Screw the Constitution TPTB will disarm the public

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
This is the newest attempt to disarm the public, business owners make the rules for you to work now they will make the rules where you live.

www.9news.com...




posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
That's just illegal. Not only does it infringe on his 2nd amendment rights but he must have signed a lease agreement at some point so they are only allowed to abide by that agreement.

But these landlords are flat out stupid if they think they are going to be able to enforce this. Who do they plan on using to enforce this? what are they going to do search his home? I hope this man refuses to comply and stands his ground. The landlords will be on the losing end of this either way you look at it.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
This is completely ridiculous, agreed how would they even enforce this? How do they even know who would have weapons? I for one never speak about what guns are in my possession. Not in person anyway to the likes of those apt managers.

Hope this guy sues the crap out of these scumbags.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
You are right, and they are sending just one man to take them.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
It is pretty pathetic that those managers would attempt this.. Another thing that bothers me about this is the whimpiness of the guy that is complaining about this.. It sounds like he is just rolling over to these people...

If some high and mighty apartment manager came up to me with this kind of demand acting all big and bad, I would beat his @ss until he begged me for forgiveness.. Do not lay down for anyone that tramples your rights in ANY way shape or form.. Knock all their teeth loose instead and make them cry in personal shame. Only in this way will people be awakened from their communistic brainwashing and shown where the true error lies.

The error is not armed law abiding citizens.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
The renter should move. The contract in which they signed has changed and they are entitled to move without fear of breaking said contract -- that was broken by the management company when they introduced this rule.

It is nonsense that they instituted it, but they are a private company and to reside on their property, they have rules. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to States and the Federal Government; not private entities.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
If some high and mighty apartment manager came up to me with this kind of demand acting all big and bad, I would beat his @ss until he begged me for forgiveness..


No you wouldn't and stop trying to impress people over the Internet. You would be charged with aggravated assult and rightly so.


Do not lay down for anyone that tramples your rights in ANY way shape or form..

Except....it isn't your property (in terms of someone living in an apartment complex). So they, as the property owners, have more latitude to determine what you can and cannot have. Think that is farce? You pay more to have an animal in an apartment due to the tendency of having to renovate more once that occupant is gone. So in terms of tenants that own a firearm, it is probably more of an insurance premium than anything.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
That is such BS !!!!!!

Now this will give the crooks prime opportunity to canvas the area and rob some body, since it's being announced on the news.

Stupid, stupid, stupid......that just ain't right.

I understand that the owners of the apartment sets the rules, but if these people have been living there for a while, why not grant them permission to keep their guns but for any new comers, they would have to comply to the new rules.


edit on 7-8-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I'm not so sure, It seems to me that the second amendment applies to anyone, and when you rent an apartment, that apartment is yours legally and you are still entitled to all the rights and constitutional protections in that home the same as any place else. Some goof that happens to manage an apartment cannot just print out some paperwork effectively banning your second amendment rights just because he/she doesn't like guns. People are protected from this anywhere, especially in their home they pay for regardless of whether or not it is some apartment complex or a house somewhere..



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The renter should move. The contract in which they signed has changed and they are entitled to move without fear of breaking said contract -- that was broken by the management company when they introduced this rule.

It is nonsense that they instituted it, but they are a private company and to reside on their property, they have rules. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to States and the Federal Government; not private entities.



And his logical thinking and common sense blows the wind out of the sails.
You're right......


Plus I wonder if the insurance might have played a role in it?
Just curious.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I'm not so sure, It seems to me that the second amendment applies to anyone, and when you rent an apartment, that apartment is yours legally and you are still entitled to all the rights and constitutional protections in that home the same as any place else.


To your natural Rights I agree and those include your right to defend yourself; so in effect the 2nd Amendment. The thing is, the law has not made its way (or rather, the Judicial system) down to that level yet.

I presented my first post as a thought provoker. In this instance, I would think if a property management business is going to go through with this, why not knives? Baseball bats? Hammers? Screwdrivers? Ice picks? etc, etc.



Some goof that happens to manage an apartment cannot just print out some paperwork effectively banning your second amendment rights just because he/she doesn't like guns. People are protected from this anywhere, especially in their home they pay for regardless of whether or not it is some apartment complex or a house somewhere..


It isn't a matter of just printing something out....you signed it. Now if what you signed and this "change" is different, you are entitled to negotiate and/or break what ever contract you have.
edit on 7-8-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
What song the alarm had tolled that morning he could no longer tell, nor could he smell the hint of his wife's perfume that always seemed to linger after one long and gentle kiss. Beyond his door he found rain, the echoing promise of lightning brought by thunder's triumphant blast, a world that shook him to the core and only heightened his sense of isolation. With slow and measured steps, his grip tight against both umbrella's grip and the soaking wool collar of his long coat, he fought against urges both social and primal.

Screw the job.

Buy a gun, hide, live off the land.

Need a better car. Gotta get to work and buy a better car.

Might drift through his meager thoughts as he nears the train station and catches glimpse of the time. Now anxiety fills him and the world that seemed so far off all of a sudden draws too near. He isn't ready to quit, despite his frustrated words. He can't afford it, not with the mortgage and the price of gas.

Folding his umbrella and tucking it close against the pounding rain he finally reaches the platform's edge, cast a nervous glance towards his watch and sighs


I missed the logic train again.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Wasn;t trying to impress, just illustrating what happens when people try to steamroll over others.. Sometimes they get bit.

I wouldn't be jailed for assault like you say simply because I know exactly what I am doing and how to do it right so I don't go to jail.. It's called having an IQ and exercising the intelligence that you are given from birth and learning how to use that through many years of experience in the real world.

A person should maintain some degree of self respect in this day and age. Not be whining babys like the PTB have trying to turn everyone into so that no one fights back when wronged.

I live my life with the utmost love and respect for people and always treat people with kindness and the benefit of the doubt, but I will not be insulted or disrespected in a way that infringes on my basic rights as a dignified human being. People that think they can run roughshod over others simply because they believe the person they are victimizing will be afraid to stick up for themselves over fear of being jailed for assault, will find out rather abruptly how wrong they were, when they do it to ME.
Don't you understand this? This is called being a self respecting and dignified human being, not some wimpy baby like the whining Barack Obama's of the world

Remember this line from back to the future:
Stand up for yourself McFly!, Don't you know if you let people walk over you now, they will be walking over you for the rest of your life?
edit on 7-8-2013 by alienreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by snarky412
That is such BS !!!!!!
Now this will give the crooks prime opportunity to canvas the area and rob some body, since it's being announced on the news.
Stupid, stupid, stupid......that just ain't right.
I understand that the owners of the apartment sets the rules, but if these people have been living there for a while, why not grant them permission to keep their guns but for any new comers, they would have to comply to the new rules.
edit on 7-8-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)


This was my first thought as well. Lets just tell the criminals that after October it is free shopping in this area, because no one will be armed. If there was a shooting, and the gun was owned by a tenet, then the management would evict that tenet adding insult to injury.

Of course, the tenet was the one that brought the news into the picture, which is a double edged sword in itself. He could have "shot-himself-in-the-foot" with this, however, bringing attention to it could force a change in policy as well. They should have stated that a tenet must have licenses to have guns on the property, in a safe, etc, etc. But, I suppose in the management's mind, a ban is easier to write into a contract. They must have a cheap lawyer on retainer.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
If I was that man I would be moving under the breach of contract.

I wouldn't doubt that these apartments will soon be section eight housing before to long. It'll no longer be the quiet neighborhood then.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

The letter went out to residents on August 1 and says they have until October 1 to comply with updated "community policies."


They arent even trying to spin it as a safety issue or an insurance issue. That's some balls right there.

The gov tried this with public housing and they lost in the courts.

I wonder if a private apartment complex owner can ban homosexuals or Muslims? You cant really choose sexuality but you can totally choose your religion. Convert or move out?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
If I was that man I would be moving under the breach of contract.

I wouldn't doubt that these apartments will soon be section eight housing before to long. It'll no longer be the quiet neighborhood then.


If I was that man I would get 100% of the other tenants to sign a petition baning Di-hydrogen Oxide,
then I would take off the fake cover sheet and bring the real petition to the Apartment Managers
notifying them that the tenants have agreed 100% that as of October this Year
all Managers, Lawyers, and employees of the Complex are now Property of the tenants
and will show up every Saturday morning for their spankings.

If they think they can suspend the 2nd Amendment,
return the favor and suspend their 13th.


Mike
edit on 7-8-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


The 77-year-old retired US Marine Corps veteran sent a newstip to 9Wants to Know saying he's afraid he'll be homeless if he doesn't comply.

Can you imagine, disarming a 77yo man who has no other means of protection.

A firearm is an equalizer for the weak.

This is a de facto gun confiscation and I wouldnt be surprised if apartments, condos and developments sympathetic to gun confiscations, followed suit. Their argument will be that its private property and that they can set the rules.

But remember, the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT. Would they be allowed to tell their tenants that they cant use certain speech? How about practice a certain religion?

Of-course not.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
He has one of five choices since the owners of the apartment complex can legally set the rules:

#1 Comply.
#2 File a lawsuit to halt it and drag it out as long as possible.
#3 Let a friend store his guns for him till he needs them to go hunting.
#4 Keep them till they're found and deal with the consequences at that time.
#5 Move.

His character and conviction will guide him. Me? #4 or #5.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The renter should move. The contract in which they signed has changed and they are entitled to move without fear of breaking said contract -- that was broken by the management company when they introduced this rule.

It is nonsense that they instituted it, but they are a private company and to reside on their property, they have rules. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to States and the Federal Government; not private entities.


I must disagree here but I think it'll be a disagreement without resolution until high court decisions come at some point. Where else is perfectly legal, let alone specifically protected items like a firearm banned as a condition of living in a place where it's not a part of a court order? (protection orders or conditions or probabtion/parole?)

The courts decide matters every day and especially the Supreme Court, where Constitutional principles are in conflict with some matter between private parties. So this is not beyond the protections of the 2nd Amendment, in my view. It may simply need specifically designated that way to make it clear to people like the owners of the housing here. That's my general take. (Particularly after the Heller case incorporated the 2nd.)
edit on 7-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join