chevydriver1123

This has been bugging me all day.

Person A is a gun owner and wishes to move into an apartment fully owned by Person B. Person B has full ownership of the building the apartment that Person A wishes to move into. Since Person B has full ownership rights to the building, Person B has full legal right to set the rules for his renters via property rights. One of Person B's rules for renters is that no guns both hand gun and rifle are to be allowed in his building. Person A asserts that he is to be allowed to have his gun in the apartment because of his 2nd Amendment rights but Person B counters that its his property he has the right to make the rules under private property rights.

I want to hear some responses, intelligent ones.

__________________
My political blog; http://libertarianblue.blogspot.com/


__________________

rivrrat

Person A has every right to own a gun.
Person B has every right to disallow anyone from renting their private property, for any reason.

If you don't like the rules a landlord has, then you don't rent there. It's pretty simple. For instance, I don't like the fact that most rentals won't allow you to have pets, or they limit the number of pets. But instead of whining about my "rights" to own a pet, I find a rental place that DOES allow it. While I may not like a landlord's policy, and may not agree with it on any level, I recognize it is their property and their right to disallow whatever they want on their property.

__________________

jallman

Person B is overreaching private property rights because he is, supposedly, extending the domocile for rent and probably under the terms of a lease. The property, when leased, becomes the property of the new tenant which must only be returned in the same condition it was leased. Owning a gun, which is protected by the second amendment, isn't going to permanently alter the leased unit in any way like, say, painting or smoking. If the landlord could make an argument that merely owning the gun irrevocably alters the quality of the residence, then yeah, he could ban the gun. Otherwise, the rights afforded by the Constitution always trump the private property rights of the landlord. Otherwise, he could just not rent to black people, people with disabilities, and other prejudicial traits.

__________________
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...amaSigcopy.jpg

MC.no.spin

John Adams said, "The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

James Madison said, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end [intent] of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures, to every man, whatever is his own. That (which) is not (a) just government, nor is property secure under it, (is one) where arbitrary restrictions...deny to part of its citizens that free use of the (property)" (Emphasis by Dr. Michael S. Coffman of Environmental Perspectives.)

"The essence of communism is the abolition of private property." - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848

__________________

The heart of human intelligence is pattern recognition ~ Ray Kurzweill

rivrrat

LOL

My landlord won't allow me to have anything but white blinds. I also cannot set a garbage bag on my porch for more than a couple minutes. Neither of these things "irrevocably alter the quality of the residence". Additionally, I can only have a maximum of 2 pets, and certain breeds are restricted. Can't hang anything out to dry on my porch either.

Any landlord should be allowed to deny a rental to any person for any reason. It is THEIR property and they should never be forced to use it to serve someone else against their will.

jallman

[quote=rivrrat;1057661326]LOL

Shows on the outside of the unit.

Alters the curb appeal of the unit on the outside. He doesn't have to tolerate anything on the outside at all.

Doesn't matter. Landord has total control of what the outside looks like at all times.

A case can be made that merely owning the pets can result in permanent or costly damage to the unit. You cannot make guarantees that the dog is sure to stick to.

Again, that is the external face of the unit.

But they can't. It's called the Fair Housing Act. Otherwise, ethnic groups get driven into less desirable neighborhoods and you have situations called ethnic ghettos.

They have the option of not renting. No one is forcing them to do anything with their property. But if you are going to engage in commerce, you will do so while adhering to rules and regulations concerning fair housing. This is not optional; it is the law.

Kandahar

A similar case could be made that allowing guns lowers the value of the property. The landlord could probably argue that allowing guns would attract unreliable gang-bangers and dissuade reliable middle-class families.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

jallman

Statistically speaking, no he can't. Plus, mere ownership of a gun does not preclude disclosure of that ownership to the buying public.

independent_thinker2002

You don't have a right to live specifically in Person B's property. Many rentors won't rent to kids because they tend to be loud and disrupt the other tenants. Do criminals lower the property value? Rentors can run criminal background checks. Does that hurt the curb appeal?

__________________
==]:{o

jallman

These are prequalifications that the courts have found reasonable and they are applied without prejudice and only access public records. You couldn't run background checks on only Mexican applicants and not Whites or Asians. Further, in most states, only certain criminal activities like fraud and sex offenses can bar you from renting. If a landlord won't rent to someone of legal age to rent, that prospective tenant has avenues to pursue a Fair Housing suit.

You may not have a right to rent at Person B's property specifically, but you do have a right to equal consideration without prejudice when Person B decides to rent their property.

I didn't make the rules this way, I am only pointing out that they are what they are. I only know they are what they are because I get to hear Joshua bitch about the regulations when he has to rent to tenants that he KNOWS are going to be a problem due to these regulations.