Gun Control Through Effective Messaging

[RetiredUSNChief]

This was favorably resolved. See Castle Rock controversial apartment's policy banning firearms is thrown out:

​

Quote:
... 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....


Hmmm...correct me if I'm off base here, but could the fact that the Oakwood Apartments were purchased and are maintained by tax dollars have had a lot to do with this policy being thrown out?

 

[LewSchiller]

I think it had more to do with a management company run amok. One that the ownership board had to rein in. There are further reports from tenants about negative interaction with Ross Management

 

[230RN]

1. The landlord isn't prohibiting ownership -- just possession on that property. There is long-standing legal authority for private property owners to have just such a policy.

2. If the Marine is concerned about it, he's free to move. If he were the owner of the property, he'd also be free to set his own rules.

That whole Oakwood Apartment thing threw me for a loop. The complex seemed to want to restrict a fundamental civil right, just as if they had prohibited blacks from residing there, "owner's rights" notwithstanding.

It doesn't seem like anyone else saw it in this perspective, though.

But then again, I'm always crying in the wilderness.

Terry

 

[Frank Ettin]

That whole Oakwood Apartment thing threw me for a loop. The complex seemed to want to restrict a fundamental civil right, just as if they had prohibited blacks from residing there, "owner's rights" notwithstanding...

1. Rights protected by the Constitution are essentially irrelevant when dealing with a non-governmental actor. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):

   ....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....

   
   
2. In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.
   
   
3. Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.
   
   
4. Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.
   
   
5. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. In general, gun owners aren't a protected class.
   
   
6. So in general a "no guns" clause in a residential lease is valid and enforceable unless state law prohibits such clauses in residential leases. There are a few States that do prohibit such clauses in residential leases. I don't think Colorado is one of them.

But in this particular case --

...Hmmm...correct me if I'm off base here, but could the fact that the Oakwood Apartments were purchased and are maintained by tax dollars have had a lot to do with this policy being thrown out?...

It does appear to be the case that here the apartment complex was financed or subsidized or somehow entangled with government in a way that would make constitutional protections applicable. We've seen that in litigation in several cities successfully attacking "no guns" clauses in public housing leases.

Also in this particular case, there is a question in my mind whether the "no guns" rule was properly implemented. It doesn't appear to have been implemented by properly amending the lease or rental agreement, but rather simply adopted as a policy. Ordinarily that might not be sufficient, but we really don't have enough information to know for sure. But since the "no guns" policy had been withdrawn, the question is moot.

 

[230RN]

^

Oh.

Ummm.... thanks.


I reckon there's a difference between "right" and "just" and...<ahem> "legal."

Sorry. I didn't see that aspect of it.

Terry

 

[sawdeanz]

I think this guide is very helpful for us to structure our arguments to the very same arguments, except I think its easier for us to hold the moral highground as they say. I noticed that a lot of their strategy is convincing people that their "freedom from violence" is dependent on the police and disarming criminals, where we should counter that this notion takes away your "freedom to self defense" which in turn frees you from violence. As others have said we should also emphasize that even if criminals somehow couldn't get guns, we still wouldn't be free from violence.

Another thing this made me consider is how the divide between what they consider reasonable is what we consider extreme restrictions probably has little influence on the audience. They would most likely cave to the reasonable restriction argument. My best counter (regarding assault weapons for example) would be to show how the features that the antis deem deadly actually make the weapon easier for women to defend themselves with, and that crime involving 2 or more assailants is increasing and thus necessetates the need for more than 6 or 10 rounds.