Tenants and Firearms
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2013, 01:29 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(08-08-2013 01:30 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 09:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is no longer strictly private property when it is available to let. Different rules apply.

You also seem to be confusing 'is' and 'ought'.

(08-08-2013 09:57 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  As soon as someone's paid rent, its their property as well for the duration.

You two have never rented then, because it is always the landlord's property.

I have been tenant, homeowner, and landlord; I understand the differences.

You can carry on with what 'ought to be', but I am telling you what is.

Landlords are allowed to restrict some things but not all things, and it varies by jurisdiction.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 01:59 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 12:57 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  You're wrong, I've rented for many years. I've never understood this mentality that even though the tenant pays for the right to live in the house, the landlord has the right to set the conditions of how they live there. After all, the building may be the property of the landlord, but its the tenant's home.

And their are plenty of countries where landlords aren't allowed to set these kind of restrictions. Frankly, I find it bizarre landlords would be allowed to.

It doesn't matter if you understand it or not. It is the landlord's property. So what if it is the tenant's home?

I don't care about other countries. We are talking about the United States.

(09-08-2013 01:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have been tenant, homeowner, and landlord; I understand the differences.

You can carry on with what 'ought to be', but I am telling you what is.

Landlords are allowed to restrict some things but not all things, and it varies by jurisdiction.

Actually, I just researched it. The second amendment actually has no legal weight on the landlord's decision to restrict gun ownership on his property because it strictly applies to the government's right. The landlord is a private citizen leasing his private property, so he does and/or should have the right to do so because it is his own private property and private business. Would you at least agree that landlords ought to have the right to do so?

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 02:50 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 01:59 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 01:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have been tenant, homeowner, and landlord; I understand the differences.

You can carry on with what 'ought to be', but I am telling you what is.

Landlords are allowed to restrict some things but not all things, and it varies by jurisdiction.

Actually, I just researched it. The second amendment actually has no legal weight on the landlord's decision to restrict gun ownership on his property because it strictly applies to the government's right. The landlord is a private citizen leasing his private property, so he does and/or should have the right to do so because it is his own private property and private business. Would you at least agree that landlords ought to have the right to do so?

Nope.

I would apply two arguments. One is the slippery slope, the other is the hierarchy of rights.

Whose rights prevail? Which rights are more important?
And more importantly, is it ever moral that someone's opinions outweigh someone else's rights?

Once someone enters into a public transaction (renting property), they have necessarily given up some privacy. This is now a social/commercial/legal matter.
You don't want firearms (or atheists, or Muslims, or vegans, or ...) on your property? Then don't fucking rent it out.

There are reasonable restrictions and then there is discrimination.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 02:56 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 02:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Whose rights prevail? Which rights are more important?
And more importantly, is it ever moral that someone's opinions outweigh someone else's rights?

The person who defines the articles of the lease agreement.

(09-08-2013 02:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Once someone enters into a public transaction (renting property), they have necessarily given up some privacy. This is now a social/commercial/legal matter.
You don't want firearms (or atheists, or Muslims, or vegans, or ...) on your property? Then don't fucking rent it out.

See, this is where we disagree. The landlord's leasing their property off for rent is a private business with their own private property. They have every right to restrict the tenant's ownership of a firearm as long as it is apart of the lease.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 03:52 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 02:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 02:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Whose rights prevail? Which rights are more important?
And more importantly, is it ever moral that someone's opinions outweigh someone else's rights?

The person who defines the articles of the lease agreement.

(09-08-2013 02:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Once someone enters into a public transaction (renting property), they have necessarily given up some privacy. This is now a social/commercial/legal matter.
You don't want firearms (or atheists, or Muslims, or vegans, or ...) on your property? Then don't fucking rent it out.

See, this is where we disagree. The landlord's leasing their property off for rent is a private business with their own private property. They have every right to restrict the tenant's ownership of a firearm as long as it is apart of the lease.

Again, you are arguing 'ought', and from your point of view.

I'm telling you what is. What is the case is that legislatures and courts have decided there is a balance of rights and responsibilities. The property owner's rights are limited by his entering into a public transaction.

That's the real world.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 08:56 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 03:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Again, you are arguing 'ought', and from your point of view.

I asked you what you believed and I addressed your answer.

(09-08-2013 03:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm telling you what is. What is the case is that legislatures and courts have decided there is a balance of rights and responsibilities. The property owner's rights are limited by his entering into a public transaction.

And so far, the yield from my research indicate that landlords have every legal right to restrict firearm ownership on their property.

(09-08-2013 03:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  That's the real world.

Haven't denied that, now have I?

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 09:43 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
If a business owner can put up a sticker that says "no guns allowed" and it is illegal to carry a gun into that business, would the same law not apply to a landlord and rental property? The store owner is legally allowed to restrict guns because it is their private property, just like the landlord can (?).

Landlords can tell you not to install a satellite dish.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
09-08-2013, 09:53 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 08:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 03:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm telling you what is. What is the case is that legislatures and courts have decided there is a balance of rights and responsibilities. The property owner's rights are limited by his entering into a public transaction.

And so far, the yield from my research indicate that landlords have every legal right to restrict firearm ownership on their property.

In some jurisdictions, yes; in some jurisdictions, no.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 09:56 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  In some jurisdictions, yes; in some jurisdictions, no.

Nothing I have read indicates that these landlords are restricted in their right prohibit possession of a firearm on their property, even by any local level in the United States. Assuming you are correct, however, that still violates the rights of the landlord.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 10:13 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(09-08-2013 09:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  In some jurisdictions, yes; in some jurisdictions, no.

Nothing I have read indicates that these landlords are restricted in their right prohibit possession of a firearm on their property, even by any local level in the United States. Assuming you are correct, however, that still violates the rights of the landlord.

As I stated much earlier in this increasingly circular discussion, Massachusetts courts ruled that the landlord cannot restrict the tenant's right to a firearm.

Landlords' rights are not unlimited - tenants have rights, too.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: