Opinion
Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- Oh how does the anti-freedom “R” caucus love them some commonsense! Whoo! It’s not often for me to stumble upon something that really is actual commonsense. Not just a veil used for hypnotizing the public into thinking the way a civil liberty squishing card-carrying pinko thinks.
A recent announcement calls attention to the introduction of a new bill. This proposed law, H.R.6247 – ‘To ensure that residents of covered federally assisted rental housing may lawfully possess firearms, and for other purposes’ is what I’d consider commonsense. Not only that, I’m flummoxed as to what’s been going on that this even needs to be proposed! Has this kind of discrimination been going on?
Today, Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA-04) introduced the Preserving Rights Of Tenants by Ensuring Compliance To (PROTECT) the Second Amendment Act. The proposal seeks to uphold the Second Amendment rights of tenants, specifically those living in residences that receive financial assistance from the federal government, by ensuring those landlords and rental property managers cannot lawfully restrict firearm ownership.
“No tenant should have to sacrifice their constitutional right to bear arms due to their income level or the type of housing they inhabit,” Rep. Feenstra said. “Unfortunately, in some cases, landlords are able to place restrictions on tenants that infringe on their fundamental right to self-protection. My PROTECT the Second Amendment Act will put a stop to this and uphold Second Amendment rights for all federally-assisted tenants. As a strong defender of the Second Amendment, I will continue supporting any efforts that get rid of unlawful or unnecessary obstacles to owning a firearm.”
No, no one, under any terms should have to sacrifice their Second Amendment right for any reason. The provisions of this kind of law should extend to not only properties subsidized by the federal government but to all properties. Really, anti-discrimination laws should label gun owners as a protected class of people. In certain states that’d not be just a metaphor, they really do need protection from the government (read NJ, CT, NY)as well as crazy Karens. Where the armed need protection!
The bill has a good show of support:
39 original cosponsors in the House, including Reps. Rick Allen (GA-12), Brian Babin (TX-36), Don Bacon (NE-2), Jim Baird (IN-04), Kat Cammack (FL-03), Madison Cawthorn (NC-11), Ben Cline (VA-06), Andrew Clyde (GA-09), Rick Crawford (AR-01), Warren Davidson (OH-08), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Scott Franklin (FL-15), Bob Gibbs (OH-08), Andy Harris (MD-01), Diana Harshbarger (TN-01), Ashley Hinson (IA-01), Richard Hudson (NC-08), Ronny Jackson (TX-13), Chris Jacobs (NY-27), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Jake LaTurner (KS-02), Nancy Mace (SC-01), Tracey Mann (KS-01), David McKinley (WV-01), Dan Meuser (PA-09), Mary Miller (IL-15), Marianette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), John Moolenaar (MI-04), Alex Mooney (WV-02), Ralph Norman (SC-05), Scott Perry (PA-10), John Rose (TN-06), Jason Smith (MO-08), Thomas Tiffany (WI-07), Beth Van Duyne (TX-24), Tim Walberg (MI-07), Randy Weber (TX-14), and Joe Wilson (SC-02).
What does the proposed language of the bill have to say?
(a) IN GENERAL.—No resident of covered federally assisted rental housing may be prohibited from lawfully possessing a firearm within—
(1) the residential dwelling unit occupied by the resident; or
(2) any common area of the covered federally assisted rental housing in which the resident resides if the resident is carrying or transporting the firearm through such area during the course of journeying to the residential dwelling unit of the resident or exiting the covered federally assisted rental housing.
Bravo to Feenstra and all the other lawmakers for taking a stand against discrimination. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a good deal of Democrats supporting this bill in the future. With all their constant “poo-pooing” about equality and being equitable, or whatever the new buzzword is, this would level the playing field. This would bring equality and make things equitable, no? So far, a quick glance at the co-sponsors shows zero support from those that are left of center. Do they have something against those that rent? There seems to be some classism going on here. How dare you?
More on the act:
The issue of upholding Second Amendment rights for tenants has gained attention across the country in recent years. For example, in President Biden’s home state of Delaware, the Supreme Court struck down a Wilmington Housing Authority policy that restricted the rights of their tenants to bear arms in 2014. Last year, the Iowa legislature passed a sweeping pro-gun rights bill, which included a provision that prevents landlords — specifically those who receive federal rental assistance funds — from banning tenants from owning firearms.
The PROTECT the Second Amendment Act has three main objectives:
- Protect tenants’ of federally assisted rental housing’s rights to lawfully own a firearm within their home;
- Allow lawful transport through common areas when entering and exiting, and;
- Prevent property managers who accept federal assistance from prohibiting or discriminating against a tenants’ right to own firearms.
We can hold our breath and hope that Congress will accept this and the “Big Guy” Resident will be told it’s okay to sign this one, but I doubt that’ll it will get that level of support. Nonetheless, it’s refreshing to see the introduction of bills that help fortify freedoms, rather than eviscerate them. As always, we’ll keep our eyes peeled for anything that breaks on this subject and report back.
About John Petrolino
John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .
Crazy Nancy Pelosi will never allow this to a vote on the floor of the house, she is afraid of the squad who are anti gunners.
crazy nancy is anti she has hers you are just a subject
“The provisions of this kind of law should extend to not only properties subsidized by the federal government but to all properties.” Absolutely not. Property ownership is at the bedrock of a free society. Do you like someone telling you what you can and can’t do on your property?
the owner of a property,not taking section 8 should be able to do whatever, bad vibs or something strange on background pass no thanks.
I would agree with you, IF the various governments did not already burden rental property owners, and other property owners, with all manner of regulations!
The second amendment has no stipulations regarding a classification of who can and who can’t own and bear a firearm. Therefore any restrictive regulation is unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment allowing such a restriction. Consequently, a law affirming a constitutional amendment is, and should be considered, redundant. “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.” Nothing could be more clear than that. Furthermore, there is, or should be, no doubt of the reason that second amendment was seen as so important to the founders… Read more »
I’ve always heard that there are more than 20,000 gun control laws on the books. But to your first point, many learned people over time have argued differently, from our understanding of 2A, and been just as sincere. However, we understand the historical meanings of the words and their use, the repeated use of “the people” in other amendments, and the modern applicability of all 10 originals ratified in 1791. Justice Scalia wasn’t the first person to see the amendment as we do. For hundreds of years it was an accepted fact, unnecessary of examination or parsing. It really has… Read more »
You should read Scalia’s opinion again. He screwed us by saying some infringement is constitutional.
What is so astounding is that, with the language and intent of that SecondArticle of Ammendment being so clear, some landlords actually have the stones to deny that RIGHT to their customers. Nearly every state holds that the use of lethal force is prima facie justified whenver an unauthorised iperson enters, or attempts to ente,r an occupied dwelling. How is anyone supposed to be able to DO this if the idiiot landlord establishes as a condition of tenancy the prohibition of suitable lethal force?
Should any landlord in any building take a tenant’s money and thwart the tenant’s constitutional right to bear arms in self-defense? Can we lawfully charge such a landlord with negligent homicide in the event that the tenant is killed in a violent act that could have been prevented with a firearm?