It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.)
(1) Any provision of a lease or other agreement, whether oral or written, whereby any section or subsection of this chapter is waived except as provided in RCW 59.18.360 and shall be deemed against public policy and shall be unenforceable. Such unenforceability shall not affect other provisions of the agreement which can be given effect without them.
(2) No rental agreement may provide that the tenant:
(a) Agrees to waive or to forgo rights or remedies under this chapter;
Originally posted by angrymartian
An individual right to keep and bear arms has never superseded private property rights to determine the owner policy on the issue. If the owner of the property says no guns then they can have that policy on their property. I do not see an issue other than the disappointment of the individual who has lived there for many years. If this is a sudden change in policy as it seems from this posted interview then the affected party can sue for the cost of moving and nothing more as far as damages as far as I can tell.
Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think we move beyond the level of just individual vs. individual when it is a company. Particularly a company that is legally and directly supplying living space and reasonable conditions for that in their regular line of business. I can see compelling arguments which could be made to both sides, which is where I think courts will take it up. If not this case, then another. This could quickly become a very vicious and devious way to back door the pressure on the 2nd.
It's a small scale issue at the moment, but how small does it remain if some of the multi-state property holding companies take up the same policy? Some of them own dozens to hundreds of properties, not just units/apartments.
How about homeowners insurance companies start demanding a list of firearms and unsustainable rate increases if one chooses to own such 'dangerous items' in the home?