Community Bylaws State No Carrying of Weapons?

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by dc dalton

Not an option at this time.

We talked about these dumb assed rules they have a while ago. His Mom bought the house back in the 70s before they had all this BS and they just keep adding on the BS every year. From what he says every year when you pay your dues you are automatically agree to any of these new rules they add.

All I can say is one of THE smartest moves I ever made was telling my landlord back in 1989 I didn't want to buy the house we rented ... in Pocono Country Place! THANK GOD I SAID NO!

I don't get the dues part. You buy a house and you then have to pay dues. What are they going to do if you don't pay the dues? Make you move your house.

You have to pay them to tell you what to do. I say carry concealed.

[Fraggle09027]

Originally Posted by archon

Let me add that if the private community functions almost like a municipality he may have a claim that it is effectively the government equivalent of a municipality and is subject to the preemption statute in the Uniform Firearms Act.

See Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).

almost, but still private property, preemption does not apply

Originally Posted by normanvin

I don't get the dues part. You buy a house and you then have to pay dues. What are they going to do if you don't pay the dues? Make you move your house.

You have to pay them to tell you what to do. I say carry concealed.

Yes, as stated earlier if you do not pay your dues or fines they place a lean on you house and then they force sheriffs sale.

My HOA rule states you need a LTCF to even OC.

[jahwarrior72]

my parents used to have a house in Pocono Springs Estates, right off rt. 507. they had a couple of similar rules for the community. so, when my dad started target shooting in the yard, they weren't too happy. their security showed up, and they brought a copy of the community regs, and were like, "SIR!!! YOU CAN"T DO THAT SIR!!!DON"T YOU SEE!!! YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT SIR!!!"

my dad just shrugged, and turned and fired off another round. the next day, the came with another form, where it had their "no firearms within the community" rule on it. he went to the office, and said that he had about 5 firearms (handguns, shotgun, rifle) and that if they didn't like it, he'd just sell the house. he contacted the real estate lady who sold my parents the house, and told her he was selling. they backed off.

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by jahwarrior72

my parents used to have a house in Pocono Springs Estates, right off rt. 507. they had a couple of similar rules for the community. so, when my dad started target shooting in the yard, they weren't too happy. their security showed up, and they brought a copy of the community regs, and were like, "SIR!!! YOU CAN"T DO THAT SIR!!!DON"T YOU SEE!!! YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT SIR!!!"

my dad just shrugged, and turned and fired off another round. the next day, the came with another form, where it had their "no firearms within the community" rule on it. he went to the office, and said that he had about 5 firearms (handguns, shotgun, rifle) and that if they didn't like it, he'd just sell the house. he contacted the real estate lady who sold my parents the house, and told her he was selling. they backed off.

Kudos to your father.

[chrisjames_71]

Man reading crap like this makes me glad I live in the country I lived in 2 houses prior that had HOAs, but neither had rules about weapons. Just stupid rules about other stupid crap.

[jahwarrior72]

Originally Posted by normanvin

Kudos to your father.

here's some irony: my folks sold the place anyway, a few years ago. they finally got fed up with the weather here, so they decided to go home, to puerto rico...












....where handguns are illegal!

there's only one gunshop in PR, and they only sell a few handguns. it's like being in NYC, basically. no rifles, no handguns, and no pump or semiauto shotguns. you can get them, but you have to be super rich or connected to get a permit. the only type of gun you can get without paying hundreds of dollars in legal fees are coachguns or O/U shotties; pigeon hunting is popular down there.

right now, my dad's sitting at home on his farm, with about 10 years worth of jailtime in his kitchen.

sometimes, i think my parents are a little messed.

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by Fraggle09027

almost, but still private property, preemption does not apply



Yes, as stated earlier if you do not pay your dues or fines they place a lean on you house and then they force sheriffs sale.

My HOA rule states you need a LTCF to even OC.

How is it exactly that these HOA's get away with being "private organizations" when essentially they are no different than a local government.

They take in "taxes" via "dues", write ordinances, and enforce them through fines, and if you don't pay either fines or the taxes, they put a lien on your home...

Of course they're exempt from lots of rules because they're not a government...

[chrisjames_71]

Originally Posted by The Drew

How is it exactly that these HOA's get away with being "private organizations" when essentially they are no different than a local government.

America, ain't it grand

[edstephan]

Originally Posted by The Drew

How is it exactly that these HOA's get away with being "private organizations" when essentially they are no different than a local government.

They take in "taxes" via "dues", write ordinances, and enforce them through fines, and if you don't pay either fines or the taxes, they put a lien on your home...

Of course they're exempt from lots of rules because they're not a government...

Because when you buy in one of these HOA's if you look at your deed you don't own the land. The Corp. still owns the land and you are buying rights to use the land.
Ed

[archon]

Originally Posted by The Drew

How is it exactly that these HOA's get away with being "private organizations" when essentially they are no different than a local government.

This is what concerned the Supreme Court in Marsh v. Alabama. In that case, it was a company owned town and a Jehovah's Witness was arrested for passing out flyers in front of the post office. His advocacy being unwanted, he was arrested and charged with tresspass because it was private property. In overturning the conviction, the Supreme Court found that since the company owned town (all private property) was the functional equivalent of a governmental municipality it could not abridge freedom of speech or freedom of religion since these were paramount to private property rights in this particular case.

The Marsh doctrine was never expanded by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the original opinion was fractured with two seperate concurrences making up the majority. But is still considered to be good law (albeit with very narrow applications) by most legal professionals and academics.

Since the late 70's courts have largely left private property alone when applying constitutional gaurantees. I'm not going to opine on whether this is good or bad, but the particular result has been an abridgement of constitutional rights by privatization.