The NRA has threatened the four public housing authorities of Delaware with lawsuits if they do not rescind their bans on guns… (The News Journal)
What that means, … is that if the three “other” public housing authorities, The Wilmington Housing Authority, The Delaware State Housing Authority, and The Dover Housing Authority, all fail to cave in like the yellow bellied, weak knee’d Newark Public Housing Authority, and pull the ban from out of their rules and regulations, a moribund solicitor in the full employment of the NRA will park his car in the union built garage, step out, lock his vehicle, go into the courthouse, pass through the security frisking, and file a few papers… It doesn’t cost the NRA a penny… His parking ticket even gets validated!
On the other hand, upon getting these letters, the Housing Authorities, each have to contact their defense attorneys, who upon picking up the phone, begin their billing their client $300 an hour (loosely translates into $5 a minute, or 8.3 cents a second) .. Just the attorney’s initial outbust… “THEY DID WHAT!!! ” costs the Housing Authority 16.6 cents! For another 16.6 cents, the attorney could feign hearing loss, “WHAT DID THEY DO, AGAIN?”
Bottom line, filing costs the NRA nothing, and costs taxpayers tremendous amounts of money… The only way for taxpayers to win, is to call the NRA’s bluff and force the cases into court, and make the case that each lawsuit is proven to be frivolous, and then require repayment of all attorney’s fees for the defense, as well as any damages that can be found to pile on… If it costs the NRA their money, … money that their members obviously don’t spend on fashion, then these silly things the NRA does, will go away…
But what if… hmmm… what if…. ahhhh… there was some way to cost the NRA something each time they “threatened to file a lawsuit” …. Maybe something that was beyond the law…. hmmm…
Let’s say a European was contracted to “ice” some of their high ranking officers, or even better, hit ’em where it hurts… their families.. I wonder what would happen if we woke up tomorrow and saw this “just out of random” headline, Christopher Cox, 11250 Waples Mill Road , Fairfax, Virginia, was killed by unknown gunman… Walking out to get his mail, he never returned. Family found him dead by bullet to back of head”. If you are resourceful enough, you can guess exactly where the gunmen hid while waiting for his arrival….
Or how about this headline…. Funeral services for the child of John Hohenwarter were held privately in a closed session; the public was not invited nor allowed to attend….
Or how about seeing this in the news… Andrew Jennison is still listed as a missing person… Anyone with knowledge of or a recent siting, is urged to call their local authorities with any information… He was last seen leaving his house for work at his usual time, but never showed up at his employers. He was first reported missing last Monday…
Now each of these persons was licensed to carry a concealed weapon… (They also were all licensed to do something else)…. But in each of these cases, their faith in their right to carry a gun, was just that. faith. Effective? That I think would be up for debate.
That is how you take the fight to the NRA. Make them live in with the same stresses and fears that those living in public housing face everyday. Make them look over their shoulders every minute of their existence. Make them fear for their lives, because somewhere out there there’s a crazy…. someone who wants to kill them, who has a gun and you know, thanks to the NRA, there is nothing anyone can do about it…
At least, with the current ban in place, if Christopher Cox tells me he is going to blow my head off tomorrow because of something my kid said to his, I can call the housing authority and say, “Hello? Christopher Cox has a gun in his room… He threatened me with it today!” and sometime before tomorrow, police will arrive and comb over the apartment. Who knows, if they find it, I might live to see a couple more sunsets than I could have otherwise… That would be nice. But.. if the gun ban is removed, and under the same scenario I call up, I get this answer: “oh .. no crime has been committed yet. If he, by chance, uses it on you, give us a call then, and we well knock on his door and discuss that matter with him. Goodbye.”
So you see, as thinking men and women, if we have no other option but to live in public housing, then, we should be the ones worried about our rules and regulations pertaining to our own safety. Not someone listing their address at 11250 Waples Mill Road , Fairfax, Virginia. Like what do they know…
If the case goes to court… here is how it plays out. Their side pulls out the second amendment. The defense pulls out the Declaration of Independence.
All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These three rights are the only ones endowed by man’s Creator. The rest come from men.. If men choose to protect their lives and liberties over those of owning a gun, it is their choice. They are free to do so. It is perfectly within every American’s God given right to ban the use of guns on his property if he so desires.. That.. is what America is all about…
The Housing Authorities have every right to maintain the safety of their confines in anyway they see fit. If enforcing a gun ban protects citizen’s lives, then they have every right to do just that… Every innkeeper is allowed to make rules for his tenants. After all, it is his property.
Every householder or property owner is allowed to make rules and regulations pertaining to the use of his property. “Follow these rules or get out”… Hell, every parent of teenagers has had to use that line once in a while to keep the peace. That is the American way. To sit in some cubicle far, far away talking smack, and having tons of tax payers money being spent on a frivalous lawsuit, is not the American way. For one, it is too cowardly to be considered American. For two, it goes against the doctrine that a man’s home is his castle… For three, removing the only protection those tenants of these domiclies have against gun violence from getting out of control, should be downright criminal.
The three remaining housing authorities need to take action and sue the three NRA lobbyists registered within the state of Delaware personally for all the cost they are placing on our strained finances. Make those individuals who are responsible for all NRA actions in this state, on the hook for the financial consequences of their action..
Take the fight to them. You have the best case. And yes I do this for fun…. I’ll waive the fee.
kavips 
54 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 7, 2010 at 10:55 am
kilroysdelaware
“The Housing Authorities have every right to maintain the safety of their confines in anyway they see fit. If enforcing a gun ban protects citizen’s lives, then they have every right to do just that… Every innkeeper is allowed to make rules for his tenants. After all, it is his property.”
So you are saying the housing authorities can enter a unit anytme the want as search without a warrant?
“Enforcing a gun ban protect citizens’s lives, then they have every right to do just that”
So citizens that don’t live in public housing have more rights than those who do? If a person is prohibited by law to possessing a gun then that’s the law. However if a person isn’t prohibited by the same standards shouldn’t he be permitted to posses a gun. Face the truth, many people see people living in public housing as criminals and fear allowing them to have guns would somehow victimize non-public housing residents. Perhaps public hosuing shouldn’t be offered to convicted felons. Perhaps I could go with tenants being required to notify the housing authorities that they posses a gun and what type and s/n# but even that is pushing it.
March 7, 2010 at 11:02 am
Kavips on NRA and the Public Housing Ban. : Delaware Liberal
[…] reacts angrily. While I cannot endorse Kavips’ plan on taking the fight to the three registered lobbyists for the NRA in the State of Delaware by […]
March 7, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Liberal Failures
As always the attempt is to drag in to the conversation the trauma of Public Housing and society’s unfairness. These items, real or not have nothing to with the proposed law and any consequences of the law.
The simple reality is there should be no laws which restrict the right to bear arms for law abiding citizens-none.
Making the silly request to have Christopher Cox live in public housing shows the utter desperation of your side.
Mike Protack
March 7, 2010 at 7:04 pm
kavips
Kilroy’s answer: … you made the jump there that authorities could enter anytime without a warrant to search for weapons… Not me… That is the craziest thing I think I’ve heard you say, since you supported the same Copeland who cut soap from all school bathrooms to save money…. (snark)…
In fact, for the record one more time, I clearly state that if there is a gun that will be used against me, I can provide that knowledge to the police who can then use that as probably cause, get the warrant, enter and search, and if finding one, use the ban of weapons to confiscate that weapon and press charges so I can live another day…
Anyway, landlords have the right to inspect their own property. Some modifications are in place of course, but a renter is there only at the prerogative of the landlord.
The rest of what you say, really doesn’t make sense. If you lived in public housing you would be concerned with your own survival. My point is that if a gun ban increases your chance of surviving the next twenty four hours, it is unconstitutional not to allow it… WE have the right to live… If our government mandates we have to die, it is time to get a new government.
Are you a Republican still? I seem to remember you grew unconscionably disgusted with the direction your party went, and jumped ship? Sorry, I haven’t followed the details very much.. You didn’t lose your good sense again ,… did you?
March 7, 2010 at 7:15 pm
kavips
I think that anyone reading what I wrote, can adequately sense and thoroughly enjoy the irony of applying the same environment to those lobbyists as is experienced by those in public housing… The illustration served its purpose; Violence is no longer necessary to make the point.
It is clear for all to see that the NRA is imposing its will, while living in suburbia, on other areas where they have no idea of what goes on…
Because of this illustration, it has now become impossible for them to stand upon behind their argument anymore….
March 7, 2010 at 7:24 pm
kilroysdelaware
“Kilroy’s answer: … you made the jump there that authorities could enter anytime without a warrant to search for weapons… Not me… That is the craziest thing I think I’ve heard you say, since you supported the same Copeland who cut soap from all school bathrooms to save money…. (snark)”
Well I figured since you don’t support the rights of those living in public housing to bear arms as others that live out side public housing that the search and seizure laws don’t apply. Hey don’t talk about my friend Charlie Copeland. I was for him and against him but ended up for him 🙂 I ate my crow pie 🙂
Protact said it, “The simple reality is there should be no laws which restrict the right to bear arms for law abiding citizens-none.”
I thought you were an American? 🙂
March 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
kavips
Mike, have you given up all common sense?
Who on earth is talking about the trauma of Public Housing and society’s unfairness all of which have nothing to with the proposed law and any consequences of the law.
Certainly not me…
Try reading what I wrote before responding if you don’t want to sound foolish in public…
I really don’t care about those issues… What is at stake is local representation. The laws of the land underlying each of these housing authorities, are being imposed from 11250 Waples Mill Road , Fairfax, Virginia… Not the Wilmington City government, not New Castle County government, not even the state of Delaware’s government in Dover… No, no local representation was consulted and in fact, all local representation is aligned lock, stock and barrel against it! … It might as well be King George spouting off his mouth from across the ocean, and General Cornwallis “Joe Booth” being his enforcer upon the slovenly, pitiful, and underprivileged subjects they hate so much ….
March 7, 2010 at 7:45 pm
kavips
Yeah, I think I am in agreement on that principal… I would outline that government entities cannot mandate the control of weaponry on the sole principal that they wish to prevent any opposition if they deem to take illegal seizure of a person’s private property. We are guaranteed our rifles to keep our government in line… ( it’s worked well for over 200 years)
However, private owners and landlords, do have the right to ban weapons on their own property, if they so deem it is in their best self interest… Obviously it is in any inner city environment to have weapon bans in place… If that is what their citizens want…. then it IS constitutional …because it went through full process of the law….
And on one of your points… you say people living in rental housing are being judged inferior to home owners who can or cannot opt to have a weapon in their domicile…
The property belongs to the landlords… Rental agreements are pieces of paper that clearly state that “you can live here if you agree to abide by these rules… here they are…” If you don’t like the rules, you can not sign the lease and go elsewhere… but the ownership belongs to the landlord….
Otherwise the argument would have to flow that our sons could keep unlimited illegal substance in our houses while still living with us, because they have a right to do whatever they want….. NOT…
March 8, 2010 at 8:12 am
Hube
Take a gander, ‘vips.
March 8, 2010 at 9:22 am
mike w
If the case goes to court… here is how it plays out. Their side pulls out the second amendment. The defense pulls out the Declaration of Independence.
Good luck with that buddy, since the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight whatsoever.
March 8, 2010 at 2:25 pm
LiberalGeek
I will disagree with Kavips here on the right to bear arms at home in Housing Authority residences. These are homes. I do not see how you can waive Constitutional rights in these residents homes.
However, the awful bill that is being proposed to rectify the situation goes too far, in that it effectively moves the protected areas from beyond the home to other places, such as schools and daycare centers.
I think there is a happy medium to be had here. We can allow legal firearms into domiciles without screwing up the gun-free zones that we have previously established.
March 8, 2010 at 3:08 pm
anonone
Damn, Protack is alright now. I am law abiding so now can I get a couple of machine guns, a tank, and some grenade launchers? That would be sooooo cool! I’d keep the tank in my front yard except when I used it for grocery shopping. I want a machine gun mounted on my roof and the grenade launcher I’d keep for the Fourth of July festivities.
Vote for Protack! Guns for everyone!!! Yaaah!
March 8, 2010 at 4:52 pm
mike w
without screwing up the gun-free zones that we have previously established.
Yeah, because it’s not like anyone willing to ignore a sign can’t just walk right into that “gun-free zone”…….with a gun.
I’ll never understand the idea that such a “zone” is supposed keep people who intend to do harm to others from entering. Do they sprinkle magic fairy dust around the perimiter to keep out violent people with guns as well as violent people with knives, bombs, blunt objects & 4 appendages they can use to harm others?
If they can ban guns for DSHA residents then what other Constitutional rights can they violate?
March 9, 2010 at 8:51 am
LiberalGeek
Mike – I know you believe in “a gun in every pot” but there are some places where society has decided guns are inappropriate for whatever reason. I happen to believe that in ones home, you have the right to carry one. In the courthouse (or prison or daycare centers or schools), you don’t.
Must every gun question be solved by “guns everywhere”?
March 10, 2010 at 4:07 am
kavips
Just a quick overview on some of these comments. i hope to debate in greater detail later, But I just wanted to comment on a recurring trend among those defending guns to use equivocations…
Example… “he blasts the NRA, but why doesn’t he blast the ACLU?”
For a writer, the above statement is ridiculous… The ACLU and the NRA have little in common. Of course both are groups, and the author of that equivocation is simply trying to insert a hate word (ACLU) into his statement anyway he can, just to get a rise out of a certain type of reader… Well, readers that dumb, like Babs G, don’t come here. Only wondering people do..
In fact a far better if not more silly aphorism which would causes the required visceral gut reaction would be to say.. :
The NRA is crawling all over Delaware like millipedes crawling all over a fear factor contestant… Since both insects are crawling, that actually has more of a similarity, than comparing the ACLU to something totally unrelated like whether the Housing Authorities should ban guns in areas under their control…
When anyone reads such, the scratch their heads at that tripe and go “huh?”
I challenge anyone like Mike W. who is in support of guns everywhere, (he might be surprised to find I am a big supporter too of the second amendment) to come to the defense of the NRA here using relevant material, that deals specifically with the issue of the housing authorities…
Worried about someone walking into a gun free zone with a gun, has nothing to do with whether or not the citizens living in those developments have the right to use the electoral process to make themselves safer, by getting guns banned.
If citizens want a gun ban, they create one; if the other side contests, it goes to court and up through the court system until the Supreme Court decides…
Bottom line, everyone has the right to live… If banning guns improve a persons chance of survival, then it cannot be deemed “Unconstitutional”.
March 10, 2010 at 10:22 am
Hube
I challenge anyone like Mike W. who is in support of guns everywhere, (he might be surprised to find I am a big supporter too of the second amendment) to come to the defense of the NRA here using relevant material, that deals specifically with the issue of the housing authorities…
OK, I’ll bite. B/c the housing authorities are an arm of government, and as such are part of the public arena. Meaning, they are bound by the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
If citizens want a gun ban, they create one; if the other side contests, it goes to court and up through the court system until the Supreme Court decides…
Well, that’s true (in that a ban will wind its way through the courts), but citizens cannot arbitrarily “create a ban” on rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Would Housing Authorities be permitted to ban people from discussing politics within the boundaries of their property?
The High Court is poised to offer a definitive word on 2nd Amendment rights and outright bans very shortly, which will likely affect the local issue. And, it doesn’t look good for your “side,” ‘vips.
March 10, 2010 at 11:57 pm
kavips
The whole issue is about local representation. There are good cases where the government forced locals to align themselves with the Federal model, and bad cases where the government forced locals to align themselves with the Federal model..
Good cases: minority rights, Civil Rights, Reconstruction, Interstate Highways, TVA, Medicare, sexual harassment torts, military base construction, FDIC. revenue sharing
Bad cases: prohibition, Dred-Scott Decision, Indian Affairs, mineral rights, water privileges, no child left behind, unpaid Republican mandates, Federal Budget cuts.
Every law is up for interpretation, depending upon how one feels about the issue. If public safety becomes the issue, and a gun ban helps keep deaths down, and everyone in that particularly community recognizes it, votes for it, and supports it, then… having one Joe Booth demand more people die so he can win brownie points on the NRA’s tally poll of candidates, should be the thing that is unconstitutional; not the housing authorities ban on guns which is solely aimed to protect them.
Remember, the only way to remove illegal guns is to make them illegal.. If you know the gun is there, and you know it will be used tomorrow to kill you know who, (Joe Booth), the only way to prevent Uncle Joe’s death is to move in, confiscate the gun. If it is legal, and you know all of the above is about to happen, the only way to prevent his death, is to take him to an “undisclosed location”…. ( Which, if it renders him ineffective, just might save this state $ 560,000 which of course the NRA will gladly reimburse when it loses the case…..)
Let me reiterate it one more time here for those slow of thinking. If members of the General Assembly were the ones being picked off one by one, on a daily basis, these gun bans would remain indefinitely. It is only because only blacks and crackheads are getting whacked, that anyone dares having this ban rescinded. I really don’t care about crackheads. But if one takes a broader view, it is quite apparent that blacks, seem to be a lot more considerate of their fellow man, than backwoods Sussex politicians whose noses are full of the chicken manure now being spread all around them…
March 11, 2010 at 12:15 am
kavips
Hube…
If government entities were all supposed to allow guns on their premises, then why do we spend so much money at every governmental building to insure that no firearms enter that very building?
Because those inside don’t want to get shot…
If that is good enough for the General Assembly located in Legislative Hall, it is good enough for residents of Public Housing.
March 11, 2010 at 8:19 am
Hube
It is only because only blacks and crackheads are getting whacked, that anyone dares having this ban rescinded. I really don’t care about crackheads.
That’s complete BS, and basically should end the discussion here and now. You’ve already proven you know virtually squat about the Constitution and the law in the various matters involved here (citing the Declaration of Independence in a constitutional matter?? LOL!!), so I suppose it’s only natural you’d resort to this crap.
If government entities were all supposed to allow guns on their premises, then why do we spend so much money at every governmental building to insure that no firearms enter that very building?
Um, maybe b/c private citizens do not actually LIVE in legislative hall or other government buildings that are usually utilized for employment?
March 14, 2010 at 3:57 am
kavips
To write a bill establishing that guns must be allowed in Public Housing is in itself unconstitutional…
The public housing has the right to make the rules on it’s own property.
One of those rules is : thou shalt not have guns while on this property.
That rule is written on the lease… implying that if you wish to live here in public housing, you must give up having guns on this premise…
If you agree with this arrangement…. sign here… If you don’t,… go live somewhere else…
Those who do sign are not having their rights violated because to them, this housing arrangements without guns, if preferable than living in some other alternative, with guns…
It is no different than one’s employer outlawing jeans… Whiners: awww, those people walking up and down the street can wear jeans … we should be able too….” NO, you shouldn’t …
May 26, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Robert Farago
Wow.
May 27, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Mike
Wow is right. Kavips is a bigot. Not to mention wildly ignorant.
And he’s also advocating violence against his fellow Americans and his family.
I feel a post coming on, as kavips should be taken to the woodshed and loudly ridiculed for writing this kind of vile, ignorant tripe.
May 27, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Mike
Err. I meant ” and their families”
May 28, 2010 at 9:39 am
mike w.
The public housing has the right to make the rules on it’s own property.
So then it’s permissible for public housing to enslave those who reside there?
I mean, if the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to them, then why not the 13th as well?
June 2, 2010 at 12:08 am
kavips
I always get a kick out of someone who knows such a tiny bit, they make outlandish accusations … it makes me laugh every time.
It reflects 100% on them; 0% on me. The more they do it, the “stupider” they look to those reading the exchange from the outside…
Featuring the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Show me the well regulated militia in each of these housing projects, and I’ll re-evaluate my position here…
if there is no militia, then the housing projects are operating within the parameters set by the founding fathers.
The NRA is about to get it’s first bloody nose.
June 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Mike
I notice you don’t answer my questions nor defend your position. Why is that? Ashamed of your bigotry and call for violence? You should be.
June 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Mike
Given your demonstrated ignorance of constitutional law I have my doubts you’ll be able to grasp this, but perhaps your readers can.
The Delaware Constitution is quite unambiguous as to the right to keep and bear arms and it’s purpose. You’ll notice it is not tied to the “militia”. That would be irrelevant anyway, but I won’t get into that part of the discussion since I suspect it’s beyond your comprehension.
June 6, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Mike
Damn forgot to link so you wouldn’t have to look up our constitution yourself.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/reminder
June 6, 2010 at 7:28 pm
mike w.
I always get a kick out of someone who knows such a tiny bit, they make outlandish accusations … it makes me laugh every time.
Well at least you recognize this in yourself and can admit it when you demonstrate as much in your post. The 1st step in moving past your bigotry is admitting to it.
June 30, 2010 at 4:09 pm
mike w.
Bad cases: prohibition, Dred-Scott Decision.
You do realize that this decision specifically lists the Keeping and Bearing of Arms as a fundamental right of citizens. Right? Notice also that Justice Taney says “keep and bear arms wherever they went” not “keep and bear arms for the purpose of appearing for militia duty.” Wherever they went is pretty damn unambiguous language. Sure, the court erred in saying blacks had no such rights, but they knew exactly what rights they were denying and listed the right to “keep and bear arms wherever they went” as one such personal right.
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
Now, I doubt you’re listening at this point, bigots rarely do. I’m putting this information out their for your readers.
August 10, 2010 at 2:03 pm
mike w.
How’s that bloody nose feelin’ today Kavips?
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100809/NEWS02/8090332/Housing-authority-waves-white-flag-on-gun-ownership
Ah, gotta love it when bigots get knocked down a peg!
August 17, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Bob
“It is clear for all to see that the NRA is imposing its will, while living in suburbia, on other areas where they have no idea of what goes on.”
But of course. That damn NRA. How dare they insist that those living in urban areas have the same rights as those living in “suburbia”? The NRA is imposing its will? Give me a break. They would be unable to “impose their will” if they didn’t have Supreme Court precedent and the Second Amendment on their side. And how in the world do you know they have no idea what goes on in housing projects. If you weren’t as ignorant as you clearly are, you would know that the NRA’s pending lawsuit was initiated at the behest of a Jane Doe who lives in the Wilmington Housing Authority and is obviously quite well acquainted with the goings-on there, you condescending dick.
“At least, with the current ban in place, if Christopher Cox tells me he is going to blow my head off tomorrow because of something my kid said to his, I can call the housing authority and say, “Hello? Christopher Cox has a gun in his room… He threatened me with it today!” and sometime before tomorrow, police will arrive and comb over the apartment. Who knows, if they find it, I might live to see a couple more sunsets than I could have otherwise… That would be nice. But.. if the gun ban is removed, and under the same scenario I call up, I get this answer: ”oh .. no crime has been committed yet.”
The above quote makes me think this whole piece is a joke, because only someone who is joking or is a complete idiot would claim the removal of an unconstitional gun ban makes it legal to threaten someone’s life. No crime has been committed yet? Ok, sure thing. You go ahead and threaten someone’s life and see how long it takes the police to show up on your doorstep.
“Anyway, landlords have the right to inspect their own property. Some modifications are in place of course, but a renter is there only at the prerogative of the landlord.”
Yeah, because a Housing Authority run by the government is exactly the same as a landlord who runs a privately-owned rental property. But who cares about such legal hair-splitting because, in the name of “safety,” the government should be able to violate your rights in anyway it sees fit, if you live in the projects, right? At least that is the argument you are making. And please, don’t claim you aren’t because the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that such gun bans are unconstitutional so your claims otherwise are just plain wrong.
“I really don’t care about those issues… What is at stake is local representation.”
So if the locals decide to infringe on your right to a speedy trial, right against unreasonable search and seizure, right against self-incrimination, etc. you’re a-ok with that? Yeah, sure you are. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled, on more than one occasion now, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns for self defense and has ruled outright bans are unconstitutional so any argument that the other protections I list are not analogous to a right to own a gun is just plain wrong. And please, don’t insult our intelligence by claiming your opposition to the NRA is rooted in federalism rather than an animus against guns.
PS Frivolous doesn’t have an “a” in it, genius.
August 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Bob
The headline that now reads “NRA About To Get It’s [sic] First Bloody Nose” should be changed to “Anti-gun dickhead Eats Crow”
” And yes I do this for fun…. I’ll waive the fee.”
If you are a lawyer, I am the king of Siam.
Instead of writing ridiculous nonsense, you should acquaint yourself with the difference between the words its and it’s.
August 17, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Bob
“Damn, Protack is alright now. I am law abiding so now can I get a couple of machine guns, a tank, and some grenade launchers.”
Why is that whenever someone brings up an individual’s right to own a gun for the purpose of self-defense some douchebag feels compelled to pull out the asinine ” I should be able to get a tank and a rocket-launcher” nonsense? If I had a nickel every time an idiot made that same bullshit “argument”, I would have enough money to make Bill Gates look like a Depression-era hobo.
“It might as well be King George spouting off his mouth from across the ocean, and General Cornwallis “Joe Booth” being his enforcer upon the slovenly, pitiful, and underprivileged subjects they hate so much ….”
Or it might as well be some idiotic dickhead claiming people who live in the projects don’t enjoy the same Constitutional protections as everyone else. I don’t know what is more nauseating, the claim that those living in the Housing Authority units don’t enjoy the same Constitutional protections as everyone else, or the ridiculous implication that the moron who authored the above blog post is some sort of champion writing on behalf of those living in the Delaware housing projects rather than a condescending dick.
Since the author of the above blog post is so keen on telling us the listed address of Christopher Cox, perhaps he will reveal his own address, unless of course he is a gutless chickenshit.
August 22, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Mike W.
Bob, Kavips is no legal genius. Hell he thinks the Declaration of Independence has legal weight in court.
That kind of stupidity is astonishing.
March 26, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Bob
In my earlier comments, I completely failed to comment on a couple of sentences that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that kavips is an ignorant moron. After quoting the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, the famous “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that AMONG these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”(emphasis mine) he then concludes that “These three rights are the ONLY ones endowed by man’s Creator”(emphasis mine). Hey jackass, do you know the definition of the word AMONG? Obviously not. The Declaration doesn’t state those are the ONLY three inalienable rights, as you so ludicrously and hilariously claim, rather it claims, hence the use of the word AMONG, that those are three of the more notable individual rights endowed by our Creator.
Get a fucking clue, idiot.
March 29, 2011 at 4:59 am
kavips
Only a fool would rise up to call someone idiot based on an interpretation of a preposition. ie “his” interpretation of a preposition. In this day and age with Google, that is totally unacceptable.
Here are some uses of “among” that counteract Bob’s assertion.
The king called in his sons and divided his kingdom among them. (Did he give part of his kingdom to Mustang Sally? No?)
Flowers were hidden among the roots of the trees. (Were there also flowers hidden in Siberia? Oh yes, but they weren’t mentioned here. On Bob’s logic that would make this a false statement.)
A British woman was among the 54 victims of the disaster. (Was she also a member of the human race? GASP! Why wasn’t that mentioned? That article writer has no clue!)
A drop in tooth decay among children (What no grownups, no dog, no cows? The entire statement must be false according to Bob.)
The State Council would elect a temporary president from among its members.
I’m simply at loss for a rational behind Bob’s logic. Unless of course he was trying to mean a Mung…… In which case he would be correct. I don’t believe the word Mung is in the Declaration of Independence.
Therefore the argument still stands. Since we are endowed by our creator with the right to life, if allowing guns into public housing takes that life away, we have grounds to contest it… simply because we are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….
Anything Bob can argue… if there are fools willing to listen, can never take that away.
March 30, 2011 at 11:53 am
mike w.
Interesting that Kavips has no apology to offer, nor nothing substantive to say regarding the vile bigotry he spewed in this post.
Not to mention the abject ignorance he displayed therein or the fact that he ended up being completely, undeniably wrong.
Ah, bigots eating their words and being completely unable to back up the vile crap they spew just brings a smile to my face. I’m always happy to see them fall on the wrong side of history like so many bigots of the past.
March 31, 2011 at 5:43 pm
kavips
Interesting that MIke W is calling one of Delaware’s most unbigotted persons, a bigot. Usually when one does that, it is because one is pointing out their own flaws, in other people so everyone will be too busy to look at their record. No one looks for flaws they don’t know about.; they look primarily for their own weaknesses in other people. If they’re a coward and defer out of Vietnam, they accuse others of cowardice, ( Dick Cheney). If they’re worried they’re really a homosexual, they attack the rights of homosexuality. (Westboro Baptist Church) . If they’re a bigamist who can’t stay faithful in a marriage, …. (Henry Hyde,)…. they accuse others of cheating on their spouse….
http://www.anothergunblog.com/
Here is his site: peruse through it if you wish, and you will see exactly what I’m talking about.
But you may want to trust me on this one. As someone who has looked at his record, he is not worth any effort on your part to squander your time in such an investigation.
Oh, and the article of mine he is discussing, is really an awesome article… If you haven’t already, you should definitely read it….. lol..
June 5, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Bob
Jeez, you are fucking stupid. It is quite obvious by reading the Declaration that the use of the word among means that those rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are among those that are inherent, and not the only rights that are inherent. In other words, they belong to a group of inherent rights. The very examples of the use of the word among that you quote prove my point and further prove what a complete fucking moron you are.
For instance, here is a sentence you provide that you evidently think bolsters your argument instead of mine:
“A British woman was among the 54 victims of the disaster.”
It is obvious the word among means she is one of only many, in this case 53 others. Just like the word among in the Declaration of Independence means that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among a group of inalienable rights, not the ONLY inalienable rights, as you so ludicrously claim. According to your laughably stupid interpretation, the word among in the above quoted sentence means the British victim is the only victim. Every single sentence you quote bolsters my point and destroys yours, moron. How do I know how you interpret the use of the word among in the Declaration? Because of this quote from your hilarious blog post:
“All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These three rights are the ONLY ones endowed by man’s Creator”(emphasis mine).
I won’t even get into the issue of someone quoting the Declaration of Independence in a discussion about the Second Amendment.
And your assertion that the means to defend oneself is not an “inalienable right” is also wrong as a matter of law in the United States. Seems you are not only ignorant of the English language, as your misuse of the word “among” and your inability to distinguish between the words “its” and “it’s” proves, but you are also woefully ignorant of Supreme Court precedent. The following sentence, from one of your posts, is another riotous gem illustrating just how ignorant you really are:
“Show me the well regulated militia in each of these housing projects, and I’ll re-evaluate my position here…”
Once again, you are showing us just how ignorant you really are of the law in this country. Have you just been living in a cave, or are you just to stupid to realize that the so-called “militia interpretation” of the Second Amendment has been rejected on multiple occasions by multiple courts in this country, including the Supreme Court? As a matter of fact, even before the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the vast majority of Constitutional scholars in this country admitted that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, independent of a militia. Even our rabidly anti-gun president has admitted that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, whether a militia is present or not. But given your stupid comment on militias, you are obviously unaware of both the scholarly consensus and the only thing that really matters, the rulings of the Supreme Court. Yeah, you were right about inexcusable ignorance in the age of Google, but not as it applies to me, but how it clearly applies to you.
Please, quit trying to insinuate you are a lawyer because you are just too damn dumb to ever earn a law degree.
June 5, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Bob
And yes I realize that in my above post, there is a typo in which the word “too” is spelled “to”, so don’t bother pointing it out.
June 7, 2011 at 1:01 pm
kavips
Ahem….. You skirted the real issue.. We have a right to “life”… Therefore it follows, that if guns in housing projects impinge upon that right… under the guidelines upon which this nation was formed, it’s residents have the right to ban them… simply in order to protect their life….
Are you saying residents in housing projects… do not have the right to life? Are you saying the right to own a gun trumps another person’s right to life…
Flat out. It doesn’t.
August 30, 2011 at 9:20 am
Mike W.
“Interesting that MIke W is calling one of Delaware’s most unbigotted persons, a bigot. Usually when one does that, it is because one is pointing out their own flaws”
I called you a bigot because you are a bigot. This post is flat out bigotry and displays your shocking ignorance. How about that bloody nose you and your anti-gun buddies gave the NRA……oh wait….bigots with no respect for individual liberty got knocked down a peg, which is exactly what should happen to them.
August 31, 2011 at 12:34 am
kavips
Lol. Obviously , you don’t even know what a bigot is…. (and you expect people to take you seriously, my my…..) here’s hoping thousands of Delawareans do check out your blog and realize that the number one, biggest reason for banning or restricting ownership of guns, is that idiots like you, have them… (of course I’m just joking; most people owning guns are very smart individuals) But you are the exception, and you do set your cause backwards a little each time you venture out with your inane nonsense…
November 10, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Mike W.
This is really quite sad. Kavips is still unable to provide any kind of substantive defense to the vile bigotry he spewed in his post or provide any counterpoints to issues raised.
All he can do is whine about being accurately characterized as a bigot.
Oh well. He and his fellow anti-gunners are losing and losing badly. Like the KKK they are bigots on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of individual rights, and they will continue to be marginalized.
November 10, 2011 at 2:58 pm
liberalgeek
Just so I’ve got this straight, it is sad that Kavips hasn’t replied to you, but it isn’t sad that you continue to comment on a post that has been inactive for 2 and a half months and is 8 months old.
Do I have that right? Because I find that sad on a profound level. This itty-bitty corner of the great big Internet is where you are going to stand your ground? Talk about marginalizing one’s self.
November 10, 2011 at 11:28 pm
kavips
Well, I’m honored. Of all the spots to stand his ground, he chose this one.
Forget, MSNBC, FOX, TURNER, MURDOCH, and CNN. Obviously, this is where the action is. (even a year and a half later…..) 🙂
November 18, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Mike W.
Stand my ground? Against what exactly? All I see here from Kavips are the violent, bigoted words of an intellectual coward who
proudly displays an astounding level of ignorance, nothing more.
What’s sad LG is your defense of a man who proudly advocates for violent harm to come to those he disagrees with politically, to people who do nothing more than defend a civil liberty he wishes American’s didn’t have. Even worse, he wishes harm on the families of such men.
I have no reservations about calling such a person despicable or accurately characterizing them as a bigot.
Also, to be fair I find his complete inability to intelligently defend his post amusing, yet completely unsurprising. Even you don’t expect someone who penned the above post to be able to intelligently defend his words, do you LG?
November 19, 2011 at 3:55 am
kavips
Again, I’m honored he is making his last stand here, even if he doesn’t know the definition of what a “bigot” is… … obviously to him, this is the real thing… ….
May 12, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Bob
Wow, this blog is chock full of liberal brilliance, as the following quotes demonstrate. Here is classic, from liberalgeek:
“Just so I’ve got this straight, it is sad that Kavips hasn’t replied to you, but it isn’t sad that you continue to comment on a post that has been inactive for 2 and a half months and is 8 months old.”
If that is as sad as you claim it is, then what does that make your reply? After all, you are commenting on comments to a months-old post.
Here is another quote from the same comment;
“This itty-bitty corner of the great big Internet is where you are going to stand your ground? Talk about marginalizing one’s self.”
Talk about hyperbole. I see a simple request for a reply to a particular comment, not someone girding for some sort of virtual heroic last stand. As for the size of the internet, that observation would be less ridiculous if he wasn’t after a comment from the person who ran this blog and if multiple other individuals weren’t also participating in a conversation that started months ago.
But, as usual, the stupidest comments come from the genius running this blog, an individual who has laughably tried to imply he is a lawyer. This quote is hilarious for its sheer faux-indignation:
“Are you saying residents in housing projects… do not have the right to life? Are you saying the right to own a gun trumps another person’s right to life…
Flat out. It doesn’t.”
Yes, that is what I am saying(actually, I didn’t say it, I wrote it). I am advocating for the legalization of murder. It is a perpetual source of amusement reading nonsense from anti-gun nuts claiming that allowing a law-abiding citizen to exercise his right to own a gun for protection is the same as condoning the unlawful use of firearms by a criminal. Legally exercising my right to own a gun does not conflict with someone else’s right to life, unless that person is trying to criminally deprive me of my right to live. And that is the argument the residents of those housing projects are making themselves. They don’t need some self-important, self-righteous liberal to tell them how they should be living. Your posts are so condescending and patronizing in regards to those housing project residents, people you clearly consider too stupid to think clearly for themselves, it is almost nauseating.
May 13, 2012 at 1:13 am
Bob
“Ahem….. You skirted the real issue”
Actually, I am not skirting the issue here, you are. The issue at the heart of the discussion is the unconstitutionality of the DE Housing Authority’s actions. Yet you try to skirt that issue by claiming the NRA was meddling where it wasn’t wanted and that it shouldn’t be advocating for the protection of the Second Amendment rights of DE Housing Authority residents because, horror of horrors, it might strain DE’s budget to defend laws that clearly violate the United States Constitution. You then proceeded to advocate for violence against various members and officers of the NRA (so much for your vaunted respect for the right to life). I guess that one’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness(the rights of which you claim to be so fond) are conditioned upon slavish devotion to left-wing political orthodoxy. Perhaps in anticipation(though I doubt you were intelligent enough to foresee such a response)of someone inevitably mentioning that the DE Housing Authority is clearly in the wrong in this case, as per various Appeals Court and Supreme Court rulings, you tried to further skirt the issue by bringing up the Declaration of Independence and the aforementioned rights to life, liberty and the pursuiit of happiness.
This quote is evidence of your attempt to obscure the real issue:
“So you see, as thinking men and women, if we have no other option but to live in public housing, then, we should be the ones worried about our rules and regulations pertaining to our own safety. Not someone listing their address at 11250 Waples Mill Road , Fairfax, Virginia”
You completely ignored the well-known fact that the NRA is not meddling in this case, rather the NRA acted in this case only after it was contacted by the very housing authority residents you claimed to care so much about; your paternalism in regards to those residents is practically nausea-inducing. The NRA can’t just go meddling in the case because it would lack any standing before the court.
You also went into a rant(anything to distract from the unconstitutional actions of the DE Housing Authority) about how much it costs DE taxpayers to defend DE’s unconstitutional laws, as if the decision(of course such a decision would have to hinge upon the state having a choice in the first place, which it doesn’t) to abide by the Constitution should be contingent upon some sort of cost/benefit analysis. Here is another classic quote;
” Make those individuals who are responsible for all NRA actions in this state, on the hook for the financial consequences of their action..”
Seems you aren’t too keen on the redressing of grievances, are you? Your post is chock full of such ridiculous nonsense, such as the following quote, which I have mentioned in a previous comment. It is so stupid that it deserves further mention and ridicule:
“At least, with the current ban in place, if Christopher Cox tells me he is going to blow my head off tomorrow because of something my kid said to his, I can call the housing authority and say, “Hello? Christopher Cox has a gun in his room… He threatened me with it today!” and sometime before tomorrow, police will arrive and comb over the apartment.”
Are you really so stupid to believe that the elimination of an unconstitutional gun ban would allow Christopher Cox, or anyone else, to threaten your life with impunity? Or are you trying to cloud the issue by claiming that only the presence of a gun ban is preventing the violence-prone from issuing death threats, as if they would care if a gun ban were in place? Either way, you look like an absolute imbecile.
Here is another howler that again shows your total ignorance of the Constitution. Frankly, it requires some sort of forethought to cloud, skirt or obscure the issue, and at this point, I don’t think you deserve that sort of credit. Here is the quote:
“The Housing Authorities have every right to maintain the safety of their confines in anyway they see fit. If enforcing a gun ban protects citizen’s lives, then they have every right to do just that… Every innkeeper is allowed to make rules for his tenants. After all, it is his property.”
Actually, the Housing Authorities don’t have “every right” to do whatever they heck they want in “anyway they see fit”. See, as an instrument of the government, the Housing Authority is constrained in its actions by the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. You clearly have no understanding of that fact, because if you did, you wouldn’t compare a government agency to a privately-run business.
But your ultimate attempt to try and get around the Constitutional problems inherent in the actions of the Housing Authority involves using the Declaration of Independence in a fashion that is hilarious, to say the least. This quote betrays a profound lack of knowleged of the Constitution:
“If the case goes to court… here is how it plays out. Their side pulls out the second amendment. The defense pulls out the Declaration of Independence.”
Another commenter rightfully mocked you for trying to use the Declaration of Independence to trump the Constitution when considering the CONSTITUTIONality of a particular statute. Hmm, I wonder which document takes precedence when determining if something is CONSTITUTIONal, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution? And even though you claim the Declaration of independence is going to be the linchpin of your hypothetical case, you can’t even get it right in regards to that document. As I demonstrated in previous posts, your assertion that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness(a right so vague it could encompass gun ownership)are the only inalienable rights is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Furthermore, your quote about countering the Second Amendment to the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence is a tacit admission that the DE Housing Authority is violating the Constitution.
As this post is quite long, I am not even going to go into how offensive it is to advocate for the murder of NRA officers and their families. Suffice it to say, you are a hypocrite for mentioning a right to life after writing such drivel.
The real issue is the blatant unconstitutionality of the the DE Housing Authority’s actions. You are the one trying to distract from that by hysterically making issues out of court costs and the address of the NRA’s corporate headquarters. Mentioning the Declaration of Independence is also another attempt, albeit an exceedingly feeble one, to cloud the issue here. You are the one skirting the issue.
May 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
kavips
Since when is truth, liberal brilliance?.. Truth is truth is truth. Brilliance only comes because people have been isolated from it for too long… and it hits them like walking out of a cave into the bright sun.
May 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm
kavips
Thank you for the compliment, Apparently I am now being considered a genius. I thank you for the honor.
First of all, just to be clear, I am for Second Amendment rights. Have always been, will always be.
An armed populace is a nation’s only defense against tyranny. Has always been, will always be.
What we are arguing here is shades of gray. Or put better, when traveling from black to white, at which line to we say it’s a darker shade of white, as opposed to a whiter shade of black?
It is for this, language was invented.
If I remember correctly the core of the argument was that a majority of citizens within a limited locality, wanted a weapon’s ban, and that ban was considered unconstitutional by the second amendment.
The entire trigger of the post, was the NRA high handedly threatening to bury the Wilmington Housing Authority under a lawsuit. It was pure intimidation.
That was wrong, and I turned the tables on the NRA to show them they did not have a monopoly on intimidation. Point was taken by the NRA and we fortunately have seen a more reasonable and civilized behavior to date. Basically, I did them a favor, pointing the way to them, as to why their membership was evaporating and no longer contributing to them as they once did…. So, good came out of it.
Second,
Forcing anyone against to do something against their will, is tyranny. Some tyranny we accept, and change our will to comply. A prime example is our paying of taxes. We pay taxes because we choose to.. There are those who choose to abstain to make a point, and are willing to pay the consequences for their actions. The super majority of us, however choose to comply…
So, it would stand that for residents to be forced to NOT ban weapons in their housing complex, something that they expressly wished for, something that would improve the quality of their life,… for them NOT to do because of the 2nd Amendment, would also fit under the definition of tyranny.
Tyranny. We are forced to have bullets come through our windows at night because the 2nd Amendment will not allow us to ban them…
Ironical, and it made a case.
A case that puts the Constitution on challenge.
Just where does the line get drawn? Which of these two is more important? Our freedom to make choices that affect us? Or our freedom to own and carry guns?
And so I made a case.
One that local inhabitants have the right to make local laws that better their lives.
.
Two, that allowing guns in those neighborhoods, violated one of the principals we fought Britain for; our right to life.
Three, that private property has innkeeper’s rights that allow it to make its own rules under its own jurisdiction.
So with all three of those in place it stood that these inhabitants, who were being legally shot at all the time, could in their own home (or group of homes), make rules that banned those items legally from being used against them, and could do so without impacting the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
History shows It went to court, and lost.
It lost primarily not on the merits of the case, (which actually caught the attention of the top of our Justice Department, as well as lawyers here in Delaware), but it lost because it might set a precedent elsewhere, where another state could ban all weapons, then arrest those not complying with the law, thereby rendering any opposition to a corporate takeover of government, nil.
In other words, despite the merit of this case in the OPINION of this one judge, he chose to protect the future.
So, it still stands that the merits of the case of sound. Any other judge could interpret it our way, and rule in our favor… It’s all in the judge… 🙂
March 19, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Mike W.
Looks like the enemies of freedom and the 2A lost yet again. DE Supreme Court says the WHA gun ban is unconstitutional under Article 1 Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=202890