Pity everyone ignored this. It is far and away the most informative post in this thread.
Pity everyone ignored this. It is far and away the most informative post in this thread.Here is the state of the law today:
You do have a legal right to prohibit the keeping of firearms at your properties, just as you can prohibit tenants from keeping pets or parking oversize vehicles in your parking lots.
Your managers concerns are a bit off the mark: The United States Constitution (specifically, the Second Amendment, which concerns the peoples "right to bear arms") is aimed at the government, not at individuals like you. So, while recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down attempts to restrict gun ownership, these cases have all involved states or localities whose laws have been found to infringe on the amendment. You are neither a state nor a locality. You are simply a business owner who has wide latitude in deciding how your run the business.
Should you instigate such a policy at your properties more on how to do that below you should be prepared for another argument youre likely to hear. "Thats discrimination against gun owners!" will surely be lobbed your way. Again, nothing to fear, legally. Thats because gun owners are not a protected group under federal, state or local laws. Unlike members of a race, religion, ethnicity and so on, gun owners enjoy no protection from negative treatment aimed at them simply because they happen to own guns.
You certainly cant target protected groups with your policy, such as applying it to members of a particular race only, but you can refuse to rent to every applicant who wants to keep guns on the property. Now you must think about how to implement your new policy. For those tenants who have leases, youll have to wait until the leases are up to insert your new clause. You cant impose your new rule on tenants who are midlease, because doing so would entail a unilateral change in an important term or condition of the rental, which is exactly what a lease is intended to prohibit. But if you have month-to-month tenants, you can announce your new policy with proper notice, which is 30 days in most states. Tenants who are unhappy with the new rule will presumably refuse to sign your new lease or monthly agreement. If they dont move out voluntarily, theyll be candidates for eviction. - See more at: http://www.inman.com/2013/02/14/woul....gtsXilbD.dpuf
The important thing to notice is that guns are not allowed on the property. The renters can still have guns, they just cannot bring them on the property. That is the state of the law and that is the way it should be. I agree 100% with this.
Pity everyone ignored this. It is far and away the most informative post in this thread.
So you say. Prove it. Cite a credible source supporting your assumption that housing with public funding is subject to different management authority than purely private rental properties.Actually it is totally irrelevant to the case in question, as this again is NOT a private company.
It show how many people failed to actually read the links in question.
So you say. Prove it. Cite a credible source supporting your assumption.
The f*cking link in the OP and the second post says it is. Are you stupid.
The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.
Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.
The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.
The Second Amendment Under a GovernmentFirearms in Public Housing?
Landlord: Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Legal
:
:
:
Conclusion:
Gun control laws are now subject to the constraints of
Heller’s strong individual rights interpretation of the Second
Amendment, as incorporated to the states through
McDonald.
The right to armed home self-defense articulated in
Heller now serves as the baseline for future state right to bear arms decisions. However, even though the Second Amendment is
binding on the states, possession of legal firearms in public
housing remains a murky issue. The authority and interests of
PHAs—as governmental actors imbued with state police power to
control crime and as landlords with a proprietary entitlement to
regulate their own property—are diametric to the rights of public
housing tenants to possess firearms. Important rights and
interests are at stake on both sides of the issue, but there is little guiding jurisprudence. There is no definitive answer as to the constitutionality of prohibiting legal firearms in public housing. All that exists are persuasive arguments supporting outright public housing firearm bans and equally persuasive arguments challenging the constitutional underpinnings of such regulations.
Ok for public housing....
http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=lawreview
There is no definitive answer as to the
constitutionality of prohibiting legal firearms in public housing.
Idiot or illiterate?
Go back and read my whole post you blithering idiot. I'm not challenging whether there are public monies involved. It's you conclusion I challenge, a fact you've so far successfully avoided answering.
Go back and read my whole post you blithering idiot. I'm not challenging whether there are public monies involved. It's you conclusion I challenge, a fact you've so far successfully avoided answering.
There is when its payed for by federal, state, or local government dollars. Just look at the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling.
Ok for public housing....
[/LEFT]
/facepalm
Same challenge to you: prove it. The problem with you Internnet blowhards is you're addicted to pulling your emotional assumptions out of your asses, then declaring them facts. Your feelings are useless. What are the facts? To answer that question you actually have to do something useful instead of just blurting out whatever you wish to be true.
/facepalm
Same challenge to you: prove it. The problem with you Internnet blowhards is you're addicted to pulling your emotional assumptions out of your asses, then declaring them facts. Your feelings are useless. What are the facts? To answer that question you actually have to do something useful instead of just blurting out whatever you wish to be true.
There is when its payed for by federal, state, or local government dollars. Just look at the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling.
You a idiot read the f*cking thing. It is public OWNED housing.
Um.... read the linked article, it is ALL about that particular case! The article in St Johns Law Reviews says (BASED ON McDonald vs Chicago) that There is no definitive answer as to the constitutionality of prohibiting legal firearms in public housing.
The article was written for St Johns Law Review, forgive me if I put more credence on their legal expertise than yours.
Yes, I've already stated that's NOT what I challenged. I dont know how to make that any clearer to you. You are only looking at the first few words if my post. Kindly find a small child to read and explain my WHOLE post since you are clearly incapable of doing so yourself.
Um.... read the linked article, it is ALL about that particular case! The article in St Johns Law Reviews says (even with McDonald vs Chicago) that There is no definitive answer as to the constitutionality of prohibiting legal firearms in public housing.
The article was written for St Johns Law Review, forgive me if I put more credence on their legal expertise than yours.
http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=lawreview
Legal basis for incorporation
All of the post-Heller cases, including McDonald, NRA v. Chicago, Nordyke and Maloney, argued that the Second Amendment, in addition to applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called selective incorporation. Selective incorporation involves convincing the court that a right is "fundamental" by being “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions” as defined most recently in the Supreme Court case Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it asked the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If it had been overturned, the Selective Incorporation process may have become unnecessary, since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably be applied to the states.[10][11]
In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case garnered the attention and support of both conservative and liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest was that if Slaughter-House had been overturned, it would have been possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would have been applied against the states automatically.[12][13][14]
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas alone supported overturning the Slaughter-House and Cruikshank decisions,[15] proposing that "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause."[16]
Decision
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[21] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[22] The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[23] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".[23]
Decision
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.