Court halts public housing gun ban, big win for Ill. rape victim

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...muhGb2tVfziYXxXc79J4oXKBPomp7CmWCYF5i_9zxaIYs

    A federal court on Thursday cleared the way for an Illinois rape victim to have a gun in her public housing apartment to protect herself from further domestic violence, the latest judicial victory for Second Amendment advocates.

    Senior Judge J. Phil Gilbert for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in Benton, Ill., issued a permanent injunction on the East St. Louis Housing Authority's gun ban, claiming it violated the Second and 14th Amendments letting citizens protect themselves.

    He ordered the East St. Louis Housing Authority to erase the ban on guns for residents from its lease.


    Editorial Director Hugo Gurdon on the expanded Washington Examiner magazine
    Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
    The lawsuit was filed last year by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association. They filed on behalf of a woman, “N. Doe,” who had been raped and was scared of further abuse so she bought a gun. When the housing authority found out about the weapon, they threatened to kick her out of the facility.

    The judge cited the District of Columbia v. Heller case that backs citizens rights to guns in their homes. It also cited the 14th Amendment ban on oppressive state rules. “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” said the order.

    It did not tackle other gun bans issued by the housing authority. Said the order, "This Order shall have no bearing on any ESLHA rule, regulation or lease provision with respect to residents, guests or non-residents brandishing firearms outside resident units, including in common areas within any development, except that doing so by a resident shall not constitute a lease violation if such is necessary for self-defense or defense of others in accordance with applicable law."

    The gun rights groups were pleased.

    “We are delighted with the judge’s decision, which we hope sends a message to other municipal governments that they can’t try to sneak around the two United States Supreme Court victories that SAF and its attorneys were involved in to further their efforts to ban legal firearms ownership,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

    “This isn’t the first time we’ve had to challenge such a regulation. It is simply unacceptable for citizens living in public housing to be denied their basic right to have a firearm for personal protection, and in this case, it was unconscionable,” he added.

    In the case, the unidentified woman said that she was able to stop her abuse by threatening her attacker with the gun.

    “We’ve explained how she was beaten and raped in January 2017, and her children stopped the attack only by threatening to use a gun. On two other occasions, Ms. Doe had to call police due to shootings in nearby residences. When the housing authority threatened to terminate her lease due to the gun in her residence, they insisted that the building is safe, so she doesn’t need a gun. This kind of gun prohibition extremism has no place on American soil,” he said.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,142
    Good job Illinois!

    Delaware did the same thing several years back iirc the case was something like Wilmington housing authority vs citizen. It may have been a ruling by Delaware Supreme Court. Not feds. But a good win there too.
     

    Mightydog

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    So she stopped one and states that her children stopped another incident by threatening use of a firearm. Wonder what kind of rules they have for keeping firearms out of the hands of children in homes. Does anyone know if they have the same restrictions as we do in Marylinistan? Good win for the individual but I wonder how many people will afford gun safes in public housing? That’s probably the next restriction that they’ll hit next.
     

    243hunter

    Active Member
    Oct 26, 2012
    477
    Illinois
    So she stopped one and states that her children stopped another incident by threatening use of a firearm. Wonder what kind of rules they have for keeping firearms out of the hands of children in homes. Does anyone know if they have the same restrictions as we do in Marylinistan? Good win for the individual but I wonder how many people will afford gun safes in public housing? That’s probably the next restriction that they’ll hit next.

    Unlawful to allow access to a firearm by a child under the age of 14 unless that child processes a FOID card. And we have newborns with their own FOID cards.
     

    Mightydog

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Unlawful to allow access to a firearm by a child under the age of 14 unless that child processes a FOID card. And we have newborns with their own FOID cards.


    That’s what I was wondering. According to the last paragraph of OP’s post it said the children threatened the use of a gun leading me to believe they had access to it. Didn’t specify the ages. Newborns with cards huh?
     

    243hunter

    Active Member
    Oct 26, 2012
    477
    Illinois
    That’s what I was wondering. According to the last paragraph of OP’s post it said the children threatened the use of a gun leading me to believe they had access to it. Didn’t specify the ages. Newborns with cards huh?

    No minimum to obtain the FOID card. Anybody under 21 has to have a parents signature and be willing to sponsor their child. So parents apply for cards for their children. One of the problems with the system though is if the parents card gets revoked for what ever reason they will also revoke the kids card.
     

    Mightydog

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    No minimum to obtain the FOID card. Anybody under 21 has to have a parents signature and be willing to sponsor their child. So parents apply for cards for their children. One of the problems with the system though is if the parents card gets revoked for what ever reason they will also revoke the kids card.


    Did it just change? A friend said that there were age minimums and sent me this. How do they get around the “18 year old” restriction? Guess the next to last requirement means no Libtards?
     

    Attachments

    • A3A3AA75-F197-41F9-9A46-20E215573A05.jpg
      A3A3AA75-F197-41F9-9A46-20E215573A05.jpg
      62.3 KB · Views: 245

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Did it just change? A friend said that there were age minimums and sent me this. How do they get around the “18 year old” restriction? Guess the next to last requirement means no Libtards?

    I wonder how many gun owners/veterans have killed themselves because they were unwilling to seek treatment with the knowledge their firearms would be seized if they sought help.
     

    243hunter

    Active Member
    Oct 26, 2012
    477
    Illinois
    Did it just change? A friend said that there were age minimums and sent me this. How do they get around the “18 year old” restriction? Guess the next to last requirement means no Libtards?
    fo

    I cannot find the information that you posted on either the ISPFSB site nor in the FOID act so I don't know where that came from. I know the ISP tried to get around not issuing cards to minors under 10 but that didn't go over well a couple years ago.
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    I wonder how many gun owners/veterans have killed themselves because they were unwilling to seek treatment with the knowledge their firearms would be seized if they sought help.

    Far too many. And this read flag crap doesn't help. People won't seek help if they will lose something or think they will.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,721
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom