This needs to go Viral. completely wrong!!!

[gelton]

Shrek,

Your constitutional rights protect you from the government, not a private citizen. Your right to free speech doesn't allow you to say whatever you want on Rokslide. Your right to warrantless searches doesn't prevent you from having your bag searched at the Justin Beiber concert.

Housing discrimination is a separate law and from the HUD website:

"What Is Prohibited?

In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap.

This is an argument that is too deep to fully describe, but what if one of the cornerstones of my religion is the right to self defense and to bear arms? Also, IMHO, HUD is an unconstitutional agency of government and their acts (as you correctly point out) are in direct competition with the unalienable rights guaranteed in the constitution. Also, like the dpt of energy that was founded to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and hundreds of billions of dollars and decades later our oil imports have only grown since they were founded. HUD was founded to improve housing for the poor and needy - been to Detroit lately? Billions of dollars and years later and the poor are just as impoverished as when it was founded.

As you can see in HUDS statement, they view people as gaining a right because of the group that they belong to (race, religion, etc) instead of their rights as individuals. In a Republic 51% cannot vote to rape and pillage the 49% wheres in a democracy it happens everyday. Granted this is a much deeper discussion than what can ever be solved here, but IMO unalienable rights supersede civil rights and property rights unless otherwise stated in the rental agreement. Property owners have to abide by contracts too.

 

[jmez]

Constitutional rights are granted to protect the citizen from the government. I find it ironic that you are so steadfast in protecting your rights, freedoms, and liberties at the expense of others.

 

[gelton]

At the expense of others? Who was expensed? I cant see where it costs anyone a dime to let them exercise their rights. I guarantee there is no clause in their contract that says stipulations that are as far reaching as these could be inserted at any time. The castle doctrine applies to rental property and renters too.

 

[Jtelarkin08]

Man Glad I live in TEXAS!!!!! Stupid Liberals.. I really want to boycott colorado.. but i want to shoot an elk too!!!

 

[Justin Crossley]

When you accept any inconvenience or have to change your behavior in any way to exercise your rights then they have been diminished. You should never have to even consider the exercise of your rights when leading your life. Nobody should be allowed to challenge your exercise in any capacity at any time. Own the property or not. You should never be made to make a choice of where to work based on the employers discrimination against your fundamental rights.

You have also accepted to have your rights diminished. The second amendment protects our right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

So I ask you, are you able to walk down the street with a fully automatic weapon? No? How do we plan to defend ourselves with only the weapons that our government deems reasonable?

Our right to bear arms has been infringed upon and we all accept it, or we would be fighting to get our rights back.

 

[Shrek]

Justin , I agree that my rights have been violated. I do believe that you should be free to openly walk the streets with fully automatic weapons and much more than that. Our founders did not intend for this country to raise a standing army in times of peace. Under the constitution as it is written today I do not believe the US government has the right to restrict you from owning nuclear weapons. Although that gives me pause the terms are "arms" and "well regulated " which means trained and organized as I read it. So , can the government require that you train with your weapon and join a community militia ? I believe it can. Is that militia controlled by the government ? Maybe the State but not the federal government. Implied in this is an individual right and responsibility.
I am certain that they were not talking about your hunting rifle as mr obama referenced. You have no right to hunt or fish but you do have the right to defend yourself , your community , and country from all enemies foreign or domestic.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Justin , I agree that my rights have been violated. I do believe that you should be free to openly walk the streets with fully automatic weapons and much more than that. Our founders did not intend for this country to raise a standing army in times of peace. Under the constitution as it is written today I do not believe the US government has the right to restrict you from owning nuclear weapons. Although that gives me pause the terms are "arms" and "well regulated " which means trained and organized as I read it. So , can the government require that you train with your weapon and join a community militia ? I believe it can. Is that militia controlled by the government ? Maybe the State but not the federal government. Implied in this is an individual right and responsibility.
I am certain that they were not talking about your hunting rifle as mr obama referenced. You have no right to hunt or fish but you do have the right to defend yourself , your community , and country from all enemies foreign or domestic.

I totally agree.

 

[jmez]

I agree with that as well Shrek.

 

[tstowater]

I believe that the ability to discriminate in the context of housing is not governed by HUD unless their rules apply. For example, if it is subsidized housing, secondary market loans, etc, then you can not discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, etc. etc. If you are not otherwise subject to "HUD jurisdiction", then you may have the ability to rent to whomever you choose. If you are careful, you can choose to rent to whomever you choose. It's all a "slippery slope" and as people compromise a little for the sake of "the greater good", it all runs down the hill. Sad, but true. When we start to analyze the "intent" of our founding fathers, wow, the pucker factor can start.

 

[realunlucky]

Really you think you could choose to not rent to same sex couple or because of race or someone with a disability? Even without HUD I don't see it. It would be in court before the door closed on their face. This country is now governed by the voting of the supreme court

 

[tstowater]

Really you think you could choose to not rent to same sex couple or because of race or someone with a disability? Even without HUD I don't see it. It would be in court before the door closed on their face. This country is now governed by the voting of the supreme court

Read very carefully what I wrote.

Here is a good summary: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/choosing-tenants-avoid-fair-housing-29816.html

I do not encourage discriminating for the prohibited reasons, but you are able choose renters for other reasons.

BTW, this is getting away from the original intent of the thread.

 

[rjs34]

The landlords cancelled the policy today. Public outcry plus possible legal troubles caused them to reverse the policy it sounds like.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out

 

[Justin Crossley]

Sounds like a good ending to me!

 

[gelton]

Score one for liberty. The Denver housing authority agreed:
"It's unconstitutional to prohibit the legal possession of a gun or a firearm on public housing property," a DHA spokesperson said.

 

[Mike7]

If property owners are legally able to restrict the free exercise of bearing arms on their property by setting up rental contracts with this restriction, then I think anyone hurt on their property (non-accidentally) should be able to successfully sue the pants off of them. This would then give property owners pause before making these ridiculous policies. It is really not all the "crazy" guy's fault when I get shot by him in a movie theatre or at my apartment, when I could have protected myself from the crazy guy, if not disarmed already by the property owner. The property owner has taken on a responsibility for my safety by making this restriction.

That is why I think parents should be able to successfully sue the crap out of the State when their kids are injured/killed at school by violence...all while the school proclaims itself as a gun free zone but makes no effort to restrict guns or truly protect students (i.e. unlike what occurs at gun free zones in a Courthouse or airport). This drives me crazy. My kids are defenseless at school and any criminal or insane person at anytime can walk into the school with whatever weapon they want. You have to be insane to think a sign will stop a crazy person or criminal. Any legislator who votes for schools to be gun free zones without a sound protective plan including trained armed guards/teachers/etc. and security checkpoints/searches, should be put in jail in my opinion.

This should also extend to major cities like New York that claim to have no responsibility for their police to protect you as an individual, yet they subvert your own right to protect yourself. I am not a lawyer but how could one not win a case like this in our reportedly free Constitutional Republic? I would like to see people like this Lozito guy sue the City for preventing him from protecting himself with a firearm since they don't have a responsibility to protect him. => http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI

 

[tstowater]

Mike7: What you expressed is my thoughts after my state (Iowa) expanded its concealed carry laws a few years ago and a lot of businesses started posting the "no guns" signs. I have asked several of the business owners what they are going to do to protect me now that I am not legally able to protect myself from the nuts. Of course, most haven't even considered that. Unfortunately, the incident that we don't want to happen will, and, the lawsuit may happen. The legal question is whether the potential defendant had a legal duty that was breached. As to the governmental issues (NY question), the question is likely to revolve around whether the city had a legal duty to protect and whether the "no gun" attitude is subject to a strict scrutiny or a reasonable basis analysis (is it a constitutional right being suppressed,then most likely to be a strict scrutiny analysis). Too early in the morning to think con-law.

 

[Mike7]

tstowater: I don't understand the legal intricacies, it just doesn't make logical sense to me that in our system the State can win cases which basically claim that they have no responsibility to protect the individual...while on the other hand they prevent the individual from exercising their right to protect themself. Also it is not like these crimes are unforeseen events, accidents, or acts of nature. If every day or week people are mugged, raped, and killed on the subway, yet the city doesn't provide the mechanism, or have even the obligation to stop these predictable events when the mechanism is in place...then I just don't see how the City/State can't be liable, since they actively force any lawabiding citizen to disarm. They are on the other hand passive with respect to criminals, who are free to carry weapons in most of the City without challenge. I am all for liberty and personal responsibility, and I think 99% of lawsuits are B.S., but I would really love to see someone successfully sue the State over these Constitutional matters.