Maybe a better question to ask is this, “When else is a person penalized all his life for a mistake that he made and then subsequently “fixed”?” I mean all our life we're learn from our mistakes and are forgiven for them (or pay for them). So why is a felon treated differently? The only answer I can come up with is that it is the degree of how bad the mistake was… Personally I don't think felons should own guns… but since Jazz opened up this gun right issue I just have to look at all angles.

I have been wondering whether the NRA is just bringing this lawsuit because they're in a pissing contest and just want to win.

Now, having said that…. I still go back to being torn between free speech and controlling guns in public housing. Ultimately the constitution should triumph. Jazz pointed out that public housing is someone's home and they should be able to have the constitutional rights protected…. but the other side of that is that no one is forced to live in public housing… I think the landlord can make certain rules and if someone agrees to them, then so be it. But I still go back to the freedom of speech under the constitution and that people have these rights. Can't people “give up” their rights or choose not to exercise them?

In San Francisco a lot of landlords won't rent to smokers… couldn't smoking be considered a form of freedom of speech, in which case these (potential) landlords are violating freedom of speech…. and what about someone (renter or owner) who needs to have a roommate. If the person who has a place and is looking for a roommate doesn't want a smoker, then wouldn't that, too be considered violating constitutional rights? But then again smoking is banned in some public places, but that's because of a public health policy. I wonder what would happen if a smoker sued a city because they wanted to smoke in a restaurant… and they claimed a violation of free speech….

Well, you can see the straws I'm grasping and perhaps smoking isn't a form of freedom of speech and I've gone too far… I'm not trying to start an argument, but I am trying to work through the shades of gray in my head. But the basic question still exists… When can someone choose to give up certain constitutional rights?

I may not like the following statement but I can live with it if someone were to come up and say it, “I don't agree with gays and think homosexuality is wrong.”

This statement or belief crosses the line, “I don't agree with homosexuality and all homos should be shot.” This is NOT free speech.

The KKK has to apply for a license to march, and they have to march along a specified route. Their right to free speech is protected, but restricted by local regulations. The reasons are often pragmatic, not ideological: no one wants a riot, which would happen if the police couldn't prepare ahead of time.
Restrictions on rights are commonplace and necessary, for the greater good of the community.

Just as individuals comprise communities, individual rights have to be considered within a communal framework. That's civilization for you. It'a also the reason for a democracy: people vote (through Congress) on the laws that will govern the community, and individuals have to suppress their personal urges in order to comply.
It's not a simple process. majority power vs. minority rights, federal laws vs state alws, one right vs another.

I find it very strange that gun ownership is put on a pedestal, above the normal give and take and balancing of considerations and concerns.
People living far away,and with no knowledge of what it takes to manage public housing in Sf, are taking it upon themselves to impose their views on a community of which they are not a member.
I would call that extreme and irresponsible.

If it were up to me, I would make NRA and their supporters put their money where their mouth is: move into public housing and take responsibility for its management . I can just see the lawsuits for reckless endangerement and homicide piling up to keep lawyers in the clover forever.

Public housing may be more dangerous in many places, but it is still, in fact, “housing” and is somebody's home. And they must have the same rights inside their homes as anyone else. Trying to flatly restrict a constitutional right to only people who own their own homes or rent from private landlords – if you think about it being worded in those terms – flies in the face of the entire concept of freedom.

To your question about violent criminals, I will need to run back and check for the existance (if any) of a federal statute, but I believe most – if not all – states bar conficted violent felons from gun ownership for life.

What I mean is that I was quite happy to support the SC's decision last week- I do believe that people have a right to bear arms.

But this post of yours highlights a double standard (I suppose) in my thinking… I don't know how to reconcile that.

So on the one hand I do believe in individuals to bear arms, but my first inclination on the ban of guns in public housing is to support such ban because I think (and maybe my own prejudices are glaring in technicolor right now) that it makes sense to me that people in public housing shouldn't own guns because public housing is dangerous enough.

So now I'm torn between my support of the 2nd amendment and my “daddy knows best” attitude (an attitude I try to avoid) when it comes to keeping public housing safe. I guess my support of 2nd amendment rights will win in the end.

I have a question to throw out there… what if a violent criminal (let's say he was convicted of armed robbery or maybe murder) did his time in prison and was released. Should he be able to buy guns- even an ordinary run of the mill handgun?

In the SC decision, celebrating indivdual rights, the residents of DC. were not consulted as to which rights they wished to exercise in their own community.
It was a case of outsiders taking decisons out of their hands.
In particular it took the decision away from voitng age adults and enabled accessibility of guns to underage criminal thugs.