You cant have or keep a gun here

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

but a basic tenet of contract law is that making ANY agreement that binds you to ANYTHING is a decision to alienate your OWN rights.

Marriage is an excellent example where you enter an agreement and knowingly forsake rights you otherwise had.

The court assumes that adults don't enter into agreements that don't serve their own interests.

You have a right to property. But when you enter into an agreement to sell your home, you by definition are trading away your rights.

Any court in the 50 will tell you that if you don't like the terms, then don't sign it until you negotiate the ones you want.

The reason for special laws about renting to minorities is because, other than THOSE laws, it's the landlord's right to set the rules--a right that HE'S not about to sign away.

It surprises me that more of you can't grasp this.

You have a right to free speech, mkay? but you don't have a right to go up to a CNN reporter and start talking into his microphone. You don't have a right to demand that the Networks air the new sitcom you've written. And why not? Because your rights do not trump someone else's property rights, unless they sign a contract with you concerning those rights.

How hard is that?

No one compels you to rent from this landlord, and no other. When I lived in a "gun-free" apt., it was a choice I made. I could have decided to live off campus, or I could have decided not to go to college on those terms. See?

If our laws were based off of the letter of the law like I believe they should be I would say that you were 100% correct. The problem is that our laws are based off of the interpretation and precedent system. This means that the current precedent is valid only until someone convinces a judge to change the precedent. Sooner or later a case like this is going to reach the Supreme Court it is only going to be then that this is decided. I think that it will be decided in favor of the tennant. My reasoning for this is that an illegal contract is unenforcable. Having someone sign a contract (lease) that abridges a Constitutional Right may be interpreted as an unenforcable contract.

Yours for rebuttle

As far as this "guns cause damage" argument--

That's nothing to what a burglar can do. If a potential burglar knows a tenant has a gun, he'd be LESS likely to rob the place.

I tell you what, some people must really think that people shoot holes through their ceilings all the time! :shk:

I would go so far as to say insurance companies (renter's or homeowner's) should offer a discount for having a firearm! Less chance of robbery, and therefore fewer claims!

Uhm, what are the things most burglars go looking for from the word go?

1)Drugs
2)Guns
3)Cash
4)Other items of value

Basically stuff with easy street resale value. Why do you think that pawn shops carry such a large volume of firearms for sale, and that the police have officers just to keep an eye on that?


[edit on 9/19/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5
Uhm, what are the things most burglars go looking for from the word go?

1)Drugs
2)Guns
3)Cash
4)Other items of value

That's why you keep a gun under your pillow or next to your bed--so no one steals it. On top of that, if they know you have a gun, seems to me that they'd want to leave you alone!

If I were a thief, I wouldn't go looking to steal a gun--that resident may have it pointed at me should I try to break in!

Well if you have one, then you most likely have more then one. So it becomes a matter of the thief being awake, alert, and having some clue as to what is going to happen, either coming into your home with a gun already, or seeing if he can find one of yours, before you can get your head off the pillow, realize what is going on and get yours. I think that in all truth he has a better chance then you do.


[edit on 9/19/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
If you won't allow others to own guns on your property, why do you feel the need to own one?

Strikes me as a touch elitist....

Hardly, I am protecting the interests of my property. FOr the same reasons I do not allow pets either (Unless they are required due to disability etc). Hardly elitist at all. I am not dictating if they can purchase a firearm or not. Nor am I dictating thier rights to bear such arms as long as it is not on my property.

How is that any different then say a hotel that does not allow smoking? Smoking is a right but there are places you cannot smoke

In regards to the poster that keeps an armed gun under his pillow, that may work well but if you have children, let me tell you kids and loaded firearm are a bad mix.

While I own guns myself, they are not stored in my house as I have a 3 year old. And unless Im willing to keep the handgun or shotgun loaded and ready, its not going to be much good against an intruder anyway.

Originally posted by Amethyst
That's nothing to what a burglar can do. If a potential burglar knows a tenant has a gun, he'd be LESS likely to rob the place.

Do you put what a sticker in the window?

The area in which I live has a large percentage of hunters in the population. The local crime statistics show that the majority of burgleries and home invasion type crimes happen the urban areas where the percentage of hunters is much less. I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms and have actually made that a point of who I vote for. I do see one problem though and that is the defence laws. With local support for the Second Amendment dependent on the agenda of the corrent political party in control the clarity of the defence laws is in doubt. The anti-gun people want home defence portrayed as wild west vigilantism while the pro-gun want the right to shoot first. In my previous post I stated that our legal system is decided by precedents. No where is there a better example of this than the current home defence laws. In the last ten years the political wind has shifted several times. I have personally witnessed two events that were essentialy the same, but were decided differently in the courts. Both events were someone kicking down a door and entering a home with the intent to commit physical harm to the people inside. In both cases the person in the house shot and killed the intruder. One person was never charged, the other is doing 3-5 years for Involuntary Manslaughter. The only difference in the cases was the District Attorney's views on gun ownership. The first case the DA was pro-gun and refused to prosecute and in the second the DA was the local HGCI rep.

I have dual citizenship in CA/NV i did for one reason its alot easier to get to concealed carriers permit/license my pistol is under the pillow i sleep no bullet in the chamber gunlocked key is around my neck sorry if someone breaks in my house threating my wife and unborn child I will shot his kneecaps




stripping your rights one bill at a time

Originally posted by JIMC5499

The problem is that our laws are based off of the interpretation and precedent system. This means that the current precedent is valid only until someone convinces a judge to change the precedent. Sooner or later a case like this is going to reach the Supreme Court it is only going to be then that this is decided. I think that it will be decided in favor of the tennant. My reasoning for this is that an illegal contract is unenforcable. Having someone sign a contract (lease) that abridges a Constitutional Right may be interpreted as an unenforcable contract.

Yours for rebuttle

Precedent means the weight of prior cases and laws. The bulk of US law concerns property rights. It would take more than one judge, or even a raft of them, or even, dare I say it, the supreme court, several decades of an all out attack on property law to make this considered 'an unenforceable contract.'

Since:
a) thousands of such rental agreements are enforced daily in the U.S.

b) calling into question a gun clause would also revisit every clause and stipulation in every contract used in the US, or by US citizens.

c) As I said before, it is axiomatic that every contract is a bargaining-away of some good or right or power. Therefore, if any contract that encroached on your "constitutional rights" was revoked, the USA would end tomorrow. By your logic, no city could have zoning ordinances, since they also encumber your first amendment rights to free speech. No bank should ever take your checks, because they invade your right to privacy by keeping a file on you. In fact, you could never use a babysitter, legally, since doing so would abdicate your parental rights in favor of the babysitter's rights en loco parentis. And no one could serve in the military, since by signing up, you sign away some of your habaeus corpus rights. And they'd have to come and rip out all your utility lines, since power wires and water pipes give the city easement rights across your property, and your contract with the utility companies necesarilly involved you granting them such easments, something that you say should have been illegal. Not to mention no marriage licenses, seeing as how joint property intereferes with individual rights.

No court is about to interefere in this way. Especially since this would be a state issue, and not a federal one.

And if a court sides with anyone, it will be the owner and not the tenant. Except for California, NY and Mass., the overwhelming burden is on the tenant in these cases. Those three states are the most rabidly anti-gun states in the union.

Honestly, it really is axiomatic that signing any contract involves bargaining away your rights. See, the owner is bargaining away some of his property rights just by renting to you. If he can do so, so can you.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Amethyst
That's nothing to what a burglar can do. If a potential burglar knows a tenant has a gun, he'd be LESS likely to rob the place.

Do you put what a sticker in the window?

Let's say you have two apartment buildings side-by-side. A potential burglar knows that Building A, the tenants are not allowed guns, while the tenants in Building B are allowed to have them. All tenants are law-abiding citizens in this scenario.

If you were that thief, which place would you rather try to rob? It may be that the tenants in B are all unarmed--but you don't know that. You'd want to pick A because you know the law-abiding citizens, who signed leases forbidding weapons, are unarmed. I don't think it would be very hard to know which places forbid weapons.

I would think that a thief breaking up the place would cause a bit more damage than a gun owner. And don't forget the thief may have a gun too.

State laws vary. Property ownership is not an absolute right and landlords have restrictions on what they can and cannot require in a rental agreement. Homeowner Associations have even greater restrictions on what is allowed in the CC&Rs.

Again, check with local and state laws. A landlord may have to demonstrate that mere possession of a firearm constitutes a nuisance or creates a material loss -- that's a high standard to meet.

Not a problem here. Local kids learn to shoot at an early age and a firearm safety course is taught as part of the school curriculum.

[edit on 2-10-2005 by dave_54]

Hmm anyone know where these places are? Sounds like a fun fest waiting to happen!

"Let's see, the sop shop is 20 minutes away, so about half an hour for them to get here, I have a 25 minute window to go in and steal everything I want. What are they gonna do? Ask me to put my gun away for it is against the rules as I take their tv and pc?"

Saying you have no gun is an invitation to be robbed, raped, killed, so forth. Would you go into a war and say "I won't shoot, it is against my beliefs!" Guess what? You go home in a body bag. In a country where there are criminals you need to be able to defend yourself. I don't mean by passing gun laws, they work as well as Pot laws, which don't. I mean even if you lived in Canada and there was only one criminal in the entire country should still own a gun for if that criminal shows up you can make Canada a crime free country. But going out and making sure everyone knows you are helpless? Suicide.

Where I live most people don't have a gun in their house. Yet the crime rate is not that high.

Guns don't have anything to do with lower crime rates. They can install alarm systems with a capable surveillance help desk and it should do the job. We have that here in our house.

You can also have surveillance camera's. Work just as well at keeping them away.

I live in a part of my city called 'the little vietman' because of the high crime rate.
I bought here before the perps got so bad, and I live alone.
This is an eye-opener for me, and makes up my mind, g-d help me, I will never have to rent.
"From my cold dead hand"

so how about kitchen knives?



a legal gun is a legal gun.....you'd have a hell of a hard time throwing out a senior citizen as in most states as they have a full year after being "evicted" to finally leave, regardless of the reason for eviction.

Originally posted by victor was right
so how about kitchen knives?

Only if the blade is three inches or shorter, depending on which state your in though.

A really neat wat to cut crime would be to have a clause in the lease stating that you must own a gun. And have that notice posted on the gates or the door of the apartment building. Just imagine " enter at your own risk all dwellers own firearms"

Originally posted by scienceguy94
Just imagine " enter at your own risk all dwellers own firearms"

Some thing sort of like this?


[align=center][/align]

What is that a .38? Not very good, go with a 9mm semi automatic. More firepower/rate of fire if you get a good hand gun. Or go with a .45 if going revolver. Maybe a SKS if you want real fire power in rifle form.