NRA Protects Second Amendment Rights Of Residents In Public Housing

[shadowrider]

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- Gun owners and sportsmen earned a victory this week as the House Financial Services Committee considered and adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) to protect the Second Amendment rights of public housing residents.

His amendment to H.R. 4868—the Housing Preservation and Tenant Protection Act—was adopted by a voice vote on Tuesday evening. The measure would restore and protect the right to possess and lawfully use firearms for self-defense and other legitimate purposes in federally assisted housing, and would bar housing authorities from restricting residents’ legal ownership of guns. This amendment is very similar to the one that Congressman Price offered to H.R. 3045 last year. That amendment was adopted in committee on July 9, 2009 by a 38-31 vote.

Anti-gun Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) attempted to amend the Price amendment with a “second-degree amendment” to H.R. 4868. The Waters amendment—that would have allowed housing authorities to impose gun registration requirements—was defeated in committee by a 24-38 vote.

Adoption of the Price amendment indicates that the majority of committee members understood that a person should not be forced to give up Second Amendment rights just to have a roof over his head, and that many public housing projects are high-crime areas where people most desperately need the right to defend themselves. The NRA has long fought this battle both in the courts and in legislatures around the country.

Congressman Price should be commended for his leadership on this important issue since all Americans have a fundamental right to self-defense.



http://www.ammoland.com/2010/08/02/second-amendment-rights-of-residents-in-public-housing/

[frebrd]

1. Good news - thanks!

This shouldn't have even been necessary. The Second Amendment rights of the residents should have been a given to start with, but I'm glad they're in the process of insuring it.

:thumbsup:

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Glad someone is doing it.

[Statistical]

3. Only way someone can diagree with it is if they think poor people have less rights than rich people.

"The Waters amendment—that would have allowed housing authorities to impose gun registration requirements—was defeated in committee by a 24-38 vote."

What an ass. Once again poor people have less rights than rich people. If the state wants to register firearms it should simply register ALL firearms not just the firearms owned by the poor.

all Americans have a fundamental right to self-defense
I'll drink to that!

[shadowrider]

4. I already am :) n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Shame on Maxine Waters for attempting to subvert the 14th Amendment out of hatred for guns.

I wonder if there's any other rights she deems unfit for "those" people? This is quite hypocritical of her, as
without the Fourteenth Amendment she'd be one of the "those" people in large parts of this country...

[Statistical]

6. Racism is out. Clasism is the new -ism.

Sad but true.

Progressive people who wouldn't never think to discriminate based on race, or sex, or sexual orientation find it 100% acceptable to discriminate against the poor.

Classes of society is "ok" as long as you don't build those classes based on race or sex or any other unaceptable delineation.

[X_Digger]

7. Dan Baum, the writer of the Harper's magazine piece..

..made an interesting assertion. I don't know that I agree with it, but it was interesting nonetheless.

His claim was that the culture of the gun is more about self-reliance and taking care of oneself- as opposed to the government taking care of you. While he meant it as a slam against conservatism, I can see a similar application to the "-ism" at hand.

Something like this- "Those most in need of help, should be the most reliant on the state, and conversely, should not be taking care of themselves."

I doubt he'd put it in such bald terms, but it does fit, in principle.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Too true. I've seen it firsthand, having resided in a 'liberal' New England town.

Not the one I'm in now, fortunately.

I often said that Wellesley was happy to welcome rich people of any race, nationality, or sexual orientation.

The poor were welcome to live in Framingham or Natick and take the train into Wellesley to work.

[proteus_lives]

9. Good news!

:thumbsup: