Apartment lease ban on guns California

[yahkohb]

I would also like to say that there is a great flaw in the "if you don't like the terms live somewhere else" arguement. Most of the people I know do not have the financial ability to live whereever they want to live. The cost of the residence in realation to where they need to be are the main factor in choosing housing. Many people do not have the option to rent somewhere else or to buy a house beacouse the landlord wants to enact unethical controls on them in their residence. The only of the recorse for people in this postistion is decieve the landlord.

while I agree with your sentiment, with the housing market down it is actually a renter's market right now. lots of people who can't sell are trying to rent. increased supply + fixed demand = lower prices.

It is a great test of persons true charecter to see how they react to the opportunity to oppress someone else. This applies to government personel as well as private individuals. It seems to me that many people here relish the opportunity to put their boot on someone elses thoat.

willfully entering into a contract is not oppression. it is an agreement between consenting adults. and I never meant to imply that such clauses were moral or ethical, only that they were legal and did not constitute any denial of constitutional rights.

it's also an oversimplification to characterize these situations as an anti-gun landlord just trying to enact unethical controls on a tenant. it's real easy to sit there at a keyboard and accuse some abstract notion of a landlord or commercial property group of just trying to cover their butt and oppress people. it's an entirely different matter when it's your assets and your retirement savings and your kids' college funds that could possibly be up for grabs in a civil suit. there is nothing abstract about that.

again, I don't mean to imply that I consider such clauses moral or ethical. but if you're in the rental property business, and your not a mega-bucks corporation, you need to protect yourself. fortunately I can cover just about anything with my tenants under a generic illegal activity clause (e.g. an ND constitutes discharging a firearm within city limits, which is illegal except for approved ranges or self-defense).

 

[jaholder1971]

Quote:
Bottom Line: You're pro RKBA for yourself yet have no problems with others being denied theirs if you feel like writing it into their lease. Hypocrisy.
Jarholder,

Before I answer you, please read my post #116 and suppose you are the office building owner. How would you react to the situation described there?

Simple. These people are attempting to remove our civil rights and I see no reason to rent them property based on this.

 

[wahsben]

An armed peacful citizen does nothing to deny anyone of their property. Those that would expect them to disarm deny them not only their right to bear arms, but also their property ie. their gun and also deny them the best means of self defense.
The founders put shall not be infringed because infringements cause an imbalance of power that favors the criminal and tyrant. Those that deny others the right to keep and bear arms are nothing less than tyrants.

 

[Kentak]

Simple. These people are attempting to remove our civil rights and I see no reason to rent them property based on this.

But, there is nothing unconstitutional about advocating against gun rights. The 1A right of free speech isn't conditional on the subject of the speech. They might argue your refusal to rent is an abridgment of their 1A right. It's not, of course. You have, as the property owner, the right to limit the kinds of speech your property is used for. You could even write restrictions in your lease if you wanted to. Just as a landlord can restrict gun possession on his property with a lease.

As for your comment. I can see where you would consider a landlord who wants RKBA for himself but denies it to his tenants is hypocritical. However, the landlord would only be a hypocrite if he believed a similar lease restriction shouldn't be allowed to apply to him.

Back to the office leasing situation. We've both agreed you are within your rights to refuse renting to the anti-gun group. If *you* were the head of a RKBA group and were refused office space on those grounds, would you complain the owner was infringing your first amendment right?

K

 

[che_70b]

quick note. I also never said it that the lease couses were illegal or unconstituitional, I said it was evil and morally acceptable to decieve them.

Kentak, they probably would feel like I had been unfair to them and I would not disagree that I was working to limit their ability to speak. I just believe their position is bad enough to work against, in much the same way I think it is ok to go against the desires of landlords who think it is ok limit peoples civil rights in a rented residence.

 

[TwitchALot]

If that's your take, then by your standards, I am a LIAR, too! And I'm Damn proud of it! In fact, I feel quite Righteous about it...as is morally healthy for any man who values his freedom and life.

I laugh at your sense of ethics - which would render good men defenseless.

NASCAR

I laugh at yours- for purposely putting yourself in that position and then complaining about it, and then pretending you are somehow righteous or ethical in your actions by purposely violating your contract.

Don't like it? Don't sign it. No one's forcing you to give up your rights except you.

See, I believe the right to defend my existence is not to be signed away or negotiated. You obviously don't.

NASCAR

Then... don't sign it away...?

My contention was that it was completely honorable to lie and violate a lease on a person who thought it was acceptable to deny you access to basic human rights.

Lying to yourself is not the issue. Lying to someone else in violation of your contract is the issue. YOU are the one who thought it was acceptable deny yourself "access" to basic human rights. YOU were the one who decided to sign the contract, and YOU were the one who voluntarily waived your rights. Whose fault is that but yours?

I am of the opinion that most things we think of as wrong are ONLY wrong in certain contexts (killing being a very obvious example). Decieving someone who attempts to attack your rights and put you at a possition of dissadvantage is not wrong.

I'll pass on the "exceptions to rules" argument because that would be unnecessary and time consuming. The fact is no one is attempting to attack your rights and put you in a position of disadvantage. No one is forcing you to live there under the owner's rules but yourself. No one is forcing you to not have guns in the area but yourself. It is YOUR choice.

If you choose to forfeit certain rights and privileges for a particular living space, that is no one's fault but your own. Find another place to live- you don't have a right to be on someone else's property.

I would also like to say that there is a great flaw in the "if you don't like the terms live somewhere else" arguement. Most of the people I know do not have the financial ability to live whereever they want to live. The cost of the residence in realation to where they need to be are the main factor in choosing housing. Many people do not have the option to rent somewhere else or to buy a house beacouse the landlord wants to enact unethical controls on them in their residence. The only of the recorse for people in this postistion is decieve the landlord.

So what? This is irrelevant, as are all emotional arguments in such instances.

Yahkohb, I have actually made a clear distinction between a persons private residence and situation involving leased out living space. I would agree with a persons right to not have protests on their front yard. I would even agree that you have a right to tell someone not to bring a gun into your home.

And what if it's both a private residence and a leased out living space?

It is a great test of persons true charecter to see how they react to the opportunity to oppress someone else. This applies to government personel as well as private individuals. It seems to me that many people here relish the opportunity to put their boot on someone elses thoat.

Well that's awfully ironic, unless you were talking about yourself.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

its not often a person owns up to being a liar. then in the same breath talks about being proud righteous and morrally healthy as a resut of iut. matter of fact i didn't think there were too many firsts left in my life but i was mistaken.

 

[Kentak]

The only posters in this thread who are anti-freedom and anti-rights are those who would deny--apparently, by force of law--the right of landlords to use their property as they wish. It's not those of us who uphold the principle of individuals to freely, openly, and non-coercively make voluntary agreements. And, with the expectation of integrity that both parties will honor their agreement.

I'm done. Said it all.

Have a good day.

K

 

[Art Eatman]

Eight pages of goin' 'round in circles makes a fella plumb dizzy. Too much wanderin'...

Enuf.

Art