Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My argument is valid...the liability of a gun rests on its owner/user.
I suppose if you want to play strawman we could say that there will be no matches or stoves allowed because someone could burn the whole building down.....and we know fires are much more common than shootings...except maybe in gun free zones ironically!
Not necessarily. IF a gun goes off in your house and you are the homeowner - you could potentially be held liable, depending on the activities that were taking place at the time.
I'm decidedly pro gun, but I also understand that the owner of private property CAN dictate whether guns are allowed on the property or not. For example, I can rightfully tell a visitor to my living room to either disarm or leave.
If the "no guns" policy was on the original lease signed by the tenant, then the tenants have no option but to either get rid of the guns or move out. They signed a legal document saying they would abide by the rules. I lived in an apartment for a year recently, and my lease had just such a provision.
If the "no guns" policy was recently added, then the tenants have rights under law and at a minimum should be able to stay until the original lease expires.
Not incidentally, apartments have notoriously flimsy construction and bullets can go through SEVERAL interior walls before stopping. See tests at: The Box O' Truth
Edit to Add:
I just saw this on the previous page, which changes the argument. If the original lease says no guns, then the tenants still signed a legal document agreeing to no guns. But the fact that the apartments are government owned residences makes the clause arguably unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex
In the case of McDonald v City of Chicago, the SCOTUS ruled that 2A extends throughout the US and protects gun owners in every state and municipality. The Court unequivocally affirmed an individual's right to own handguns for self-defense and prohibited states and localities from complete bans on gun ownership.
Since the Douglas County Housing Partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, was purchased with federal funds, and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars -- it is owned by the government. And hence, McDonald v City of Chicago applies.
When the Douglas County Housing Partnership realized that they totally effed up, they reversed their stance. The Liberal control-freak boneheads issued a statement. As usual, it was pollinated with loads of cow manure to deflect any responsibility, and consisted of the following:
Quote:
"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff. 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's their property, and their rules, but very stupid in my opinion. They may as well put up a sign inviting criminals to come and rob their residents. I sure as Hell wouldn't live there!
"It's their property, and their rules"
I am not sure it would hold up in court.
"...to keep and bear arms", is guaranteed under the constitution.
What would happen to the landlord if he refused to rent to a black, a Hispanic, a Jew or a Catholic, a gay person?
"It's their property, and their rules".
Can a restaurant owner deny service to any of the people I listed above? "It's their property, and their rules".
The management company did this on their own, without permission of owners and it will not happen. This company is now being investigated to determine if they've done this with any other properties.
Do you suffer from these episodes of hysterical ranting frequently?
Help is available.
You keep posting that to everyone. What's the matter, running out of sane responses?
Meanwhile, can you tell me why it's a good idea to invite criminals to attack your neighbors? Or are you too embarrassed by the revealing of your own evil nature to come up with something other than your canned response.
And yet you always tell us that gun safety folks are the ones exploiting tragedies to make a point ...
You folks won't be happy until every non-gun-owner in this country has been shot to death.
Actually, I won't be happy until every non-gun-owner in this country stops trying to tell me what I can or cannot own. Out of curiosity, didn't you say earlier that your husband owns a firearm? Is he included in your categorization that people who support the right to own firearms want every non-gun-owner to be shot to death? Or are you purposely leaving him out because he's your husband?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
