Rights-Free Zone. . . The New Safe Space

Would this fall under the ""Libertarians"" belief of "States Rights"? You hear these so-called Libertarians talk about the need for individual State Rights, and when it happens it seems to hurt their feelings?

I understand you try to make us think you are a true anarchist, but how "libertarian do you want to get?

Suppose this guy (or some other landlord) decided to inject a clause under the fine print that simply nullified your personal and private property rights for the duration of the lease and effectively made you his personal slave and all your stuff his.

Stupid people will sign without reading their lease closely.

Do you think someone's personal and property rights ought to be null and void in the name of "libertarian" belief? Or do you think their ought to be some limits which is effectively what the COTUS and Bill of Rights are designed to be.

Its an interesting situation, and one that we are likely to see crop up more and more.

While the constitution explicitly restricts government action, government action certainly isn't the only way to achieve a veritable "gun ban."

If we factor in the extent of corporate power and leverage in the modern world.. guns could relatively easily be "banned" without the government ever lifting a finger.

In some locales, I can see the following situation catching like wildfire:

All sales establishments have placed restrictions, or outright bans on the sales of firearms. All residences from development owners, to HOAs, to landlords have banned the keeping of firearms in homes. Places like firing ranges are restricted through licensing and permits by boards that are cohesive in opinion; "we don't want them in our town." Safe storage facilities are avoided through the same means.

While certainly a bit outlandish, the end result is essentially a nullification of the 2nd without actually going against the constitution.

I suspect the left has finally realized that many of their goals are unlikely to be achieved through national legislation, but not through other means.

Pretty tricky, but if its framed correctly, the only ways to prevent it will go against the spirit of the documents that have been skirted. A catch-22 of Constitutionalists' nightmares.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Eventually, there will be backlash.

I'm not sure the left will like it if they push too hard.

Because once they decide they can become dictators in this manner and they are allowed to get away with it, then what won't they decide to force everyone into?

The moralizers will become insufferable.

While I think the landlord banning firearms from his apartment building is not the best decision, I do believe he is well within his rights to do so. In many ways this is no different from him saying no pets allowed.

I certainly wouldn't rent an apartment from this landlord, but if having a firearms isn't important to you, rent away!

originally posted by: BomSquad
While I think the landlord banning firearms from his apartment building is not the best decision, I do believe he is well within his rights to do so. In many ways this is no different from him saying no pets allowed.

I certainly wouldn't rent an apartment from this landlord, but if having a firearms isn't important to you, rent away!

Agreed, it is within their rights to do so on their own property. However, I expect that it is one highly publicized incident away form being revered and stopped. That incident being someone being robbed at gunpoint, or worse shot, in one of the buildings because criminals do not follow the laws.

I think that anyone that decides to prevent an individual from exercising their rights on their property should also be responsible for protecting those people themselves, and held responsible for any and all damages caused by their policies. So, if a school decided to make it a gun-free zone, then they need to provide equivalent protection for those in their care. Same as a land/property owner. In this case, a property owner that makes a clause in a contract prohibiting guns on the premises, should be legally obligated to provide equivalent protection for their tenants....and be responsible for damages or injuries due to their policies.

a reply to: ketsuko

What you think of me is inconsequential, I am just pointing out the hypocrisies within the so-called "Libertarian Movement"

I don't think there should be any "Landlords" Constitution or Bill of "Rights"