Jump to content

SAF, ISRA Sue East St Louis Housing Authority Over Gun Ban for Residents


kwc

Recommended Posts

Posted here:

 

https://www.saf.org/saf-isra-sue-housing-authority-over-gun-ban-for-residents/

 

BELLEVUE, WA The Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association have filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the East St. Louis Housing Authoritys (ESLHA) ban on firearms possession by residents of government subsidized housing in that community.

 

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an N. Doe resident who wishes to protect her identity, because she is, according to the lawsuit, hiding from a violent domestic abuser. Plaintiffs are represented by Glen Ellyn, Illinois attorney David Sigale, who has worked with both organizations in the past. They are asking for an injunction against enforcement of the no-guns rule at Auburn Terrace, a public housing facility.

 

This isnt the first time weve had to challenge such a regulation, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. 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 is unconscionable.

 

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs rights are being violated under the Second and Fourteenth amendments due to a requirement that no firearms be possessed on the Auburn Terrace property as a condition of lease.

 

This situation is made even more outrageous considering what has happened to Ms. Doe while living at her home, Gottlieb noted, referring to the lawsuit document. Weve 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 doesnt need a gun.

 

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

 

 

I bet those same people saying that wouldn't live in that building or anywhere near that neighborhood if you payed them too.

 

Great point. It would be interesting to see how many on the Housing Authority have firearms at their homes. Do as I say.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the Warren County case a while back. Errr uh wait it's identical to the Warren County case. Did they not get the memo? Broke municipalities shouldn't be enacting unconstitutional regulations. No municipality should but especially a broke one. Have fun defending this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winbigler?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo! That's the Warren County case. I can see East STL doing this but it really surprised me when I found out Warren did this because...it's in the sticks (drove through there last night), biggest "city" is Monmouth and it isn't even a city. Village I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winbigler was settled by mutual agreement in favor of the plaintiff. Both sides asked the judge to rule that the 2nd Amendment protected Mr. Winbigler's right to keep a firearm in his dwelling inside the public housing facility, but she declined because it wasn't necessary to the outcome.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has worked extensively with domestic violence victims training them for self-protection, restrictions like that are the height of idiocy in my view. A number of my trainees have used firearms to kill attackers over the years. Quite a few more have used firearms non-lethally, ranging from just showing their firearm to shooting but not killing attackers. Many of these people are minority or vulnerable groups who receive some sort of aid or subsidization of their residency.

 

If they didn't have firearms available to them, they literally would have been killed. So, what, would they have had to choose between dying and being allowed to have access to public housing?

 

Again, idiocy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has worked extensively with domestic violence victims training them for self-protection, restrictions like that are the height of idiocy in my view. A number of my trainees have used firearms to kill attackers over the years. Quite a few more have used firearms non-lethally, ranging from just showing their firearm to shooting but not killing attackers. Many of these people are minority or vulnerable groups who receive some sort of aid or subsidization of their residency.

 

If they didn't have firearms available to them, they literally would have been killed. So, what, would they have had to choose between dying and being allowed to have access to public housing?

 

Again, idiocy!

This is why so many people truly believe our government wants us to die. I'm not gonna get into the overpopulation issues, that's back room stuff, but I just get this feeling that they're trying to cull the herd, so to speak. Disarm the most vulnerable people? Yes! Brilliant. While we're at it, let's cut mental health funding then harp about how we have no mental health system left. Yes, because you jackholes axed it. Gotta service those multimillion dollar pensions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How soon people forget! Back in the 90s at the height of the crack wars (under the Clinton administration if memory serves) the U.S. Department of 'Justice' approved *WARRANTLESS SEARCHES* of select public housing units to seize any and all guns. They were actually doing them in some areas. An unlikely alliance of the ACLU and the good ol' NRA combined to file suit and end the practice. I had a terse, but respectful conversation with my Ops LT at the time when I was with the ISP. He mulled it over for a few seconds and agreed: the searches were unconstitutional, illegal, and orders to participate would NOT be followed by us. Furthermore, officers participating in the illegal raids would be arrested for Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights if they pulled that crap in our presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...