Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/6/2001 9:43:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 7:53:53 PM EST
From what I have read, It's all true, thanks to the Klinton Admin. I think it is due to a mandate or decree of some beaurecrat in the cabinet. Maybe President Bush can get it changed. Of all the Irrational, Unconstitutional, and stupid laws, that one is one of the worst. IMHO, I think we should add that issue in the next letter to our elected officials.
Link Posted: 7/7/2001 10:31:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 4:39:24 PM EST
There was a virgina federal court decision which allowed this crap based on a 'crime stopping' basis. They stated that tomahawks had to be allowed, but no guns is okay. I looked up the case at work, but now have had a few and can't remember the cite or my BS lexis password. It was a 1990 or 96 case.... some fellow law dude with blanket lexis help out, please.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 6:12:40 AM EST
RICHMOND TENANTS ORGANIZATION, INC., ET. AL., Plaintiffs, v. RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant C. A. No. 3:90CV00576 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, RICHMOND DIVISION 751 F. Supp. 1204; 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16444 58. Section 5(s) of the new lease requires that tenants "refrain from the use and/or possession of any weapon of any type on Management's property, including, but not limited to, guns, firearms (operable or inoperable), nunchucks, or similar instruments, blackjacks and [**19] explosive devices." Defendant's Exhibit 6. 59. Lease terms banning all weapons are exceedingly rare in public or private housing. Chicago is one of the few public [*1211] housing authorities which limits the use of guns. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 28, Testimony of Kent Willis. 60. There are differences of opinion regarding the effect of prohibiting possession of firearms in the home. Testimony of Paul H. Blackman and Dr. Barrett. 61. There are approximately 600 shootings in Richmond each year, with approximately one third of those occurring in RRHA developments. Testimony of Dr. Barrett. 62. For each incident where a gun is used in self defense, 4.1 people are accidentally killed by a gun in the home. Testimony of Dr. Barrett.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 6:14:02 AM EST
63. Firearms, particularly handguns, carry a high street price and are often the subject of burglaries. The presence of a gun can make a home more attractive to thieves. Testimony of Dr. Barrett. 64. Individuals who purchase guns for self-defense often do not know how to use them properly. Testimony of Dr. Barrett. 65. Prohibition of guns is an important proactive and symbolic step in preventing the escalation of violence. Testimony of Dr. Barrett. 66. The RRHA Commissioners [**20] were concerned about the violence caused by guns, and the danger that children would be accidentally killed or wounded by playing with guns kept in the home. Testimony of Commissioner Toney. 67. A firearm rendered inoperable by removal of a firing pin remains dangerous and a target of crime. 68. There is no evidence that a tenant has ever used a gun in self-defense. 69. There is no evidence that ceremonial or antique weapons, such a ceremonial swords or tomahawks, contribute to the problems that the commissioners were trying to address. 70. At least one RRHA official would interpret 5(s) as requiring removal of tomahawks or other antique weapons. This testimony suggests that section 5(s) may be arbitrarily applied. Testimony of Edwards. 71. There is no evidence that RRHA requires a broad definition of "weapons" to effectively remove firearms. 35. The prohibition on the use and/or possession of various firearms is rationally related to the strong RRHA interest in reducing crime and violence. There is substantial evidence that eliminating guns will reduce crime in the developments and reduce accidental death. Despite conflicting expert testimony, this Court finds that a prohibition of firearms from public housing is a reasonable lease term within the meaning of § 1437d(l)(1). 36. There is no evidence that a ban on "weapons of any type" would [**30] achieve legitimate interests not accomplished by a ban on firearms. All the evidence indicates that the commissioners were concerned exclusively about firearms, explosives, and other violent weapons associated with crime. 37. The prohibition of "weapons of any type" places the plaintiff who owns ceremonial swords, and others who own antique or ceremonial "weapons", in the position of materially breaching their lease. This provision could also be applied to knives, bows, flare guns, mace, fencing foils, baseball bats, and any other item which could be defined as a "weapon." This creates a substantial likelihood that this provision will be applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. 38. In the absence of any justification or explanation for the extremely sweeping language, and in light of the fact that such language may be selectively applied to tenants, the Court finds that the words "weapon of any type" make section 5(s) unreasonable in violation of § 1437d(l)(1). These words are therefor invalidated, and should be severed under section 16. Once the remaining portion of 5(s) is reworded for grammatical clarity, it should read: "To refrain from the use and/or possession on Management's [**31] property of guns, firearms (operable or inoperable), nunchucks, or similar instruments, blackjacks and explosive devices. 39. The Court finds that this phrasing of section 5(s) is rationally related to the legitimate RRHA interest in reducing crime and theft in the developments. Once the objectional phrase is severed, the remaining provision is reasonable.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 3:17:52 PM EST
Top Top