Skip to main content

Delaware isn't exactly known as being the most pro-RKBA state.

Tongue planted firmly in cheek.

But recently a Delaware Supreme Court decision has made life a bit more interesting for those who are pro-RKBA in the Diamond State.

First, the decision: link (pdf)

In this certified question proceeding, we address whether lease provisions  for apartments of a Delaware public housing authority that restrict when residents, their household members, and their guests may carry and possess firearms in the common areas violate the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution.
The certified questions are:

1. Whether, under Article I, §20 of the Delaware Constitution, a public housing agency such as the WHA may adopt a policy prohibiting its residents, household members, and guests from displaying or carrying a firearm or other weapon in a common area, except when the firearm or other weapon is being transported to or from a resident’s housing unit or is being used in self-defense.

2. Whether, under Article I, §20 of the Delaware Constitution, a public housing agency such as the WHA may require its residents, household members, and guests to have available for inspection a copy of any permit, license, or other documentation required by state, local, or federal law for the ownership, possession, or transportation of any firearm or other weapon, including a license to carry a concealed weapon, as required by Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §1441, on request, when there is reasonable cause to believe that the law or policies have been violated.

We answer both certified questions in the negative.

Our conclusion that the interpretation of Article I, Section 20 is a source, independent from the Second Amendment, for recognizing and protecting individual rights, is supported by the Hunt factors. The distinctive language of Section 20 and the legislative history demonstrates the General Assembly’s intent to provide a right to keep and bear arms independent of the federal right. Moreover, public attitudes, as reflected in the laws passed by the General Assembly, and Delaware’s long tradition of allowing responsible, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms outside of the home, favor recognizing an independent right under the Delaware Constitution. Two Hunt factors—the structural differences in constitutional provisions and matters of particular state interest—do not require that Section 20 be interpreted coextensively with the Second Amendment. In summary, Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution is an independent source for recognizing and protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, for those who are in Delaware and pro-RKBA, I hope this warms the cockles of your heart. I haven't seen much (if you have, please put in the comments below) of pro-RKBA measures getting to the Supreme Court of a state and the decision resting on the state Constitution, not the federal one.

What changes do you think will come about from this ruling? Is this something that can be escalated to SCOTUS since it deals with the state Constitution?

I look forward to the discussion below.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No to Supreme Court Review (10+ / 0-)

    Unless the decision is contested as a violation of federal law or the federal constitution the US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review the case.

    Since, the Delaware Supreme Court made clear they were interpreting the law in light of the Delaware constitution it is unlikely there is any federal question.

    Even if there were federal jurisdiction, it would be highly unlikely the case would be reviewed by the Federal Supremes since the question seems to have been answered with the Heller case, etc within the past five years.

    •  While I'd generally agree...they did create (10+ / 0-)

      precedent with Bush v Gore.

      Despite their bullshit claim they weren't.

      They stepped in and decided what Florida's constitution allowed and didn't.

      Pretty ballsy.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 09:44:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Federal election (0+ / 0-)

        Sure, but they only stepped in because it was impacting a federal election and failure to resolve it would have been a huge constitutional/national crisis.

        •  Still a pretty thin rationalization: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea
          Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
          The Equal Protection claim had the most merit, given the differing standards used by each county for the recount, but I think it did a lot of damage to our institutions for SCOTUS to intervene as it did.  The outcome would have been the same without their intervention, and the resulting wound in our body politic probably would have been quicker to heal than the one that SCOTUS created.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:14:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It laid bare "the body politic" as a sham. (0+ / 0-)

            The very fundamental tenet of "self-determination" is that each location decides it's own rules.  Whether we agree or disagree...that is the principle this nation was founded upon, was it not?

            The different standards for firearm permits is exactly like this.  Each location decides what they want.  They cannot have standards that create a de facto ban but almost anything up to that point is theirs to decide.

            I find the "equal protection" claim to be false because I can't live in all of the 62 counties in New York, at once.

            In the case of Bush v Gore, Florida said, count the damn votes...however you previously agreed to...the Supreme Court stopped them from doing so.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:26:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  "Constitutional/national crisis"??? (0+ / 0-)

          So, the "rule of law" becomes moot..."for the greater good".

          Dangerous beliefs they got going on there.

          They proved once and for all, voting is a sham.  The highest elected seat in our gov't will not be decided by the riff-raff or the "rule of law".

          The only "crisis" was they didn't want to count our votes.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:17:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the update. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, theatre goon

    The trend has been, and continues to be, a matter for each state to determine. Federal laws are relegated to interstate commercial trafficking, military weapons trade, and prohibitions against research on social impact of guns on society by any Federally funded agency -- or the gathering of gun ownership data.

    I have yet to figure out what purpose the ATF serves.

    Theoretically, should a state seek to eliminate gun ownership -- it is unclear how that would play out legally and practically.

    •  We already know (12+ / 0-)

      Look at Heller v DC and McDonald v. Chicago for guidance.  A state can no more ban the private ownership of arms for self defense in the home as a state can infringe on freedom of speech.  

      As for the BATFE, anything it does should go to other agencies.  Tobacco and Alcohol goes to FDA, Firearms and Explosives go to FBI with NIST input.  

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 10:10:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "States' rights" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      Maybe you're on the wrong website?

      Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

      by Tom Seaview on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 05:48:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any time someone talks about the "rights" (5+ / 0-)

        of a government or other sovereign entity, they're on the wrong track. People have rights, governments have powers.

        That said, the banner of "states rights" has been carried by whoever is out of power at the Federal level (and in times of divided government, anyone can rally to that cry) for as long as the country has been around. Jim Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me" is fairly instructive in this regard.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:03:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ditto for "I have the right... (5+ / 0-)

          ...to prevent all risk of being adversely affected by your right". For instance, complaints that same-sex marriage infringes on that person's "right to freedom of religion" (i.e."my right to be a religious bigot"). Claiming a pre-emptive right that has priority over someone else's right as a means of denying or removing that right is all too common.

          •  Critical logical thinking must be taught to our (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, FrankRose, KVoimakas

            children.  Hopefully then these games would not be tolerated.

            They'd understand the difference you point out.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:31:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Robo...you know of the one book that changed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, Robobagpiper

          my entire perspective of this "grand experiment" we've been engaged in?

          Sweeet!

          I've quoted Loewen for years, ever since I read it..way back when.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:29:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Loewen helped me understand US history (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, gerrilea

            But it took Colin Woodard and David Hackett Fischer to help me understand the culture war bullshit that dominates the authoritarians and "improvers" of both the left and right.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:57:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Seems to be working well enough to speed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        the adoption of marijuana decriminalization and recognition of gay marriage - or are we to simply ignore these good results when we use the experimental benefit of state labratories?

        No, "states rights" as a philosophy is one of de-centralized power which at its core is the main component of democracy.  States have full authority to do anything that they did not remand to the authority of the Federal Government nor agreed to prohibit themselves from doing in the Constitution.

        This system allows a greater degree of experimentation in the states so that what works and what doesn't work can be more easily observed and so what doesn't work can be shunned by others and what does work will spread.  In a monolithic system we have a very large amount of inertia set against change in smaller systems we have less so it is easier to change.  Once that change occurs we can monitor the results of that change - if good it makes others want to adopt those changes.  This speeds up adoption of good changes - such as marriage equity and marjiuana decriminalization.  

  •  When it would become "federal" would be (6+ / 0-)

    when two different State's or Circuit Courts come to different conclusions.

    Even then there is already Supreme Court decisions that support the right outside of the home.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/...

    The decision agrees with recent court decisions in Illinois and Washington DC, but Bob Egelko at SF Gate notes that it disagrees with rulings in New York, Maryland, and New Jersey. “The split among appellate circuits increases the prospect that the US Supreme Court will take up the issue,” Egelko wrote.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 09:54:45 AM PDT

    •  "already Supreme Court decisions" ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      I thought the (US) Supreme Court has only held that the right exists within the home and hasn't commented on it outside the home.  If I recall, this was part of the landmark decision by Posner in the 7th circuit when he declared that the need is more pronounced outside of the home than it is inside.

      What is astounding is that it has been the 7th and 9th, which operate in what has traditionally been some of the areas most hostile towards carry, that has been paving the way recently in regards to carry rights.  Also that the circuit split seems to be between these two areas and the upper mid Atlantic and NE states.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 10:55:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I had a link and I'm at a loss right now (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kasoru, DavidMS, ER Doc, CarlosJ, Crookshanks

        in finding it again.

        There were a series of Supreme Court decisions from 1893 to 1896 regarding self defense outside the home.

        Here's the only link I could find.

        http://www.davekopel.com/...

        These decisions must play a role in any future decisions by the Supreme Court.  You have the inherent right to self-defense, no matter where you are physically.  Does this right extend to gun ownership? I think it does.

        I think the odds are stacked against gun control, given the cases already decided.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 11:38:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Occupants (13+ / 0-)

    of public housing should have the same rights as others.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 10:03:38 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. And this is something all progressives (14+ / 0-)

      should agree on, that rights shouldn't be dependent on wealth or access to private resources.

      •  Progressivism isn't big on individual rights (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        In progressivism, individual rights are trumped by rights of the group or community, and can be infringed for a person's "own good", as determined by the community. This is why progressivism was one of the dominant forces behind Prohibition and the Eugenics movement.

        Liberalism and progressivism can work together on many issues, but for different reasons. Progressives support gay marriage because they believe gays, as a group, should have the same rights as other groups. Liberals support gay rights, because gay people, as individuals, should have the same rights as other individuals.

        So while liberals and progressives are often allies, on the notion of individual rights, when such rights conflict with "group rights" as progressives imagine them, also have the potential to be bitter enemies.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 04:27:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  All of our Civil Rights... (10+ / 0-)

      ...should be protected, regardless of where one happens to live.

      "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

      by theatre goon on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 11:49:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gun rights vs property rights (0+ / 0-)

      aApparently the housing authority can't protect the bulk of its residents from a minority who wish to carry firearms with the increased risk of accidents. Should private apartment owners be able to?  Should stores, bars or restaurants.  Should it be guns anywhere anytime?

      •  The issue is stil being decided, that's why were (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        here.

        And framing it as a minority that threatens the majority could be twisted in so many other venues.

        "Accidents" can be reduced by education, mandatory firearms safety training for a high school diploma.

        I don't believe there is such a thing as "accidents" when it comes to firearms.  Our failure to educate properly does.

        As for property rights vs civil rights...The SC has made the standard something like this.  The more the public is able to use said "private property" the more the property owner must comply with civil rights protections.

        The standard varies.

        If I completed my karate training and became a black belt, thus being required to register with the FBI, my hands become, at that moment, a lethal weapon.

        Can I be refused entry or housing because I have two hands?

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:38:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Accidents" are the currently fashionable pretext (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, gerrilea

          Fatal gun accidents are down a factor of 7 from 50 years ago, and claims that injuries are up stem entirely from a flawed CDC collection method - research shows that, 20 years ago, they were capturing less than half of all hospital-treated gun injuries in their official statistics, so any change must be disentangled from their terrible reporting rate before any claim of trending can be made.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

          by Robobagpiper on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 04:30:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So what other rights of tenants can landlords (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        violate, under the pretext of "safety".

        Are you saying that the Bill of Rights applies only to property owners? That renters are a subclass of citizen?

        How perfectly elitist.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 04:32:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It depends on the state constution (4+ / 0-)

    Maryland for instance incorporates the bill of rights but never explicitly spells it out.  This makes these challenges harder.  Our state Constitution is in my view forever tainted because it originated after the slave holders in Maryland got out of prison and back into politics after The War of Southern Treason.  

    The political establishment doesn't want to reopen that can of worms because the last time the tried in the 70s it was a disaster and the new Constitution failed in a referendum.  

    I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

    by DavidMS on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 10:04:08 AM PDT

    •  I'm missing this history you're referencing. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kasoru, Tom Seaview, Crookshanks
      Our state Constitution is in my view forever tainted because it originated after the slave holders in Maryland got out of prison and back into politics after The War of Southern Treason.  
      Maryland did ratify our federal constitution on April 28, 1788.

      Here's a background to their convention:

      http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...

      4. That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of two thirds of the members present of each branch of Congress.

      5. That the President shall not command the army in person, without the consent of Congress.

      6. That no treaty shall be effectual to repeal or abrogate the constitutions or bills of rights of the states, or any part of them.

      7. That no regulation of commerce, or navigation act, shall be made, unless with the consent of two thirds of the members of each branch of Congress.

      8. That no member of Congress shall be eligible to any office of profit under Congress, during the time for which he shall be appointed.

      9. That Congress shall have no power to lay a poll tax.

      10. That no person conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, in any case, shall be compelled personally to serve as a soldier.

      They don't specifically protect an individual right to arms but do protect those whom do not wish to exercise said right.

      Odd.

      http://msa.maryland.gov/...

      They did ratify the first 10 Amendments to the new constitution on Dec 19, 1789   

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 10:43:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  However, or rather more over ... (7+ / 0-)

      The 2nd-A of the US constitution has been officially incorporated as applying to the states.  Even in states without a 2A (like) provision, wouldn't one be implied by default?

      I do find it interesting that the state of DE chose to support their ruling on their own constitution without reference to the federal one.  I can't help but interpret this as a declaration of State sovereignty as well as the State (of DE) recognizing the RKBA independent of the federal govt or other states.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 10:49:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would've thought this decision would've (7+ / 0-)

    engendered more conversation here on the GOS. Oh well.

  •  A question ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, Kasoru, theatre goon
    Two Hunt factors—the structural differences in constitutional provisions and matters of particular state interest
    What is a, or what are "Two Hunt factors"?

    Google is returning blanks on this one.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 10:45:49 AM PDT

    •  Horrible copy/paste from decision: (6+ / 0-)
      To determine whether a state constitutional provision is substantively
      identical to an analogous provision of United States Constitution, this Court
      considers the list of nonexclusive factors originally articulated in the concurring
      opinion of Justice Handler of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Hunt v. State.
      25
      The Hunt factors provide a framework to determine whether a state constitutional
      provision affords an independent basis to reach a different result than what could
      be obtained under federal law. The seven factors include:
      (1) Textual Language—A state constitution’s language may
      itself provide a basis for reaching a result different from that
      which could be obtained under federal law. Textual language
      can be relevant in either of two contexts. First, distinctive
      provisions of our State charter may recognize rights not
      identified in the federal constitution. . . . Second, the phrasing
      of a particular provision in our charter may be so significantly
      different from the language used to address the same subject in
      the federal Constitution that we can feel free to interpret our
      provision on an independent basis . . . .

      Constitution); see also State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123, 1128 n.14 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010) (noting
      that the Delaware Constitution provides greater criminal procedure protection than the U.S.
      Constitution). 24 Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 814 (Del. 2000) (footnote omitted) (citing Claudio v. State, 585
      A.2d 1278, 1289 (Del. 1991)). 25 Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856, 864 (Del. 1999). 12
      (2) Legislative History—Whether or not the textual language
      of a given provision is different from that found in the federal
      Constitution, legislative history may reveal an intention that
      will support reading the provision independently of federal
      law . . . .
      (3) Preexisting State Law—Previously established bodies of
      state law may also suggest distinctive state constitutional rights.
      State law is often responsive to concerns long before they are
      addressed by constitutional claims. Such preexisting law can
      help to define the scope of the constitutional right later
      established.
      (4) Structural Differences—Differences in structure between
      the federal and state constitutions might also provide a basis for
      rejecting the constraints of federal doctrine at the state level.
      The United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers
      to the federal government. Our State Constitution, on the other
      hand, serves only to limit the sovereign power which inheres
      directly in the people and indirectly in their elected
      representatives. Hence, the explicit affirmation of fundamental
      rights in our Constitution can be seen as a guarantee of those
      rights and not as a restriction upon them.
      (5) Matters of Particular State Interest or Local Concern—A
      state constitution may also be employed to address matters of
      peculiar state interest or local concern. When particular
      questions are local in character and do not appear to require a
      uniform national policy, they are ripe for decision under state
      law. Moreover, some matters are uniquely appropriate for
      independent state action . . . .
      (6) State Traditions—A state’s history and traditions may also
      provide a basis for the independent application of its
      constitution . . . .
      (7) Public Attitudes—Distinctive attitudes of a state’s citizenry
      may also furnish grounds to expand constitutional rights under 13
      state charters. While we have never cited this criterion in our
      decisions, courts in other jurisdictions have pointed to public
      attitudes as a relevant factor in their deliberations.26

      •  Number (4) really jumps out at me! (5+ / 0-)

        First: " basis for rejecting the constraints of federal doctrine"

        Second, and more importantly, "The United States Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers to the federal government. Our State Constitution, on the other hand, serves only to limit the sovereign power which inheres directly in the people and indirectly in their elected representatives."

        I've never considered this aspect before.  It is quite fascinating and I wonder if this is a unique legal opinion or if it has an actual historical basis.

        These statements, and especially the passage as a whole, seem to say that the court view is that the state is free to expand upon rights in the face of federal restrictions.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 11:05:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It comes up in the consideration of (10+ / 0-)

          plenary power. The Federal government's power is not plenary; it only has tops powers the Constitution grants it. State governments are plenary - they have the power to do anything not prohibited by their own or the Federal constitutions.

          But since the 14th extends all the Federally-protected rights to state governments, this trumps state power, meaning that once a right is incorporated under the 14th, the Federal guarantees of that right are the minimum protection to which the state must adhere.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

          by Robobagpiper on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:32:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Story about guns and low income housing... (11+ / 0-)

    Pre 9-11, just after I was married and had my first kid- I used to live in some low income housing projects that used to be naval housing. Was working as a overnight stocker for a national retailer and going to the local CC for 15 credit hours.

    Between work and school in the morning, I would take my 20 field gun that I got when I was 8 and go trap shooting. 2$ per round and hand loaded. Cheap enough to afford on a meager earnings.. Anyway was cleaning the gun on the front steps as the solvent irritated the wife and baby. Had some police stop by and made sure that I had no ammo with me and reminded me to make sure that I was not pointing at anyone. No muss, no fuss.

    Think shortly after the leases had a no-firearms policy

    •  re: "shortly after the leases had a policy" (8+ / 0-)

      This has to be a Libertarian's worst nightmare.  We know that they hold property rights above all else and this becomes a real issue of whose property rights win out.  

      I was going to say that I believe the general legal consensus is that a landlord can not prohibit you from lawful firearm ownership on the basis that they can't prohibit you from possessing an otherwise legal object.   Then I realized that pet ownership is frequently limited.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 11:09:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is DE law different for private landlords? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kasoru, KVoimakas, theatre goon

    I see that this particular case only applies to possession of firearms in common areas of public housing. The cited text shows that an exception was in place for one's own housing unit and transport of firearms to/from one's own housing unit.

    So--please correct me if I'm wrong--this decision really only applies to policies like "no firearms at the swimming pool," "no firearms at the basketball court", or other common areas of public housing.

    Well, can Delaware's private landlords prohibit firearms in the common areas of their housing developments?

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 11:42:40 AM PDT

  •  I like that they used state Constitution as (9+ / 0-)

    our Az Constitution is very plain with zero ambiguity and allows carry/possession for any lawful reason including defense of self and state.

    More that use our exact wording exist but I haven't researched how many.

    Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
    I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
    Emiliano Zapata

    by buddabelly on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:52:26 PM PDT

  •  DE Article 1 section 20 (7+ / 0-)

    Since no one has listed it yet:

    § 20. Right to keep and bear arms.
    Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
    Also relevant DE law in the context of "defense of self":
    § 464. Justification — Use of force in self-protection.
    (a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

    (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

    This is partial, but the full text is here. The short form is that you do not have to retreat a) at home, b) at work, or c) if defending someone else, but otherwise you are not supposed to use deadly force if you can get away clean ("knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating").
  •  When I try to read all that legal language it make (5+ / 0-)

    s my head spin. I'll just take it from you this is good news. Sounds like Delaware isn't so simple with guns. Tom you keep on bringing your gun to the movie theater. My wife takes the kids to the movies once in a while, I'd hope there is someone like you in the audience.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 05:57:23 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site