rights, homelessness, Constitution, etc.

[Coyote33]

Shelter residents, city settle library lawsuit Borrowing privileges are unrestricted

Monday, December 25, 2006

Shelter residents, city settle library lawsuit

Borrowing privileges are unrestricted

By Milton J. Valencia TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
Picture

A man who said he lived at the PIP shelter uses a computer Saturday afternoon at the Worcester Public Library. (T&G Staff/PAUL KAPTEYN)
It’s not right for people not to have a card just because they’re homeless. It’s discriminating.



WORCESTER— Like many from the People in Peril shelter, the man sought solace in the endless resources of the Worcester Public Library. This time, he was surfing the Internet, but at times he, like others, are known to borrow books for reading in private in the lonely corners of a homeless shelter.

Under the library’s old policy, he would be allowed to borrow only two books at a time, part of a regulation lumping him and other people who are homeless or live in shelters into one group. He finds comfort in news that the policy was scrapped, called unconstitutional, and that he’s assured the right to have a library card just like any other reader.

“I think everybody has a right to have a library card, no matter who they are,” said the man, who asked that his name not be used because of his living conditions.


“It’s not right for people not to have a card just because they’re homeless,” he said. “It’s discriminating.”

Homeless advocates argued no group should be judged on its address, and filed suit in federal court against the library in July. Last week, the city settled with the Legal Assistance Corp. of Central Massachusetts and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which filed the suit on behalf of three co-plaintiffs who live in shelters and felt they were discriminated against.

Under the settlement, the library has scrapped its policy restricting borrowing privileges of residents of shelters, transitional housing programs and adolescent programs.

In addition, the city has agreed to host the National Coalition for the Homeless’ Faces of Homelessness Speakers’ Bureau in Worcester, according to a joint statement released by the library and Legal Assistance Corporation. As part of the event, people who have experienced homelessness share their stories with the community, telling of the hardships and discrimination they faced.

The settlement is considered a victory for the three plaintiffs, as well as for the Central Massachusetts Housing Authority and the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, which work with homeless people, including the plaintiffs.

One of the plaintiffs was a victim of spousal abuse who lived in a women’s shelter with a child. The woman had home-schooled her child until the library’s policy restricted her access to the necessary educational materials.

Two other plaintiffs, a husband and wife who lived with their 8-year-old son at a family shelter operated by the Housing Alliance, argued the policy restricted their rights to access books to feed their reading habit. The mother said in the suit that she was embarrassed when a library staffer called attention to her homelessness in the presence of other people in the library.

The head of the local chapter of the ACLU said when the suit was filed that people should be judged on their own merits, and not on their living status. Last week, those involved in the case praised the resolution without the need for further legal action.

“We appreciate the willingness of the city and the library board of directors to come to the table to discuss equal access to the library and its materials for all,” Jonathan L. Mannina, executive director of Legal Assistance, said.

Now if they only applied this to the REAL rights. Are you allowed to own a gun in MA if you don't have an address? (Anybody care to rewrite this article switching gun rights for books and send to the T&G?)

 

[drgrant]

Now if they only applied this to the REAL rights. Are you allowed to own a gun in MA if you don't have an address? (Anybody care to rewrite this article switching gun rights for books and send to the T&G?)

In MA gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. We all know how wrong that
is, but at least as far as the law is concerned it's generally true. The laws
allowing discretionary issue of anything except for an FID card pretty much
guarantee that it will always be that way, unless they're changed. The Chief
can say he doesnt like the way your breath smells, deny you and get away with it.

-Mike

 

[Coyote33]

Whatever happened to Federal law pre-empting state law?

That said, I like a lot of what you write. Care to have a crack at it?


See also: "Act Locally"?

 

[Jose]

Screw those people, they have passed the point of being needy to becoming leeches of society.

 

[Jaxon]

Its not a "right", its a "priviledge". I wish they wouldn't confuse those. You can be denied a number of "priviledges" for a number of reasons.

 

[KMaurer]

Whatever happened to Federal law pre-empting state law?

The problem here is that, due to the absurd precedent set by the Slaughterhouse Cases, we're left with a selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights as binding on the states. While all the legislative history of the 14th Amendment clearly shows that the right to keep and bear arms by individuals was one of the primary reasons why the Amendment was created in the first place, but accepting that would have been terribly inconvenient.

Ken

 

[Coyote33]

The problem here is that, due to the absurd precedent set by the Slaughterhouse Cases, ...

I must admit I have no clue about these and little time to look it up. Got a Cliff notes version?

 

[RKG]

If there were a Cliff Notes version, then people would get it right.

The fact of the matter is that this is a case of judges making the law up as they see fit (which, ultimately, is just a subset of the "end justifies the means" argument). Unfortunately, it is a very old example, and as with people, age begets veneration.

 

[drgrant]

Whatever happened to Federal law pre-empting state law?

That said, I like a lot of what you write. Care to have a crack at it?

2nd amendment is null beyond the federal context; eg, since it's not
incorporated as being binding upon the states, until that happens it doesn't
mean much outside of the context of a non-federal case.

And even if it -was- incorporated, the feds still have to flesh out, effectively,
what the 2nd amendment really means (or doesnt) because it appears the
legal system widely ignores it, and has done so many times over the past
100 years. (The supremes and many others are adept at dodging the
2nd amendment question, because in most cases the courts are never
forced to deal with it... and there isn't enough precedent to steamroller
gun cases. )

So right now, effectively, the only people that are "protected" at all
WRT gun ownership being a right, are people who live in states which
have a constitution or other law that says that people have RKBA; and
their court system has supported that assertion through decisions, or legal
interpretations of the AG, etc... or just simply the way their laws
read. Of course, theres still the thorny problem of overriding federal law
getting in the way... You can move to vermont which essentially has almost
no class of prohibited persons, but it doesn't do you a lick of good because
of overriding federal law such as the lautenberg amendment, and all that
crap. (eg, domestic violence, felon in posession, blah blah blah ). The
sad thing is that theres more cases in favor of what BATFE does as opposed
to against them. (Somehow or another the feds get away with pulling
prosecutions despite the fact that they really have no authority to regulate
something that isn't "in transit" in interstate commerce, etc. they make up
this BS about the gun having touched interstate commerce to get to
someone, so once it does that they can regulate it!) There's probably
some other legalese I'm missing here, but I'm sure theres a piece of enabling
legislation that allows it. (Probably inside of GCA68, or even WAY earlier...
EG, the same laws which allowed the feds to steal/destroy booze during prohibition,
despite the fact that often times none of the moonshine ever
"affected interstate commerce" in any way. )

-Mike