In which I take a contrary position:

So there is a buzz about the fact that the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that the tenants of Public housing have the right to “to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use

While I applaud the court’s decision to uphold the Second Amendment, I actually disagree with the ruling:
The landlord, in this case, the state of Delaware, would prefer that firearms not be present on it’s property. While I think that that is foolish, and does not make for a safer environment, the fact is that the tenants have no say as to what is or is not allowed on the property.
If they disagree with the choice of rules from the Landlord, then they need to move elsewhere. If they can afford a firearms for “hunting or recreation” then they can afford to pay full rent for a while. If they need a firearm for personal protection then, again, they should find a landlord who approves of (or at least doesn’t ban) firearms. 
Were this private property, owned by a single person or by a business entity, then the banning of firearms would, in fact, be legal. The same should apply when the landlord is the State. 
I firmly believe that people in Government subsidized housing have no right to privacy in their subsidized home, nor any right to special treatment of any kind. When someone else is paying the bill, then that someone gets to set the rules. Don’t like it? Move out and pay your own way. 


2 thoughts on “In which I take a contrary position:

  1. Ah, but the Amendment says "Shall not be infringed" nothing there about "…unless the Government is your landlord."
    One could easily argue that the Government has no business being a landlord in the first place, and I would be behind that. However, I do not believe that one's constitutional rights should be subject to removal by financial blackmail.

  2. I would agree but disagree. A landlord should be able to place such rules on who they rent to or what they allow as long as that landlord is a private citizen. A state government landlord should not have those same rights nor should any entity who receives money from the taxpayers to provide housing.

    However the state should also be restrained from making tax payer funds mandatory to own rental property as well. IE by lowering the rates or saturating the market.

Comments are closed.