Commenting on my post calling the Supreme Court’s Heller decision a victory for gay rights, a reader points out that the plaintiff (joined by the National Rifle Association and the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) suing the San Francisco Housing Authority “in a bid to overturn a rule forbidding gun possession in public housing units” happens to be gay.
Cites a New York Times article on the various challenges to bans on handguns being filed in the wake of Heller, Tom Maguire calls this is a “clever choice of plaintiff.” In addition to providing details on the San Francisco ban, Times reporter Jesse McKinley observes:
In an interesting turn in a city known for its embrace of gay rights, the chief plaintiff in the suit against the city is a gay man living in a public housing development, owned by the federal government, who wants to have a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.
A gay man wanting to protect himself from potential hate crimes. While this decision on its face may not seem a victory for gay rights, it does make it a lot easier to defend ourselves against those who would assault (or otherwise attack) us because of our sexual orientation.
Glad to see the Times picking up on this angle, even if perhaps elliptically.
I wonder how many gay websites will address this issue, particularly given the sexuality of the San Francisco plaintiff. Or how this many gay organizations will consider the gay angle.
Let’s hope the court rules in favor of this gay man so he can feel just a bit safer in his own home. And so gay-bashers become aware that gay people are taking measures to defend ourselves.