their money came from big business. How many of those lobbyists do you know? How many of them have you voted for? How many of them know you?

The only people who don't care how much money is in Washington are the people who are supposed to be running it; the citizens of the United States who have turned management of the country over to organizations whose only allegiance is to the richest 1% of their stockholders.

Private bond rating agencies played a pivotal role in the in the creation of all the worthless derivatives that almost destroyed the economy of the entire planet.

[Callisto32]

27. Are you suggesting that government does not, in fact, go armpits-deep into debt

to spend.

That seems like not caring if they have money or not. They spend either way.

Of course people don't seem to care. It's rational to not do anything about it. Remember the first bailout. People overwhelmingly didn't want the money spent. They did it anyway.

Of course they made up stuff to make money, because they knew that fools and their money are soon parted. People should be allowed to buy whatevertheheck they want for whatever price, be the item/service worthless or not. But then THOSE people should bear the consequences of their actions.
They could get away with it, and the GOVERNMENT would bail them out. Why? Because, exactly as you said, the government folks don't GIVE A SHIT, about your or your well-being. So long as their rich buddies are getting rewarded, and their enemies punished.

So you admit that the government is run by people that DON'T have your best interests at heart, but those same people should be trusted to regulate the world for you benefit?

That kind of thinking just doesn't make any sense. That is why I say get government out of the regulation business beyond providing a structure where people are held liable for the damage they actually cause!

[rrneck]

30. I'll repost for your convienence.

The only people who don't care how much money is in Washington are the people who are supposed to be running it; the citizens of the United States who have turned management of the country over to organizations whose only allegiance is to the richest 1% of their stockholders.

I was thinking about your example earlier.

http://children.webmd.com/news/20070815/lead-poisoning-and-kids
Lead poisoning -- at levels that do not cause immediate symptoms -- can permanently damage kids' brains.

Before their second birthday, children are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning. They are, of course, more likely than older children to put lead-contaminated hands or toys or paint chips in their mouths. Moreover, a child's gastrointestinal tract also absorbs lead more readily than does the adult gut.

Most importantly, a child's rapidly developing brain is highly vulnerable to lead toxicity, says pediatrics professor John Rosen, MD, director of the lead program at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y.

"Lead can be extremely dangerous for young children and can affect their lives forever," Rosen tells WebMD. "It is better to be conservative and safe and not ever sorry about excessive lead exposure."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
In 2007, millions of toys made in China were recalled from multiple countries due to safety hazards including lead paint

Exposure to lead may also decrease lifespan and have health effects in the long term.<19> Death rates from a variety of causes have been found to be higher in people with elevated blood lead levels; these include cancer, stroke, and heart disease, and general death rates from all causes.<5> Lead is considered a possible human carcinogen based on evidence from animal studies.<127> Evidence also suggests that age-related mental decline and psychiatric symptoms are correlated with lead exposure.<57> Cumulative exposure over a prolonged period may have a more important effect on some aspects of health than recent exposure.<57> Some health effects, such as high blood pressure, are only significant risks when lead exposure is prolonged (over about one year).<97>

In developed countries, nonwhite people with low levels of education living in poorer areas are most at risk for elevated lead.<69> In the US, the groups most at risk for lead exposure are the impoverished, city-dwellers, and immigrants.<87> African-American children and those living in old housing have also been found to be at elevated risk for high blood lead levels in the US.

There are many forms of damage that are not manifest immediately from an sufficiently specific cause that would hold up in court, but are nevertheless permanent. Those that suffer most from that damage are those who have the least access to the social, educational, and financial resources to secure recompense.

The corporations that injure people make their money and then they are gone. They then use the money they made from doing that damage to defend themselves against liability. Would you give a street thug the first move with whatever weapon he wants while disarming yourself and then hope to sue him for damages later?

You are advocating a type of libertarianism that tilts the playing field in favor of those who are most willing to disregard the rights of others. It is an ideology that is bereft of compassion and divorced from reality; much like the corporations it was designed support.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/38301/20100726/bp-ceo-hayward-may-exit-with-18-5-million-severance-package-dudley-likely-successor.htm
Shares of British energy giant BP Plc (LON.BP) surged, Monday, on reports that Tony Hayward, its embattled chief executive, is likely to quit his post following a debate by the board later in the evening on the fate of his tumultuous career.

According to media reports, Hayward and BP's board of directors will be negotiating the CEO's exit fees, Monday, and Hayward is likely to walk away with $18.5 million as severance fees.

As for taking them to court?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims associated with the grounding of the Exxon Valdez.<36><37> Also, in 1991, Exxon made a quiet, separate financial settlement of damages with a group of seafood producers known as the Seattle Seven for the disaster's effect on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75 million to the Seattle Seven, but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages awarded in other civil proceedings. The $5 billion in punitive damages was awarded later, and the Seattle Seven's share could have been as high as $750 million if the damages award had held. Other plaintiffs have objected to this secret arrangement,<38> and when it came to light, Judge Holland ruled that Exxon should have told the jury at the start that an agreement had already been made, so the jury would know exactly how much Exxon would have to pay.

The economy of the city of Cordova, Alaska was adversely affected after the spill damaged stocks of salmon and herring in the area. Several residents, including one former mayor, committed suicide after the spill.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxons-market-cap-erupts-past-500-billion
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. /quotes/comstock/13*!xom/quotes/nls/xom (XOM 60.58, -1.35, -2.18%) shares rallied to a record high of $89.73 during Thursday's strong broader market surge, pushing the oil giant's market capitalization past the heady $500 billion threshold.

[Taitertots]

15. They want to make money, killing/harming the consumer is an acceptable loss

"Do government regulations keep toxic things from getting into products in the first place?"
If most cases, yes. In some the regulations stop the harmful activity once it has already started.

Deregulation is a Reagan era fantasy based on the foolish idea that corporations will forgo profits to be benevolent.

[Callisto32]

20. I'm glad you don't like corporations.

I think the idea of shielding people from liability through this means is shameful.

Interestingly enough, corporations are a creation of government, and the government, upon whom you would place your safety, is the biggest, most powerful, least responsive corporation of all.

Edit: Why do you believe that private corps. will harm and kill people to further their own interests, when those people actually have the ability to put them out of business by not buying their goods/services; and government will be benevolent when people are FORCED to pay for their "services"?

[Taitertots]

26. The difference is that government doesn't exist solely for profit

"Why do you believe that private corps. will harm and kill people to further their own interests, when those people actually have the ability to put them out of business by not buying their goods/services"
Because they have done it, continue to do it, and show no signs of stopping in the future. Profit now and stay protected from liability later.

"and government will be benevolent when people are FORCED to pay for their "services"?"
The government is elected, if people don't like it they can vote them out.

The idea that people have the ability to put corporations out of business is somewhat misguided. What about the millions of people who are effected by corporate malfeasance but don't even buy the products? The millions of workers who were intentionally placed in highly dangerous situations until governmental regulation protected them (OHSA). The millions of people who lived near chemical plants don't directly buy the chemicals and have no market power to put them out of business(PCBs). Seems like the only thing stopping these corporate abuses has been government regulation, which has been generally opposed by business interests.

[Callisto32]

28. OPEN YOUR EYES.

The GOVERNMENT grants that protection from liability!!!!! Why is this so hard?

Where there is corporate malfeasance/negligence, those corporations (specifically, the people that run them, as corporations don't exist and only take action through agents) SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE!

Those millions of workers that were intentionally placed in highly dangerous situations could have REFUSED to go into those situations. Before you say "but the corporations would have just fired them!" SO WHAT? If they can get people WILLING to put themselves at risk for a job, who are YOU (or anybody else?) to tell them they may not do what they wish with their bodies? Their bodies, their choices, right?

[Taitertots]

29. The government is the only body that can and does enforce any liability against corporations

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the only thing decreasing corporate malfeasance is government regulation, not Adam Smith fantasies about the invisible hand of the market. The only thing that would hold people in the corporate environment liable is government action and regulations.

Are you really about to take a stand against worker safety legislation and OSHA? Anyone who thinks killing workers for money is alright is dangerously insane.

[Callisto32]

8. Get a bat?

What if I have an arthritic back?

Some people have trouble even physically working a firearm. My wife has a very hard time working the slide on most centerfire pistols.

But most people can at least handle a single-action .22 rimfire auto.

And they beat the hell out of throwing rocks or swinging bats, especially if you are physically disabled.

[virginia mountainman]

11. "Get a bat" if you think about it, is a VERY DISCRIMINATORY TERM.

Many folks cannot swing a bat effectively

[spin]

12. I wonder if she thinks honest residents of public housing are second class ctiizens ...

This is surprising statement, considering that the lady is a resident of public housing.

Why should other honest people in Delaware be allowed to own firearms but not those in public housing? Is it because public housing is so dangerous? If so the residents have even more reason to be armed.

Delaware Public Housing: Defenseless by Decree

WILMINGTON – Thousands of Delaware’s most vulnerable residents, forced by their socio-economic status to live in some of the state’s most dangerous neighborhoods, are prohibited from possessing the means to defend themselves from the drug dealers and thugs who infest their communities.

A five-month investigation by the Caesar Rodney Institute has revealed that all four of the state’s public housing authorities ban their residents from owning firearms – despite clear protections in the Delaware Constitution, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court decisions and recent rulings by lower courts that have found similar bans to be unconstitutional.

Violating the gun ban can result in eviction. For many families, an eviction from public housing would leave them with nowhere to go but the streets.

There are already plenty of guns in public housing, these residents say, but they’re in the hands of criminals who pay no heed to state law, much less housing authority rules or regulations. All that taxpayer-funded gun bans accomplish, they say, is to prohibit law-abiding tenants from legally acquiring the means to defend themselves.
http://criblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/delaware-public-housing-defenseless-by-decree/

Never, ever bring a bat to a gun fight.

[Callisto32]

21. I always love to see Volk's stuff on here.

Warms my heart to see people standing up for the right of the less able among us to protect themselves from thuggery.

[Taitertots]

16. The ban did nothing to stop anyone with criminal intentions from bringing in guns

The only people who wouldn't bring in guns were people who wanted to use them for legal self defense. Otherwise there is nothing stopping them from bringing in the guns.

[spin]

17. I imagine that some honest citizens, feeling there was no other choice ...

bought firearms for self protection.

If it came down to choosing to obey some stupid regulation from a public housing board or protecting my family from injury or death at the hands of criminals, I would chose to own a firearm.

Of course, I would hope I never had to use it, but if I did successfully defend my family I would gladly accept any penalty the housing board would pass out. If I end up homeless, at least I still have my family.

[krispos42]

18. Oh goodie... can they vote now, too?

And have trials by juries?