|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IL: East St. Louis Public Housing Residents Are Terrified They’ll Be Murder Victims Next
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The woman has a firearm owners’ identification card and is licensed to carry a weapon in Illinois. But her lease says residents and their guests are prohibited from having or displaying guns in the apartment or on housing property.
Violating that condition could result in the lease being terminated.
Earlier this month, a federal judge ordered the housing authority to amend their rules to allow tenants to own guns.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert wrote: “Among whatever else, the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding individual to possess functional firearms in his or her home for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense and defense of family.” |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(4/26/2019)
|
FOID card? A Rights License?
No law abiding citizen should ever be forced to purchase a license, charged a fee for, or taxed in order to exercise any "Right" freely granted by the Constitution.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
