Screw the Constitution TPTB will disarm the public

Now I am just wondering....

I am a smoker. When I buy a pack of cigarettes, contract law in invoked. That is...I pay for a product and contribute handsomely to the government, the product is legal. The money and taxes are accepted and I receive a product in exchange. There a contract has been entered into and completed.

Now under contract law, it is assumed that I will be able to use the perfectly legal product I purchased with my hard-earned money. However, the laws of the land prohibit public smoking.

Now let us say that I also own a condo apartment. And the board has now implemented a non-smoking policy for the entire building.

So if I can't smoke in public and I can't smoke in private ....then has the contract law been breached?

In the end...what the public allows to happen to smokers will also happen to others. I can't smoker, you can't store a gun?

Or if you want the right to do as you see fit, whatever is legal in your own home, then you must also grant that right to people who do legal things that you might not agree with.

Stand alone and lose or stand together and protect civil rights. Its your choice.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by alienreality


I do remember that line and I realize maybe I applied my post to you with equal opposition to the perceived underlying tones you conveyed. I understand the "stand up for your rights" stance. It is important and if you were around when John Paul Z. was here, you could have seen a truly inspiring story of one person doing such a thing and paying dearly for that stance (not physically hurt or anything but it takes a lot of courage to tell the system to bugger off).

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?

Fair Housing Act covers the above -- so you need to find a different example.

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?)

I have been thinking about this all day (while at work -- made my boss happy that I wasn't in her hair I guess). To me, as I see it, this is a private property case and while I believe that the Individual is most important, it is two individuals with competing ideas and obviously the expression of their Rights.

Something similar was pushed by the NRA during the run up to the Heller v District of Columbia hearing. Florida had just passed a "Bring your Gun to Work Day" and the NRA tried to link this to the 2nd Amendment. Even Cato had a hard time with this logic. They however correctly assess the true purpose of the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights.

The Constitution is not a "code of conduct that private citizens and companies must obey." It is a limiting document upon the Federal Government and to some extent, State Governments. It is designed to secure our Rights against the State -- not each other.

Here is how I see the equation as an example: You own a home that you rent out. You find a person to live in it but you give them a guideline that they cannot smoke inside the home because of the cost of repair and you are protecting your investment. Smoking is just as much a Right as owning a firearm -- but it is still a valid request of the private property owner imposing it.

The great thing about our nation and with self-governance and free-markets is -- you move and that person severely limits their supply to meet their demand; just as this apartment complex will most likely incur.

The courts decide matters every day and especially the Supreme Court, where Constitutional principles are in conflict with some matter between private parties.

Honestly, I doubt the Supreme Court would even touch this if it ever landed on their schedule. It is two private individuals (even if one is a company) and so long as persons have the ability (as they should be able) to exit their lease agreement because it has changed, no injury to either party was affected.

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.)

I am still thinking about this though. I err on the side of the Individual ad-nausium but in this case, it is technically two individuals....technically. Each having their own secured Rights and each allowed to exercise them. The big factor here is one individual wants to exercise their rights on another individual's property.

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.

This is nothing new many low income public housing complexes have had the no weapons rules for many years.
papers.ssrn.com...

This leaves many elderly at the mercy of the criminals that live in the housing complexes

After some digging this is really interesting. For instance, in Washington, a tenant does not waive their rights under the law. Given that Washington State's Constitution is the highest form of law in that state, a landlord could not impose such restrictions as per RCW 59.18.230.

(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;

As we move to Colorado, their tenant laws are not as defined. Here you can see the relationship defined by the legislature: Colorado's Renter's Guide

With that, a person in Colorado still can fall back on basic contract law in terms of their lease and/or oral agreement (who in this day and age would ever just go with an oral agreement)?

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.

Agreed except to the part where the affected party can sue. Typically, as it was shown here, there was a large grace period for tenants to comply. In any major change such as this, it can easily be shown cause in the court of law that the contract has changed and regardless of how many years left, you are free to leave under no consequence.

I do however understand your point -- but ultimately if you are renting, you are not the legal owner of that property and are always under the threat of having to move if they A: default B: change policy C: do not offer you a lease renewal D: etc, etc.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


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.

Take that one step higher where it would become far easier to manipulate on this or any other contentious issue where a round 'about way to inflict policy is desired. 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?

It's the nature of how far it can be abused when it's a man's ability to keep shelter and basic ability to live at all which makes all the difference to being a core rights thing to my thinking. Even a job/workplace is quite optional by comparison, I believe.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Suing for damages is not hard if you are financially damaged in a material way that a group of your peers will allow relief for. If you have lived for years and allowed to have a gun without a policy problem then a land owner making such a sudden change might be found liable for your moving expense is my point.

Good news -

Castle Rock apartment's controversial policy banning firearms is thrown out

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

reply to post by angrymartian


Define "sudden". According to this report, the tenant was given ample time to either comply or move. Not to sound crass, but the private property owner has their rights too.

There is further complication too is that this is a "joint" venture via private and public entities. Regardless though, I thought the move (even if it has since been backed off) was stupid.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I will define sudden in this case as a situation that is not outlined in the original lease agreement. If the original lease does not say this and a notice to leaseholders suddenly says you can not have a second amendment right to own a firearm on this property I would find this as a sudden change outside of the original lease agreement if it allowed a firearm in previous agreements.

reply to post by angrymartian


The landlord isn't saying you have no right to own a gun or even bear arms. They are stating that on their property, such isn't allowed. Big difference.

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.

On that take, regardless if it is a "company" or a "corporation" or an individual, where do we allow one's Rights to end and allow another to encroach?

Is there any difference if you supplied an automobile and via contract authorized the use of that automobile but barred the ability to transport a weapon in it? Ultimately that vehicle is your private property and you can control what is and what isn't allowed in it. What of your own home? Rental property? What if you have, for tax purposes, incorporated and are renting out a spare home and/or room? Can you not control that private property?

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.

Agreed but the same way multi-state companies comply with different laws in different states.

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?

To that, I would make a stand. The insurance company doesn't have Rights to the land but they are placing stake (that they will make money); so if they choose not to insure homeowners or property holders because they do not explicitly disallow arms -- I would find an insurance company that did.