Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Coming to you from Washington's nicest indoor shooting facility. Of course, that Security Gun Club right here in Woodinville, Washington. It is Tuesday, January 30th, late in the afternoon. Probably. We'll not get this video out until Wednesday morning because when you're out here on the left coast and you have a law practice run, you don't get to shoot your videos until later in the afternoon. But some of you may have already heard and if not, you're going to hear it. Now, there is a huge ruling out of United States Court in the state of New York. It has to deal with everybody who relies upon government subsidized housing and who have previously all been stripped of what is supposed to be an inalienable, right? There is an injunction now in place thanks to the good work of those folks over at the Second Amendment Foundation. So we're going to go ahead and pat them on the back and get you all up to date, but it is a big day. It is a good day. So let's talk about huge win for gun owners nationwide.
Hunter v Cortland Housing Authority
Okay, so the case that we are talking about today is Hunter v Cortland Housing Authority. We have talked about this case on a couple of other occasions. I was candidly shocked when I learned that anybody who signs into a lease on a federally subsidized housing project will have a clause in their lease that absolutely, positively and without any doubt prohibits them from possessing a firearm. Okay, let me say that again. That means if you live in government subsidized housing, you cannot preserve your own life with a firearm inside your own property. Now, this has been in existence for many, many, many years. Unfortunately, those many, many, many years do not go back to the late 17 hundreds, nor did they go back to the mid 18 hundreds when we adopted the 14th Amendment, which means there is in fact no historical precedent for this type of unconstitutional restriction.
Our good friends at the Second Amendment Foundation were kind enough to throw in on this one. As you know, they had filed suit. We covered it in this video right here and today, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York has in fact issued an injunction against this federal restriction. To give you an idea of what all of this litigation was about, the court wrote first, plaintiffs argue they're highly likely to prevail on the merits of their first claim, the only claim which they need to do so for each of four independent reasons, a pursuant to the standard set forth in District of Columbia v Heller, defendants must show that the firearms ban, which is a wholesale ban on the possession of firearms, is part of a historical tradition of firearms regulation, but is beyond keville. That there is no historical tradition of banning firearms possession in American homes where the need for self-defense, family, and property is most acute.
B indeed, because the individual plaintiffs are of extremely limited economic means and have no other homes or residences at which to maintain or store firearms, the firearms ban unconstitutionally prohibits them from even owning firearms. C. Moreover, because the Second amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, defendant's firearms bans is unconstitutional. Also, by banning the at home possession of other legal non firearm weapons such as knives and D, the high likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits of their first claim is confirmed by the fact in the case of DO V East St. Louis Housing Authority. Now the defendants here, the New York Housing Authority, the Courtland Housing Authority of course argued, and this is always a good sign if you're the plaintiff, if the defendant's first argument is is they don't have standing. That's right. They actually are not the injured party here.
Now, how they could make that argument with a straight face is beyond me. You're basically saying, Hey, my housing contract is depriving me of an inalienable, right? Can you imagine if you can sign this lease and live here in federally subsidized housing, but you can't vote? Yeah, you can live here in federally subsidized housing, but you can't go to church on Sunday or whatever day of the week you decide you need to go to church. That's essentially what was occurring here, and it's been occurring for decades now. The way the defendants of course chose to deal with the lack of historical precedent to justify this type of restriction is to say, well, there really was no such thing as public housing, so there really is no history to draw from at all. The court was not convinced first, as a threshold matter, the court has trouble accepting defense counsel's argument that public housing was assuredly not something that our founding fathers could have contemplated at the time of the drafting of the Constitution or the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment because it just did not exist.
The court also pointed out when it comes to historical analogs. Second, in any event, the court is dutifully mindful of the second circuit's directive that courts must be particularly attuned to the reality that the issues we face today are different than those faced in the founding era, the Antebellum era and reconstruction. Thus the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation, though again no doubt relevant, may not be reliably dispositive in Second Amendment challenges to laws addressing modern concerns. The court is also mindful of the Supreme Court's similar directive that the Constitution must apply. Now, as you may recall, the government had previously made some pretty ridiculous arguments about limiting the types of people who could live in the house if they were domestic violence, perpetrators, sex offenders, things like that, and making that akin to lawfully and responsibly owning a firearm. Now, the court fortunately was not persuaded by that when they ruled for the sake of brevity, the court will not linger on the lack of relevant similarity between limiting the right of criminal convicts and limiting the right of law abiding responsible citizens.
Bigger problem
The bigger problem with defendant's analogy is that they have not persuaded the court that during the time periods in close proximity to 1791 and 1868, the government was never permitted to limit one's fundamental right to live together with one's family, and really the court ultimately calls out the Courtland Housing Authority as follows. Simply stated, instead of meeting their burden of establishing that the modern regulation is consistent with the national tradition, defendants base their justification for their firearms ban on half of a historical analogy to a non firearms regulation no less, which actually seems to undermine their case. Well done. They also tried to argue that, Hey, listen, we're only banning certain types of firearms, the kinds that people would most likely use for self-defense. So this isn't really a categorical ban. Court was not persuaded by that either. Third, defendant's justification also teeters precariously on their assertion that the firearms ban is not categorical in nature, given that tenants may supposedly possess rifle shotguns and crossbo on CHA property without breaching the lease.
Even if the court were persuaded by this assertion, the Supreme Court and Heller specifically rejected it as a ground for finding such a firearm regulation, constitutional, and so ultimately and very justly here, the court has ruled that there is absolutely no historical analog which justifies any sort of restriction of this nature, that because of that, this restriction as placed in there by the United States government in these federal housing contracts is in fact unconstitutional. The court has issued the remedy of a temporary injunction, which means that this restriction is placed on a big fat pause as the court's order reads ordered that plaintiff's consolidate motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is granted and it is further ordered that defendants, their officers, agents, service employees and attorneys and those acting in concert with them are temporarily enjoined from taking any actions to enforce or otherwise requiring any person or entity to comply with the firearms ban as set forth in tenant's obligation In Article nine, section P of the defendant's standard residential lease agreement, pending final resolution of this action, except to the extent that it prohibits the display use or possession of firearms in the common areas, grounds or parking areas of the property of CHA in violation of New York State law.
Possess a firearm
What that means New York is that if you are in public housing, yes, you can lawfully so long as you can lawfully do so, you are lawfully allowed to possess a firearm in your own home. Welcome back to the United States of America. Now, this also does not mean you get to go running up and down the halls and in the common areas celebrating this by displaying the firearm that would be against the court's order and New York State law. Listen, we're going to go ahead and link this up so that you guys can read it for yourselves. Listen, this is a gigantic Second Amendment infringement, and therefore this is a gigantic win for the plaintiffs here. Kudos to the Second Amendment Foundation. You guys, once again, have knocked that out of the park. We'll put a link down below if you want to show Second Amendment Foundation some love you can do.
So if you got any other questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now. If you don't, that's okay. That information is right down there in the description box. Now, in the meantime, let's everyone remember that part of being a lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
Credit: William Kirk, ESQ Washington Gun Law