PDA

View Full Version : Wilmington, DE - Housing authority 'waves white flag' on gun ownership



Gunreference1
08-09-2010, 07:53 AM
Housing authority 'waves white flag' on gun ownership

Residents' reactions divided over suspension of ban

By SEAN O'SULLIVAN • The News Journal • August 9, 2010

WILMINGTON -- Residents of public housing in Wilmington will now be allowed to legally keep firearms in their units.

The Wilmington Housing Authority suspended its ban on firearm ownership by tenants because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and a National Rifle Association-funded lawsuit filed in May that charges the ban is unconstitutional, according to attorneys and officials.

WHA Executive Director Frederick Purnell Sr. said an outright ban still would be in the best interest of public safety, but after a reviewing the recent high court ruling that tossed out a handgun ban in Chicago, "We felt we had no choice but to amend the policy. ... We are going to comply with the law but hopefully, from a managerial standpoint, we will be able to put some controls in place to keep residents as safe as possible."

The WHA now is in the process of adopting new regulations related to firearms in WHA buildings and will be accepting public comments before they are enacted.

The reaction among some of the WHA's 3,500 tenants in more than 16 buildings and dozens of town houses was sharply divided, with some literally cheering the change and others cursing it.

"I'm not happy," said Sandra Lee Dennis, 50, a resident of Compton Towers, adding that guns will cause more problems than they will solve. "I oppose it."

In contrast, Phyllis LeCompte, 49, a WHA tenant on East Fourth Street, smiled broadly when she heard the news. "All right. Sign me up," she said.

"Praise the Lord," said Virginia Robinson, 61, a resident of Compton Towers who said she has had problems with security at her residence. She said the change will allow elderly residents to protect themselves.

"Too much is going on in here. ... Someone needs to take action," she said.

Diana Dorn, 55, sitting outside Compton Towers on Friday, shook her head as Robinson talked. Dorn said she would rather have the right to veto who was allowed to live in her building than have the right to possess a firearm.

She fears that irresponsible 19- or 20-year-olds will be bringing guns into the building. "Some of the young folks in here just don't give a damn," she said, and will cause trouble with a gun. If a resident is worried about safety, she said, "Get a bat."

She acknowledged that some irresponsible people may already have firearms in their units illegally, but she said making possession legal in public housing could increase the number of guns and the potential danger.

"Someone is going to get shot," she said, either by a fearful senior who overreacts or perhaps by a burglar who finds or takes a gun away from a resident.

But despite the apparent resolution of the main issue -- the right to legally possess a gun in public housing -- the legal wrangling between plaintiffs funded by the National Rifle Association and the WHA is expected to continue for some time.

At a late June meeting with U.S. Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark, plaintiffs' attorney Francis X. Pileggi said he is not satisfied with WHA simply "waving the white flag" and wants a ruling of some kind from the court to lock in the policy and prevent WHA from ever renewing the ban.

Pileggi also said new regulations that WHA is proposing -- which place some limits on firearms possession -- also may be unconstitutional, according to a court transcript.

Among the things Pileggi said were objectionable in the draft regulations is a proposed ban on carrying weapons in "common areas" of WHA buildings. He said the rule appears aimed at preventing "someone from just hanging out" with a firearm and is an improper restriction of Second Amendment rights.

He also objected to a proposed requirement that anyone who has a gun in a WHA building be prepared to produce a permit showing he is allowed to carry it.

"That is a little bit reminiscent of that issue they are having in Arizona," Pileggi said, referring to that state's controversial law that requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork documenting their status or face possible arrest.

Pileggi also objected to a proposed ban on anyone under 18 possessing a gun in WHA buildings, claiming state law allows people as young as 16 to legally possess a firearm.

At that meeting, WHA attorney Barry Willoughby responded that the new policies are still being crafted and the NRA, among others, will be welcome to make comments before the rules are adopted and enforced.

If the plaintiffs believe the rules that are adopted are objectionable, they can simply come back to the court, he said. In the meantime, Willoughby said, "We don't see any need for the case to proceed. ... There is no longer any issue of controversy. We will no longer enforce the provision."

Stark said he believed the plaintiffs are entitled to some kind of ruling, but warned Pileggi that it could be a summary dismissal.

He also set a series of deadlines for both sides to submit more legal arguments before he makes a decision.

State Rep. John Atkins, D-Millsboro, who unsuccessfully proposed legislation to lift the ban on gun ownership in public housing this year, praised the outcome and said he expects that other public housing authorities in the state will follow the WHA's lead. "I think it shows they didn't think they had a good leg to stand on," Atkins said.

And if the new housing authority rules on firearms are too restrictive, he said, "We can draft another bill next year."

Brian Selander, spokesman for Gov. Jack Markell, said the state's position has not changed. "The Supreme Court decision does not eliminate the ability to put common-sense measures in place to limit the presence of handguns in places such as day care centers that are on the grounds of public housing. Neither the Supreme Court case nor the lawsuit filed locally against the WHA changes the fact that there is a place for common-sense public protections from loaded weapons in sensitive areas like those day care centers," he said.

The WHA's Purnell said the locations and times of the public hearings on the new firearms policies have not been determined.

He said the hearings could be at the WHA offices on Walnut Street, or if there is a great deal of interest, as officials are anticipating, the meetings could be moved to a large venue like the city council chambers. "If need be, we'll have it at the Blue Rocks' stadium," Purnell said, adding that the authority also will be accepting written comments after the public hearings.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100809/NEWS02/8090332/Housing-authority-waves-white-flag-on-gun-ownership

Steve

abpt1
08-09-2010, 08:30 AM
Housing authority 'waves white flag' on gun ownership

Residents' reactions divided over suspension of ban

By SEAN O'SULLIVAN • The News Journal • August 9, 2010

WILMINGTON -- Residents of public housing in Wilmington will now be allowed to legally keep firearms in their units.

The Wilmington Housing Authority suspended its ban on firearm ownership by tenants because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and a National Rifle Association-funded lawsuit filed in May that charges the ban is unconstitutional, according to attorneys and officials.

WHA Executive Director Frederick Purnell Sr. said an outright ban still would be in the best interest of public safety, but after a reviewing the recent high court ruling that tossed out a handgun ban in Chicago, "We felt we had no choice but to amend the policy. ... We are going to comply with the law but hopefully, from a managerial standpoint, we will be able to put some controls in place to keep residents as safe as possible."

The WHA now is in the process of adopting new regulations related to firearms in WHA buildings and will be accepting public comments before they are enacted.

The reaction among some of the WHA's 3,500 tenants in more than 16 buildings and dozens of town houses was sharply divided, with some literally cheering the change and others cursing it.

"I'm not happy," said Sandra Lee Dennis, 50, a resident of Compton Towers, adding that guns will cause more problems than they will solve. "I oppose it."

In contrast, Phyllis LeCompte, 49, a WHA tenant on East Fourth Street, smiled broadly when she heard the news. "All right. Sign me up," she said.

"Praise the Lord," said Virginia Robinson, 61, a resident of Compton Towers who said she has had problems with security at her residence. She said the change will allow elderly residents to protect themselves.

"Too much is going on in here. ... Someone needs to take action," she said.

Diana Dorn, 55, sitting outside Compton Towers on Friday, shook her head as Robinson talked. Dorn said she would rather have the right to veto who was allowed to live in her building than have the right to possess a firearm.

She fears that irresponsible 19- or 20-year-olds will be bringing guns into the building. "Some of the young folks in here just don't give a damn," she said, and will cause trouble with a gun. If a resident is worried about safety, she said, "Get a bat."

She acknowledged that some irresponsible people may already have firearms in their units illegally, but she said making possession legal in public housing could increase the number of guns and the potential danger.

"Someone is going to get shot," she said, either by a fearful senior who overreacts or perhaps by a burglar who finds or takes a gun away from a resident.

But despite the apparent resolution of the main issue -- the right to legally possess a gun in public housing -- the legal wrangling between plaintiffs funded by the National Rifle Association and the WHA is expected to continue for some time.

At a late June meeting with U.S. Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark, plaintiffs' attorney Francis X. Pileggi said he is not satisfied with WHA simply "waving the white flag" and wants a ruling of some kind from the court to lock in the policy and prevent WHA from ever renewing the ban.

Pileggi also said new regulations that WHA is proposing -- which place some limits on firearms possession -- also may be unconstitutional, according to a court transcript.

Among the things Pileggi said were objectionable in the draft regulations is a proposed ban on carrying weapons in "common areas" of WHA buildings. He said the rule appears aimed at preventing "someone from just hanging out" with a firearm and is an improper restriction of Second Amendment rights.

He also objected to a proposed requirement that anyone who has a gun in a WHA building be prepared to produce a permit showing he is allowed to carry it.

"That is a little bit reminiscent of that issue they are having in Arizona," Pileggi said, referring to that state's controversial law that requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork documenting their status or face possible arrest.

Pileggi also objected to a proposed ban on anyone under 18 possessing a gun in WHA buildings, claiming state law allows people as young as 16 to legally possess a firearm.

At that meeting, WHA attorney Barry Willoughby responded that the new policies are still being crafted and the NRA, among others, will be welcome to make comments before the rules are adopted and enforced.

If the plaintiffs believe the rules that are adopted are objectionable, they can simply come back to the court, he said. In the meantime, Willoughby said, "We don't see any need for the case to proceed. ... There is no longer any issue of controversy. We will no longer enforce the provision."

Stark said he believed the plaintiffs are entitled to some kind of ruling, but warned Pileggi that it could be a summary dismissal.

He also set a series of deadlines for both sides to submit more legal arguments before he makes a decision.

State Rep. John Atkins, D-Millsboro, who unsuccessfully proposed legislation to lift the ban on gun ownership in public housing this year, praised the outcome and said he expects that other public housing authorities in the state will follow the WHA's lead. "I think it shows they didn't think they had a good leg to stand on," Atkins said.

And if the new housing authority rules on firearms are too restrictive, he said, "We can draft another bill next year."

Brian Selander, spokesman for Gov. Jack Markell, said the state's position has not changed. "The Supreme Court decision does not eliminate the ability to put common-sense measures in place to limit the presence of handguns in places such as day care centers that are on the grounds of public housing. Neither the Supreme Court case nor the lawsuit filed locally against the WHA changes the fact that there is a place for common-sense public protections from loaded weapons in sensitive areas like those day care centers," he said.

The WHA's Purnell said the locations and times of the public hearings on the new firearms policies have not been determined.

He said the hearings could be at the WHA offices on Walnut Street, or if there is a great deal of interest, as officials are anticipating, the meetings could be moved to a large venue like the city council chambers. "If need be, we'll have it at the Blue Rocks' stadium," Purnell said, adding that the authority also will be accepting written comments after the public hearings.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100809/NEWS02/8090332/Housing-authority-waves-white-flag-on-gun-ownership

Steve

All I have to say is if you live down there you better have a gun in the house .

AKTexas
08-09-2010, 08:34 AM
All I have to say is if you live down there you better have a gun in the house .

...And body armor.

L1A1Rocker
08-09-2010, 09:23 AM
Great news. The people that respect and follow the law can now balance the scales on those who do not.

old Grump
08-09-2010, 02:51 PM
It just became a hostile environment for the boogermen. Hallelujah!:thumbsup: