Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on August 08, 2013, 01:00:22 PM
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/colorado-renters-told-toss-guns-or-move-out/
Good luck with that. :lol:
I had a similar fight with an apartment I lived in here in AZ, in Gilbert. After some idgit blew up an apartment (single unit) in Mesa with a pipe bomb built with smokeless powder, my complex made a revision to rental terms.
They tried to prohibit propane, butane, camping fuels, smokeless and black powder, oxygen, acetylene, carbide and a list of other things.
I wrote them a certified letter stating I would absolutely not comply, that I had a number of those things in my apartment, had a constitutional right to have them, and I'd be happy to discuss it in court if they don't immediately retract the terms. I also stated that this was a breach of contract on their part as it made for a substantial modification of rental terms midway through the contract.
No court appearance was necessary, they backed off immediately.
I have no idea where teh stoopidz came from that made them try it in the first place.
-
. . . it made for a substantial modification of rental terms midway through the contract.
Precisely my first thought - IANAL, but with rare exceptions, one party to a contract can't unilaterally change the terms.
And . . . if the next time the lease comes up they include such a probibition . . . can they also prohibit free speech, require quartering of troops, ban peaceful assembly, etc.?
-
keep the guns and wait to be forced to leave
yeah, I'd like to see how that works out for them :P >:D
I would think that it would be pretty damn hard to legally evict someone if they are paying their rent.
They going to do weekly apartment searches ??? :facepalm:
And Castle Rock used to be a little town way out in the country. If it wasn't for my mom, I would never venture into Colorado again.
-
^^^ This is interesting, because private property owners generally have a broad ability under their property rights to prohibit certain activities from taking place on their property. I would think that a Rugged Individualist would approve of this concept.
-
It isn't a 2A thing, or a civil rights thing, it's a contract thing.
Precisely my first thought - IANAL, but with rare exceptions, one party to a contract can't unilaterally change the terms.
And . . . if the next time the lease comes up they include such a probibition . . . can they also prohibit free speech, require quartering of troops, ban peaceful assembly, etc.?
How far they can get away with it depends on CO law regarding apartment/housing rental agreements. Last rental I had went "month to month" after the initial lease expired with no changes in the contract terms. Of course that is in OK.
-
^^^ This is interesting, because private property owners generally have a broad ability under their property rights to prohibit certain activities from taking place on their property. I would think that a Rugged Individualist would approve of this concept.
Back when this happened, I was less Rugged Individualist / Anarchist and more Constitutionalist in my outlook. So I took the Constitutionalist approach, though I did move out and use my economic force (such as it was) to punish them, as well as to avoid any similar attempts on their part in the future.
-
^^^ This is interesting, because private property owners generally have a broad ability under their property rights to prohibit certain activities from taking place on their property. I would think that a Rugged Individualist would approve of this concept.
Except this is a violation of contract, as it was not in the leasing paperwork. Signing a lease and then one party drastically changing the conditions is not something a Rugged Individualist would or should approve of.
Also, it's public housing that accepts local, state and fed money. You take the King's shilling, you are the King's man.
And lastly, nothing wrong with shaming people for doing the wrong thing.
Also, the place backed down when the sponsoring government agencies freaked out at the negative press, violation of Constitutional rights, angry voters, etc. Er, I mean, the commercial managing partner had a change of heart.
-
Back when this happened, I was less Rugged Individualist / Anarchist and more Constitutionalist in my outlook. So I took the Constitutionalist approach, though I did move out and use my economic force (such as it was) to punish them, as well as to avoid any similar attempts on their part in the future.
How would you handle it now, with your current outlook?
-
Except this is a violation of contract, as it was not in the leasing paperwork. Signing a lease and then one party drastically changing the conditions is not something a Rugged Individualist would or should approve of.
Leasing agreements are changed unilaterally all the time, unless the contract provides for mutual agreement and consent to any changes. The property owner, for example, can raise the rates, start charging for parking, etc. with 30 days notice to the tenant unless the contract provides for longer notice provisions or that changes are only done at the renewal of the lease. The tenant has the option of accepting the terms, negotiating different terms, or moving out. You could argue if the prohibition of explosives on the property owners property is a 'drastic changing of the conditions', or is it an urgent action taken to protect the property of the owner?
If an apartment owner discovers that a prepper has his spare bedroom full of 25 five gallon jerry cans of gasoline, would you expect the apartment owner to take no action or to prohibit such activities? Would your opinion change if your children's bedroom was directly above the prepper's spare bedroom?
-
How would you handle it now, with your current outlook?
More or less the same, but rely less on COTUS for argument and more on the premise of a voluntary contract.
Leasing agreements are changed unilaterally all the time, unless the contract provides for mutual agreement and consent to any changes. The property owner, for example, can raise the rates, start charging for parking, etc. with 30 days notice to the tenant unless the contract provides for longer notice provisions or that changes are only done at the renewal of the lease. The tenant has the option of accepting the terms, negotiating different terms, or moving out. You could argue if the prohibition of explosives on the property owners property is a 'drastic changing of the conditions', or is it an urgent action taken to protect the property of the owner?
I've never stayed anywhere that allowed for mid-lease changes to rent rates. Ever. Or could change parking terms.
Every rental contract I've ever seen does not allow for that.
"Explosives" is also a rather precise word. It should be used in a precise manner, since it has a precise technical and legal meaning.
-
http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out
Looks like the ban was overruled because the apartment is public housing and gun bans in public housing is a no-no.
-
Leasing agreements are changed unilaterally all the time, unless the contract provides for mutual agreement and consent to any changes. The property owner, for example, can raise the rates, start charging for parking, etc. with 30 days notice to the tenant unless the contract provides for longer notice provisions or that changes are only done at the renewal of the lease. The tenant has the option of accepting the terms, negotiating different terms, or moving out. You could argue if the prohibition of explosives on the property owners property is a 'drastic changing of the conditions', or is it an urgent action taken to protect the property of the owner?
If an apartment owner discovers that a prepper has his spare bedroom full of 25 five gallon jerry cans of gasoline, would you expect the apartment owner to take no action or to prohibit such activities? Would your opinion change if your children's bedroom was directly above the prepper's spare bedroom?
I have no doubt that some people are foolish enough to sign a contract without reading it, and I personally know that some leasing agreements are as shoddy or sleazy as you say. Most respectable leasing agreements do not allow rate hikes with short or no notice. They're usually rolled into end of the year or end of lease interval.
Regarding explosives and large amounts of gasoline, most leasing agreements do not cover these. Because they are covered under fire code and local ordinances. I had an explosives license and was one of the two leads on explosive storage at a site in Sikorsky, which became the model for all Sikorsky sites. So I know more on this than I would like. Explosives storage must comply with BATFE regs, federal law (typically have a license and follow BATFE regs), state law (usually see federal laws) and local rules (these can get interesting quickly). Some locations ban any explosives, others say just follow BATFE regs. If large quantities of gasoline indoor storage in residential rental properties was legal and in compliance with fire code, then yes, it might be the place for a lease to cover.
Nearly all leasing agreements do say that illegal activity and activity in violation of fire code are banned, and subject to termination of lease. I fail to see any problems with that. As a risk management expert, you'd probably tell a client to do the same. To avoid lawsuits, bad PR, et al, stick to "Illegal stuff is bad, so don't do it on our property. If it's legal and not destructive to our property, not our concerned."
So, no, children (mine or anyone else's) would not change my opinion.
-
I'm a rugged individualist. I don't support this. When they rent me a home they don't get to tell me what I can do that's legal inside of it. They don't get to tell me I have to wear boxers instead of tighty-whities. They don't get to tell me how I have sex in the bedroom. They don't get to tell me what I can eat for dinner or that I must be a vegan. They don't get to tell me what books I can read or what TV shows I can watch. When I come in the door and lock it then they don't get in. That is, in most states, the law. They can get in for maintenance and repairs with reasonable notice.
I've researched these laws in several states. They were all written by the same folks because most states have laws that are near verbatim copies.
Imagine how up in arms the Obama administration would be if they tried to pass a rule that their tenants could not engage in sodomy.
-
quote author=Levant link=topic=40651.msg825155#msg825155 date=1376011971]
I'm a rugged individualist. I don't support this. When they rent me a home they don't get to tell me what I can do that's legal inside of it. They don't get to tell me I have to wear boxers instead of tighty-whities. They don't get to tell me how I have sex in the bedroom. They don't get to tell me what I can eat for dinner or that I must be a vegan. They don't get to tell me what books I can read or what TV shows I can watch. When I come in the door and lock it then they don't get in. That is, in most states, the law. They can get in for maintenance and repairs with reasonable notice.
I've researched these laws in several states. They were all written by the same folks because most states have laws that are near verbatim copies.
Imagine how up in arms the Obama administration would be if they tried to pass a rule that their tenants could not engage in sodomy.
[/quote]
http://youtu.be/SY9vwalxg2E
[
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/colorado-apartment-complex-reverses-ban-guns/
“This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual’s rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few
-
It sucks for the tenants, but as a libertarian i have to agree that the owner of the apartments should be able to do whatever they want with their reg's so long as it doesn't contradict the lease agreement.
-
I'm a rugged individualist. I don't support this. When they rent me a home they don't get to tell me what I can do that's legal inside of it. They don't get to tell me I have to wear boxers instead of tighty-whities. They don't get to tell me how I have sex in the bedroom. They don't get to tell me what I can eat for dinner or that I must be a vegan. They don't get to tell me what books I can read or what TV shows I can watch. When I come in the door and lock it then they don't get in. That is, in most states, the law. They can get in for maintenance and repairs with reasonable notice.
I've researched these laws in several states. They were all written by the same folks because most states have laws that are near verbatim copies.
Imagine how up in arms the Obama administration would be if they tried to pass a rule that their tenants could not engage in sodomy.
You do not have to live in the apartments either. As an individualist, shouldn't you support the owners rights lay down the law in their property? If you invite someone into your car or let them borrow your car for a while, you don't give them a blank check to do whatever they want with it. It's your car, your rules. Same goes with the apartment owner. The only thing they need to honor is the lease.
-
You do not have to live in the apartments either. As an individualist, shouldn't you support the owners rights lay down the law in their property? If you invite someone into your car or let them borrow your car for a while, you don't give them a blank check to do whatever they want with it. It's your car, your rules. Same goes with the apartment owner. The only thing they need to honor is the lease.
There is a difference between inviting someone into your car, and someone paying money to rent, or in other words to temporarily make that apartment yours in a limited capacity.
Also,
Gamera is really sweet.
He is filled with turtle meat.
Now we have Commercial sign.
[popcorn]
-
Most leases (at least in my experience renting) have specific provisions regarding prohibited actions/behaviors/possessions. Never saw one forbidding firearms, reloading components, etc. Every single one explicitly prohibited storing gasoline inside the apartment. Also "illegal activity". Basically a catchall that lets them evict you if you happen to turn the apartment into a meth lab, etc. But if they don't tell me I can't do something, then....
-
While I understand the argument that the apartment owner ought to have the right to forbid guns I also question who should have the responsibility when tenant Jane Q. Citizen wakes up at zerodarkthirty and Hannibal Lecter has broken into her apartment and has his chianti and fava beans and wants his .... "midnight snack?" >:D and Mrs. Citizen no longer has her gun with which to debate the issue.
-
There is a difference between inviting someone into your car, and someone paying money to rent, or in other words to temporarily make that apartment yours in a limited capacity.
Also,
Gamera is really sweet.
He is filled with turtle meat.
Now we have Commercial sign.
[popcorn]
"See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his shell he holds the earth.
His thought is slow but always kind;
He holds us all within his mind.
On his back all vows are made;
He sees the truth but mayn't aid.
He loves the land and loves the sea,
And even loves a child like me."
-
You do not have to live in the apartments either. As an individualist, shouldn't you support the owners rights lay down the law in their property? If you invite someone into your car or let them borrow your car for a while, you don't give them a blank check to do whatever they want with it. It's your car, your rules. Same goes with the apartment owner. The only thing they need to honor is the lease.
As an individualist the answer is no. I don't support their right to lay down the law on their property. They rented the property to me. I paid for it. They get to require that I don't break the law and that I don't do anything to disturb the neighbors or reduce the value of their property.
As an individualist, do you think they have the right to tell you how you can behave during sex with your spouse? Or that you must be a vegan?
Do clothes manufacturers get to require that you only behave certain ways while wearing their clothes?
What you are proposing is the literal definition of "land lord". Renting me a place to live does not make someone my lord or master.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/colorado-apartment-complex-reverses-ban-guns/
I wonder what is the relationship between the Douglas County Housing Partnership and Ross Management. Perhaps the apartments receive a lot of HUD dollars?
Can you imagine the crime rate in an apartment complex that certifies all homes are without means of defense?
-
As an individualist the answer is no. I don't support their right to lay down the law on their property. They rented the property to me. I paid for it. They get to require that I don't break the law and that I don't do anything to disturb the neighbors or reduce the value of their property.
As an individualist, do you think they have the right to tell you how you can behave during sex with your spouse? Or that you must be a vegan?
Do clothes manufacturers get to require that you only behave certain ways while wearing their clothes?
What you are proposing is the literal definition of "land lord". Renting me a place to live does not make someone my lord or master.
Are you saying two individuals can't enter into a contract wherein one agrees to voluntarily constrain his actions while at a certain place?
-
Do clothes manufacturers get to require that you only behave certain ways while wearing their clothes?
Of course.
-
Are you saying two individuals can't enter into a contract wherein one agrees to voluntarily constrain his actions while at a certain place?
Yes, in the case of your home. That's an unenforceable contract because the landlord has no right to check for compliance.
Can two individuals enter into a contract requiring one of them to become a Muslim? Can a landlord require that you surrender your 4th Amendment protections and allow the police to enter your home without a warrant?
-
I wonder what is the relationship between the Douglas County Housing Partnership and Ross Management. Perhaps the apartments receive a lot of HUD dollars?
Can you imagine the crime rate in an apartment complex that certifies all homes are without means of defense?
Yes, they are a HUD community. And they got slapped in court. This is over now, 2A won for being 2A.
Yes, in the case of your home. That's an unenforceable contract because the landlord has no right to check for compliance.
Can two individuals enter into a contract requiring one of them to become a Muslim? Can a landlord require that you surrender your 4th Amendment protections and allow the police to enter your home without a warrant?
Disagree. I believe that 2 or more adults can enter into any private contract as long as they are of sound mind and do so voluntarily. In the case of the 4A protections mentioned above, it happens to hundreds of thousands of 18 year old college students every year when they live on university owned housing.
-
Are you saying two individuals can't enter into a contract wherein one agrees to voluntarily constrain his actions while at a certain place?
There are "certain contracts" which are generally held to never be valid, even if both parties claim consent.
Funny though - the fed.gov gets away with military enlistment contracts ;/
-
Yes, in the case of your home. That's an unenforceable contract because the landlord has no right to check for compliance.
That may be true, by statute, but there's no legitimate reason why a lessor can't agree to searches.
Can two individuals enter into a contract requiring one of them to become a Muslim? Can a landlord require that you surrender your 4th Amendment protections and allow the police to enter your home without a warrant?
On the first one, on what basis would you suggest that such a contract can't be made? And is that not a matter of one's religious freedom? One has a right to become a Muslim according to a contract, or any other legal, consensual means, yes? You seem to want to protect people from themselves by limiting their freedom of contract with landlords.
On the second question, can a tenant require a landlord to surrender his fourth amendment protections by allowing police to enter the leased property without a warrant?
-
Here's why you can't surrender your constitutional rights, even in a contract:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution is supreme, even over tort law.
-
Here's why you can't surrender your constitutional rights, even in a contract:
The Constitution is supreme, even over tort law.
Yeah, that's not accurate. First because the Constitution sets limits on the Feds, not on private parties (Congress shall make no law concerning not no one shall ever agree to do). Second because that would eliminate virtually all business agreements, as they almost always require things from the individual (NDA's, non-competes, company rules about conduct etc) that the Feds would be prohibited from doing.
If what you're saying is true, then either the Feds would ahve the power to make a law banning wearing bikinis, or your employer would be prohibited from having a dress code that didn't allow you to wear a bikini to work.
-
Yeah, that's not accurate. First because the Constitution sets limits on the Feds, not on private parties (Congress shall make no law concerning not no one shall ever agree to do). Second because that would eliminate virtually all business agreements, as they almost always require things from the individual (NDA's, non-competes, company rules about conduct etc) that the Feds would be prohibited from doing.
If what you're saying is true, then either the Feds would ahve the power to make a law banning wearing bikinis, or your employer would be prohibited from having a dress code that didn't allow you to wear a bikini to work.
What if your employer had a dress code that required you to wear a bikini to work? :lol:
-
What if your employer had a dress code that required you to wear a bikini to work? :lol:
This is a violation of the Constitution, apparently.
(https://blog.compete.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hooters.jpg)
-
Yeah, that's not accurate. First because the Constitution sets limits on the Feds, not on private parties (Congress shall make no law concerning not no one shall ever agree to do). Second because that would eliminate virtually all business agreements, as they almost always require things from the individual (NDA's, non-competes, company rules about conduct etc) that the Feds would be prohibited from doing.
If what you're saying is true, then either the Feds would ahve the power to make a law banning wearing bikinis, or your employer would be prohibited from having a dress code that didn't allow you to wear a bikini to work.
I wouldn't be surprised about a law about wearing bikinis. But dress code is not in the enumerated powers so it would be unconstitutional.
Nothing in the clause I quoted says anything about or like "Congress shall make no law". It is difficult to debate the intent of the Constitution if you twist it and rearrange it. Generally, the Constitution does as you say - it sets limits on the feds. But the clause I quoted specifically limits the states and the courts. The feds may only create laws within the power granted by the Constitution and when they do create laws within their power, federal law and the Constitution rule. The order is:
Constitution
|
Federal Law
|
State Law
|
Local Law
|
Contracts
If anything further up the chain nullifies your case then your case is null.
Can two parties enter into an agreement making one the slave of another?
Can two parties enter into an agreement so that one works for the other at less than minimum wage?
-
This is a violation of the Constitution, apparently.
(https://blog.compete.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hooters.jpg)
I'm not sure but I think we need to look at the question some more.
-
I wouldn't be surprised about a law about wearing bikinis. But dress code is not in the enumerated powers so it would be unconstitutional.
Nothing in the clause I quoted says anything about or like "Congress shall make no law". It is difficult to debate the intent of the Constitution if you twist it and rearrange it. Generally, the Constitution does as you say - it sets limits on the feds. But the clause I quoted specifically limits the states and the courts. The feds may only create laws within the power granted by the Constitution and when they do create laws within their power, federal law and the Constitution rule. The order is:
Constitution
|
Federal Law
|
State Law
|
Local Law
|
Contracts
If anything further up the chain nullifies your case then your case is null.
Can two parties enter into an agreement making one the slave of another?
Can two parties enter into an agreement so that one works for the other at less than minimum wage?
That's silly. Nothing in the laws above contract prevent someone from voluntarily agreeing to be without arms. Your mistake is that you're referring to a section that says yo0u can't make an illegal contract, and then saying the contract is illegal by referencing a section of the BoR that doesn't apply to voluntary contracts.
-
That's silly. Nothing in the laws above contract prevent someone from voluntarily agreeing to be without arms. Your mistake is that you're referring to a section that says yo0u can't make an illegal contract, and then saying the contract is illegal by referencing a section of the BoR that doesn't apply to voluntary contracts.
I can volunteer to be without arms, you are correct. Then I can decide I want arms and a landlord can't hold me to the contract. Show me one case where it's been done successfully. I can show you more than one where landlords failed in trying to ban guns.
Can I voluntarily sign a binding contract to be your slave? Please answer the question.
-
binding
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/90.243
http://reslife.wustl.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89&Itemid=145
and i threw many a person outa a soberhouse who was of legal age to drink 2 called the cops and our lease held up broke the georgetown law students heart
-
I can volunteer to be without arms, you are correct. Then I can decide I want arms and a landlord can't hold me to the contract. Show me one case where it's been done successfully. I can show you more than one where landlords failed in trying to ban guns.
Can I voluntarily sign a binding contract to be your slave? Please answer the question.
Slavery is illegal. Not owning guns is not.
-
Slavery is illegal. Not owning guns is not.
Good point. I'll accept that one. But stand by the fact that no one has posted any examples where this has succeeded but we know of more than one where it has not.
-
Good point. I'll accept that one. But stand by the fact that no one has posted any examples where this has succeeded but we know of more than one where it has not.
As was alluded to earlier, almost every college dorm has such rules. A lot of halfway houses do as well. If it's unremarkable and not contested, there wouldn't be news stories about it to post now would there?
-
Can I voluntarily sign a binding contract to be your slave?
Not unless the "master" is the US Military.
-
If the Second Amendment prohibits contracts stipulating not being armed, the First prohibits NDA's and joining the clergy.