The Progressive left loves to assign "rights" to poor people who have no constitutional basis (the "right" to medical care, for instance) but is strangely reticent when it comes to your Second Amendment rights.  Apparently, if you live in a housing project in East St. Louis, you had best surrender your guns at the door.

From the Belleville News Democrat:

The woman, who was identified in the lawsuit only as N. Doe, out of fear that her abusive ex-husband could find her if she was identified, has a valid Illinois FOID license and has been trained in firearm safety, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which was filed through the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, argues a firearms ban in government-subsidized housing is unconstitutional.  This ban, the lawsuit stated, only applies to low-income people who reside in public housing and deprives them the right to keep and bear arms because they can't afford private housing.

Doe alleges in the suit that Motley and the East St. Louis Housing Authority have threatened to terminate her lease unless she verifies she does not have a gun at home, according to the lawsuit.  She protested, and said she was told the building was safe, and that she didn't need a gun.

Her lease says residents are "not to display, use or possess or allow members of (Doe's) household or guests to display, use, or possess any firearms, (operable or inoperable) ... anywhere in the unit or elsewhere on the property of the authority," according to the lawsuit.

Violating the lease can lead to the resident's lease being terminated.

Doe lives in public housing because of her and her family's health issues, according to the lawsuit.  She wants a gun for self-defense, arguing she does not feel safe living in the Auburn Terrace housing complex, where shootings happen often.

In January 2017, Doe said she was beaten and raped in her home by a family acquiescence [sic], and her kids came to her rescue by threatening to brandish a firearm they had in the residence at that time."

So a rape victim is forbidden from keeping a gun in her apartment because the East St. Louis Housing Authority thinks guns should be forbidden.

Now, if you are taking money from your fellow taxpayers, you should expect some strings, and I would not necessarily disagree with a gun ban under certain circumstances (as in the case of felons, for instance), but there is always the danger of the slippery slope.  Take, for instance, this nifty little trick where the FBI plays games with the meaning of the word "fugitive" to manipulate the background check process for gun possessions and who gets banned.  (Thanks, Wil Wirtanen!)

As for strings attached to public money, that is precisely why the left wants everyone on some sort of public assistance, be it an Obamacare subsidy or a student loan or social security.  If they are paying you, they own you.

The hypocrisy of the left is on full display here, as this woman is undoubtedly not safe in this place, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is pretty clear.  Liberals would argue there is a right to have a home – even if it means imposing on productive people and, well, forcibly taking their money to finance this woman's lifestyle, but they will not allow this woman to protect herself.

So what does everyone think?  Do welfare recipients have absolute Second Amendment rights, or is it acceptable to restrict them since they are living on the property by the good graces of their fellow citizens?  It's an interesting case, and I have no idea how it will ultimately shake out.

Tim is a St. Louis-based writer.  Read more from him at The Aviary.