Tenants and Firearms
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2013, 11:27 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(13-08-2013 10:04 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Chas is probably more in the right here. You are arguing for property rights being more important to the exclusion of any other rights. This kind of argument was the same argument people used to justify not doing business with minorities. Property rights matter, but they are weighed against other rights in the constitution.

Once again, Gun owners are NOT protected citizens like Minorities are in fair housing laws. it is ILLEGAL to claim discrimination on the sole reasoning of gun ownership. Also, it is private property...a homeowner can stipulate a prohibition of anything he wants on his private so long as it does not violate state law and it is clearly stated on the property or lease agreement.

(13-08-2013 10:04 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Whether restricting gun ownership for renters rises to the level of a violation of 2nd amendment rights probably would also depend on the facts. If there are plenty of options for renting housing that doesn't restrict gun ownership, it might be hard to get the courts to pay attention to the issue.

No, the only fact it hinges on, is whether or not it violates state law...which has been said many times that only 3 states have prohibited gun restrictions.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 01:31 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(13-08-2013 11:27 PM)Likos02 Wrote:  
(13-08-2013 10:04 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Chas is probably more in the right here. You are arguing for property rights being more important to the exclusion of any other rights. This kind of argument was the same argument people used to justify not doing business with minorities. Property rights matter, but they are weighed against other rights in the constitution.

Once again, Gun owners are NOT protected citizens like Minorities are in fair housing laws. it is ILLEGAL to claim discrimination on the sole reasoning of gun ownership. Also, it is private property...a homeowner can stipulate a prohibition of anything he wants on his private so long as it does not violate state law and it is clearly stated on the property or lease agreement.


The US Constitution contains no notion of protected classes, only guarantees of equal protection under the law and non-discrimination by government. The concept of protected classes is introduced in legislation like the Civil Rights Act and for housing, the Fair Housing Act. Without those acts, discrimination against minorities would be perfectly legal so long as the government is not discriminating. That's the whole reason Congress had to pass the two laws I mentioned.

You are completely missing the boat on what Chas is saying. He is talking about civil liberties as protected in the Constitution. The Constitution trumps anything written in a statute.


Quote:
(13-08-2013 10:04 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Whether restricting gun ownership for renters rises to the level of a violation of 2nd amendment rights probably would also depend on the facts. If there are plenty of options for renting housing that doesn't restrict gun ownership, it might be hard to get the courts to pay attention to the issue.

No, the only fact it hinges on, is whether or not it violates state law...which has been said many times that only 3 states have prohibited gun restrictions.

You obviously missed my first post that said exactly that currently it depends on state laws. But as I outline below, it is not that cut and dry.

Do you know that there already are federal rulings forbidding banning guns in public housing? Claiming this is not an issue that will ever be addressed at the federal level is just ignorant of the current state of affairs on the law in this area.

Federal courts have already ruled that banning guns in public housing is unconstitutional. But like I said, the circumstances really matter on whether a federal court will apply this ruling to all housing . Public housing often has common rules and lease riders throughout the entire community. Banning guns in public housing may be tantamount to blocking some citizens from ever being able to own a gun since they would be faced with a decision of owning a gun or being homeless. This is one reason the courts ruled such bans of guns in leases for residents in public housing are unconstitutional. And just so we are clear, public housing does not need to be public owned housing. Most Section 8 housing is privately owned and operated. So the courts have essentially ruled that gun rights trump the property rights of property owners leasing subsidized housing.

It is still an open question whether gun rights trump property rights for other private property owners who rent properties out. But since market rate rentals presumably include sufficient options for gun owners to choose, the courts may choose to defer to the property rights of the owner unless it can be demonstrated that the practice of banning guns in rental housing is so wide spread that it has the effect of making it impossible for a gun owner to find a place to live. But this kind of outcome in a federal court is far from certain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
14-08-2013, 06:53 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(13-08-2013 09:26 PM)Likos02 Wrote:  Chas, from what I have researched only 3 states so far have made laws that protect gun owners...when the odds are 47 to 3 our statements can be used as a generalization. The 3 states are an exception to the rule.

It would be the equivalency of saying that 47 christians believe in creationism as opposed to the 3 that believe in evolution...and then saying "christians believe in creationism". There are accepted exceptions to the rule, but the general statement (while not encompassing EVERY christian, hence "general"), is still true.

Nobody has said EVERY state allows prohibition of firearms for landlords, but the statemet of "you COULD be evicted, and your landlord MAY prohibit firearms as long as it doesn't break state law", is very very true.

SCOTUS ruled in 2008 and 2010 that people in public housing have the right to keep and bear arms.

The state laws against this will be dropping like flies.

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
14-08-2013, 07:46 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(14-08-2013 01:31 AM)BryanS Wrote:  The US Constitution contains no notion of protected classes, only guarantees of equal protection under the law and non-discrimination by government. The concept of protected classes is introduced in legislation like the Civil Rights Act and for housing, the Fair Housing Act. Without those acts, discrimination against minorities would be perfectly legal so long as the government is not discriminating. That's the whole reason Congress had to pass the two laws I mentioned.

You are completely missing the boat on what Chas is saying. He is talking about civil liberties as protected in the Constitution. The Constitution trumps anything written in a statute.

...

You obviously missed my first post that said exactly that currently it depends on state laws. But as I outline below, it is not that cut and dry.

Do you know that there already are federal rulings forbidding banning guns in public housing? Claiming this is not an issue that will ever be addressed at the federal level is just ignorant of the current state of affairs on the law in this area.

Federal courts have already ruled that banning guns in public housing is unconstitutional. But like I said, the circumstances really matter on whether a federal court will apply this ruling to all housing . Public housing often has common rules and lease riders throughout the entire community. Banning guns in public housing may be tantamount to blocking some citizens from ever being able to own a gun since they would be faced with a decision of owning a gun or being homeless. This is one reason the courts ruled such bans of guns in leases for residents in public housing are unconstitutional. And just so we are clear, public housing does not need to be public owned housing. Most Section 8 housing is privately owned and operated. So the courts have essentially ruled that gun rights trump the property rights of property owners leasing subsidized housing.

It is still an open question whether gun rights trump property rights for other private property owners who rent properties out. But since market rate rentals presumably include sufficient options for gun owners to choose, the courts may choose to defer to the property rights of the owner unless it can be demonstrated that the practice of banning guns in rental housing is so wide spread that it has the effect of making it impossible for a gun owner to find a place to live. But this kind of outcome in a federal court is far from certain.

An excellent summary. Thanks!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(14-08-2013 06:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2013 09:26 PM)Likos02 Wrote:  Chas, from what I have researched only 3 states so far have made laws that protect gun owners...when the odds are 47 to 3 our statements can be used as a generalization. The 3 states are an exception to the rule.

It would be the equivalency of saying that 47 christians believe in creationism as opposed to the 3 that believe in evolution...and then saying "christians believe in creationism". There are accepted exceptions to the rule, but the general statement (while not encompassing EVERY christian, hence "general"), is still true.

Nobody has said EVERY state allows prohibition of firearms for landlords, but the statemet of "you COULD be evicted, and your landlord MAY prohibit firearms as long as it doesn't break state law", is very very true.

SCOTUS ruled in 2008 and 2010 that people in public housing have the right to keep and bear arms.

The state laws against this will be dropping like flies.

Public housing and Private property are subject to different laws my friend. Public housing is housing that is provided by the gov. or by a commercial company (i.e century 21). However if you are a PRIVATE homeowner or apartment complex (I.e not a publicly owned company) the lease agreements can have ANY prohibitions in it, so long as it does not violate State law.

By all means you can try to take it to a federal level by appealing, and you'd probably win, but bottom line is: Just read the fine print and it wont be an issue.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
@BryanS....Logica wrote it best: "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?"

Basically, the Gov. can't restrict people in gov. housing (i.e base housing on a military base) because it is a Gov. entity, but private property it goes out the window.

FFS people there are literally "Micro-Nations" in the U.S....some dude bought 200 Acres in New mexico, then declared it a soveriegn Nation with its own constitution and everything. This person has his own police force (his son, 7, who walks around in a sherriffs outfit) and Legal system. Anyone been to an Indian Reservation? Those places are the same, the Federal and State government has to have a special warrant to even STEP INTO the reservation. So please, lets do away with the whole "this isn't right" attitude.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 09:04 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(14-08-2013 08:53 PM)Likos02 Wrote:  @BryanS....Logica wrote it best: "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?"

Basically, the Gov. can't restrict people in gov. housing (i.e base housing on a military base) because it is a Gov. entity, but private property it goes out the window.

FFS people there are literally "Micro-Nations" in the U.S....some dude bought 200 Acres in New mexico, then declared it a soveriegn Nation with its own constitution and everything. This person has his own police force (his son, 7, who walks around in a sherriffs outfit) and Legal system. Anyone been to an Indian Reservation? Those places are the same, the Federal and State government has to have a special warrant to even STEP INTO the reservation. So please, lets do away with the whole "this isn't right" attitude.

The Second Amendment affirms an individual right. A person may no more restrict that than he can restrict free speech.

No, there are no "micro-nations" set up by individuals. Where do you get that crap?

The Indian Reservations are sovereign by treaty between the government and the prior inhabitants.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-08-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
http://www.listofmicronations.com/listphysical.html
http://listverse.com/2010/02/22/top-10-b...ronations/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-pla...c=y&page=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronations

Free speech can be restricted...Look at WBC with their protests of military funerals (Gasp, thats two rights violated, assembly and speech) and how they are banned being within a certain distance of a funeral. And that was done by the President at the federal level!

Nobody has said "you can't own a firearm", what we are saying is "a landlord may evict you, as long as it doesn't violate state law, by Possessing a firearm on the property if clearly stated in the lease agreement that they are prohibited".

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 10:14 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
Likos02--

The 2010 case Jane Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority had two examples for the courts to look at-- both a public and privately owned property. The ruling made no distinction between its decision for publicly owned versus privately owned. The ruling established that it was constitutional to ban weapons in commons areas and acknowledged that banning guns inside residences would be unconstitutional. In this case, it was community policies that were a rider to the lease which banned the weapons. The policy language was different between the publicly and privately owned properties, but the housing authority was involved in setting both.

I'm in no was a gun rights activist--don't own one and don't really care to. But reasonable interpretations of the Constitution make gun ownership a fundamental right on equal footing of the freedom of speech. And recent federal court rulings seem to be leaning this way--that if a practice limits the ability for someone to own a weapon, the practice would be unconstitutional. What I wrote above still stands--I think the courts may very well defer to property rights unless the practice of banning weapons by lease agreement were widespread enough so that renters would find it difficult to legally own a weapon. Reading the decision for this case, I think that seems to be the way the court was going when they describe the standard by which they weigh the second amendment rights against other rights .


In case you want to read the decision I referred to:
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/defaul...10-473.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 10:19 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(14-08-2013 10:14 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Likos02--

The 2010 case Jane Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority had two examples for the courts to look at-- both a public and privately owned property. The ruling made no distinction between its decision for publicly owned versus privately owned. The ruling established that it was constitutional to ban weapons in commons areas and acknowledged that banning guns inside residences would be unconstitutional. In this case, it was community policies that were a rider to the lease which banned the weapons. The policy language was different between the publicly and privately owned properties, but the housing authority was involved in setting both.

I'm in no was a gun rights activist--don't own one and don't really care to. But reasonable interpretations of the Constitution make gun ownership a fundamental right on equal footing of the freedom of speech. And recent federal court rulings seem to be leaning this way--that if a practice limits the ability for someone to own a weapon, the practice would be unconstitutional. What I wrote above still stands--I think the courts may very well defer to property rights unless the practice of banning weapons by lease agreement were widespread enough so that renters would find it difficult to legally own a weapon. Reading the decision for this case, I think that seems to be the way the court was going when they describe the standard by which they weigh the second amendment rights against other rights .


In case you want to read the decision I referred to:
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/defaul...10-473.pdf

Thats absolutely fine...I keep stressing the fact about "violating state law"...If it's a state law then I agree with you landlords cannot prohibit the item. But if it does not violate the state law (i.e here in SC I can prohibit renters from possessing a Firearm on the property) then it is 100% legal.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: