NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: patrickdm on August 27, 2014, 12:07:48 PM
-
This was recently posted on my FB wall by a friend. I have no idea if it's true, anyone else seen or heard anything?
http://iowagunowners.org/legislation/iowa/item/83-give-up-your-guns-or-move-an-iowan-has-a-terrible-choice-to-make (http://iowagunowners.org/legislation/iowa/item/83-give-up-your-guns-or-move-an-iowan-has-a-terrible-choice-to-make)
-
This was recently posted on my FB wall by a friend. I have no idea if it's true, anyone else seen or heard anything?
http://iowagunowners.org/legislation/iowa/item/83-give-up-your-guns-or-move-an-iowan-has-a-terrible-choice-to-make (http://iowagunowners.org/legislation/iowa/item/83-give-up-your-guns-or-move-an-iowan-has-a-terrible-choice-to-make)
While I think we should absolutely use social and economic pressure to persuade businesses not to implement unreasonable rules relating to firearms, this article is incorrect. There is no Second amendment right to take firearms onto another person's private property against their will. The Second Amendment is a restraint on government, not on property owners.
-
Some states may have certain provisions that could prohibit this type of restriction, and I am not well versed on which states have passed those protections. The big challenge for any landlord is enforcing those restrictions. How would they know if someone, anyone, is in violation of a policy that prohibits firearms? Keeping it hidden, they would not know.
Something that bothers me about his article is how much it reads like a NAGR fundraising letter.
More research into this is needed.
-
First I want to voice agreement with Rod that more info is needed. But to a degree I want to disagree with CitizenClark. This is a conflict between property and civil rights, I think we both can agree with that statement, but when resolving such conflicts you need to look at whom would face more harm. To me the person who is having his ability to defend himself being limited faces the most possible damage. The person owning the property only faces knowing that someone that has purchased the right to use his property is not doing what he would. The property owner has the ability to make other use of the property rather than rent apartments. To me this is like having a clause in the rental agreement that you will worship allah (be muslim) or vote Democrat in the lease, these are things that obviously would not be upheld by a court.
Limiting the carrying of arms in commons areas are well within the property owners rights (provided that transport between the "leased area, non public ie. apartment" and off property is not hindered) I would agree that the property owner can require what ever they wish in these public spaces.
Again Rod is correct each State has laws that cover the rental agreement between these people, I do not know Iowa laws on such but that is where things need to start.
-
I think we need to start approaching this type of restriction, as Andy suggests, as discrimination. Law-abiding gun owners are being discriminated against. Our natural rights are just a much a part of us as our race, color, creed, religion and, apparently, sexual orientation. We are born with these rights. To deny them, even as a private property owner, is not different than to deny a gay couple a wedding cake or force a person of color to use a different bathroom or drinking fountain.
-
It coming off as a fund raiser was my main reason for questioning the authenticity of it. Being a local think I thought finding more info on it would be easier but alas it's not turning out that way.
-
I can speak with some authority as to the tone etc. of the letter.
1 - it is a fund raising letter. Yes it was written in a way to inform the members of an organization, and those they shared it with, about a situation that the organization was or is getting involved with and asking for donations. Some people find fault in this, I do not. Investigating things like this does cost money, need to discuss it with an attorney he will want to be paid, there are travel costs, and unlike the NFOA Aaron Dorr is paid by his organization for his time. These are some of the expenses that are being taken on here, some how money needs to be raised to pay those bills.
A few years ago there was an incident at a Walgreens in Omaha, the NFOA got involved in support of one of our members and raised funds for his defense. We sent out a letter very similar (though much shorter and distinct) asking for donations for that.
To fight the battles that need to be fought requires money and asking supporters for their financial assistance in a manner that says this is what we need your assistance with is a good way to make the request. Of course there are those organizations that are constantly running around with the sky falling and give them money to hold it up now or you will be crushed, well not only is that just wrong but most of the time they are misleading you about the problems.
That said, want the NFOA to get more involved in things like this: make a donation. Investigating these things can and does cost thousands of dollars just to get started some times. Even with the Boards Members volunteering their time.
-
I have no problem with fund raisers, trust me I'm involved in a couple, but prefer the more direct approach. I understand it costs money in today's world. I'm happy and proud to say I donate on a monthly basis to the NFOA.
-
Patrick, sorry if you felt that comment was directed at you. It was meant for the membership in general.
-
While the land lord (or property owner) owns the property I am renting and living in, it is still my home as long as I pay the rent, etc. The property owner can not, or should not be able to, prevent me from exercising my 2nd Amendment rights. If not, then what is preventing the owner from demanding that I forgot my 1st or 4th amendment rights?
If such rights are abrogated then the tenant should be given a document asserting the owners financial liability for any loss or harm that occurs if the tenant or family member or guest is injured or killed during the commission of a crime while residing on the property.
In the same manner any business which forbids a citizen from carry a weapon in self defense should be held liable for injury or loss sustained by anyone within their premises. For example, the crew member of the "COPS" show who was accidently gunned down by police in Omaha, or the countless number of people who have been injured or killed by gun toting thugs or crazy people.
-
Landlords should not be able to ban guns from apartments unless that is expressly put in the lease itself, which is what is happening here. When you sign a lease, you are getting those property rights you negotiate for.
It isn't a civil rights vs property right issue. Civil rights are only enforceable against the government. You can contract your civil rights away and we do all the time.
-
Regardless if you own or rent, it is still your dwelling, hearth, home, residence, abode, etc etc. Ask any landlord that tries to evict a renter who is still paying his rent on time...
If SCOTUS says the core of the 2A is in defense of hearth and home then property rights and 2A rights of the residents override the land owners rights. The landlord chose to rent his property out to the public as a private residence and it is the same as not allowing running water, electricity, natural gas, etc... except those things aren't considered an unalienable right.
-
Ask any landlord that tries to evict a renter who is still paying his rent on time...
I don't think that has anything to do with the property being the renter's home. It is a legally binding contract. The landlord cannot evict unless the renter has not fulfilled some part of the lease agreement (i.e., broken the contract). I'm not saying you are wrong. I am not an attorney, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn this week. A better example would be when a landlord tries to evict you for NOT paying the rent. You can squat on the property until the landlord goes through all the legal channels to kick you to the curb. So in that respect, maybe the courts consider it your "home".
Fly
-
I need to revise my comment. While what I wrote is what the law is now, AWick's point really clarified my thinking. The default position is that the parties can agree to what they want unless the legislature says otherwise. In employment we cap hours, require a minimum wage, and have overtime. Renters are entitled to a habitable dwelling and not some slum lords hole.
I would support a law that invalidates restrictions on legal weapons in leases.
-
Restricting ownership and possession of arms in defense of your "home" in apartments is a little more serious than restricting pets or displays of patriotism.
-
If I have a mortgage , technically the bank owns the house until it is paid for. So the bank is in effect, the land lord. Could the bank tell me no firearms allowed?
What about vehicles? If I lease a car, can GM tell me I am not allowed to have a firearm in the car?
-
No, the bank doesn't own your house. It has a security interest in it. The title is in your name and you are responsible for insurance, upkeep, and taxes.
-
No, the bank doesn't own your house. It has a security interest in it. The title is in your name and you are responsible for insurance, upkeep, and taxes.
Well said sir.
-
Regardless if you own or rent, it is still your dwelling, hearth, home, residence, abode, etc etc. Ask any landlord that tries to evict a renter who is still paying his rent on time...
If SCOTUS says the core of the 2A is in defense of hearth and home then property rights and 2A rights of the residents override the land owners rights. The landlord chose to rent his property out to the public as a private residence and it is the same as not allowing running water, electricity, natural gas, etc... except those things aren't considered an unalienable right.
I agree with this one 100%. If you pay money then it effectively becomes YOUR property (as far as your living space goes). And if the courts don't see it this way then its time to pass a law that bans discrimination of this sort.
-
Restricting ownership and possession of arms in defense of your "home" in apartments is a little more serious than restricting pets or displays of patriotism.
Exactly, its an affront to my person.
-
I think this issue may be the one that would give the gun owner a protected class status if we can ever get a case to the Supremes.
-
I agree with this one 100%. If you pay money then it effectively becomes YOUR property (as far as your living space goes). And if the courts don't see it this way then its time to pass a law that bans discrimination of this sort.
Um. If you rent, it does not become your property. The courts don't currently see it this way.
In addition, if someone owns a place, and you want to rent it, they can set conditions on that rental. If you sign the contract that contains those conditions, then (by contract) you are agreeing to those conditions. If you decide later to do whatever you like, you have failed to meet the conditions of the contract.
Whether I agree with this doesn't change the fact that this is how the courts see it.
If a landlord decides no pets, no guns, and no children, and the contract you sign stipulates those things, after which you decide to have a 50bmg on your front lawn as your kids play with your dogs, then you are in breach of that contract, and subject to its penalties, which may include eviction depending on the circumstances.
If you didn't like the stipulated requirements, you shouldn't have signed the contract.
I realize that from a civil rights perspective this is different than the way discrimination is handled for any other civil right---probably because the people arguing for it can make a differentiation between a person having various qualities, and a person owning various objects. Plus, one is based on the constitution, and one is based on federal laws---and apparently lots of people ignore the constitution when making laws. :(
However---doesn't change the fact that currently, an owner of a particular place can legally place stipulations in the contract for rental of that place regarding what may or may not be allowed.
It is an interesting point, though---under what circumstances can any group or person make laws or rules that go against the requirements of the constitution? One could argue (and I hate this argument, but it has a point) that the constitution is a written check on the federal government, and through it, on state governments---but it says nothing about how members of the public must treat each other.
We didn't have any of those checks on the public until the civil rights act of 64, correct? And that act doesn't say anything about guns.
-
It is an interesting point, though---under what circumstances can any group or person make laws or rules that go against the requirements of the constitution?
Do believe that property rights were established pre-constitution. Colonial maybe?
-
It is an interesting point, though---under what circumstances can any group or person make laws or rules that go against the requirements of the constitution?
Do believe that property rights were established pre-constitution. Colonial maybe?
Well, considering we can't force property owners to allow free assembly or all free speech...I'm thinking that guns as a civil right (and I do think the right of self defense is a civil right, which includes defense against persons and governments) will never be considered the same thing as the "civil rights" specifically required of private businesses by federal law.
:(
Unless we can get a new federal law for it, like the rest of the "civil rights."
-
I wonder just when is the Government going to start requiring landlords to put labels
actually on all of their Property's.
Listing all the ingredients and calorie counts contained inside. :P
Kind of like Hotels and Motels do with all their rooms.
-
I wonder just when is the Government going to start requiring landlords to put labels
actually on all of their Property's.
Listing all the ingredients and calorie counts contained inside. :P
Kind of like Hotels and Motels do with all their rooms.
Most commercial ones do. It's called a Rental Contract in which the duties and obligations of both parties are spelled out completely. One can read just exactly what is offered, what is restricted and what is allowed, and then choose to sign or not. I just re-newed my third yearly contract with CIP for a wonderful apartment in Pine Ridge Villas. But, I can't keep my granson's hamster for several days nor can I allow pet visitation, so my other grandson's bull terrier won't be visiting me here either. Oh, I can't wash my car in the drive way or do mechanical repairs on it, leave it up on blocks, use sofas for patio furniture, etc... When my fridge, stove, microwave, toilet, garbage disposal, or any other physical part of my apartment becomes defective I merely make a call and things get handled at no cost to me. Love it!
As far as businesses ... buyer beware. Low information voters are often low information shoppers.