View Single Post
  #7  
Old 11-10-2010, 9:25 AM
gunn's Avatar
gunn gunn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

I actually brought this up when the whole SF Housing Authority settlement came up. I believe the difference was in that SFHA is a public entity while the example in this thread is a private individual/enterprise.

1) It's a lot easier to say that a public entity cannot ban the legal private ownership of firearms (which is why the SFHA settled).

2) it becomes a lot harder when the leasor (vs. leasee) is a private enterprise.
- landlords can set rent at whatever they choose. If they want to say rent is $10K/mo, they don't have to take the $5 you may be willing to pay
- Landlords should be allowed to pick who I want to rent my property to. It's their property.
- Landlords can restrict ownership of pets. If I was a landlord, I expect to rent to humans and not a zoo.
- As a correlary, if I had a private business, I could say "no shoes, no shirt, no business." I could also prohibit the carrying of guns on the premises. It's my perogative as to who I want to do business with.

3) Most rental contracts I've seen from friends say that illegal activies (including gun possession) is prohibited. This merely gives the landlord the ability kick out problem tenants by stating that they were in breach of contract if something bad goes down (that could potentially risk their property -- example: drug dealing can cause the confiscation of the house even if they are rentors)

While I may not agree with a prohibition of the legal possession of guns inside a property I would rent to others, if I was a landlord I a) would prohibit the installation of safes which may damage MY property and
b) I wouldn't stand against a landlord who felt his property should be used in a different fashion. After all, it's his property so his/her rights should overrule any tenants.

I'm not arguing that a person should have the right to defend themselves in their home. That is a fundamental right of one public citizen. However, I believe a landlord is also an individual. They should have a right to say what can and cannot be done with their personal property so you cannot say that one private citizen's rights trump anothers. After all, a rentor does not have a "RIGHT" to rent any given landlord's property... they can always go rent somewhere else.

If you guys feel otherwise, hell, we should all just join the Rent is Too Damn High Party.
-g

-
__________________
Play it Forward Thread: Share with your Fellow Calgunners by Giving Something for FREE and Take Something you Need for FREE!

Last edited by gunn; 11-10-2010 at 9:32 AM..
Reply With Quote