Private Property v. 2A Rights for Rentals

[Jhaydeno]

Here's a good one for discussion! At what point do your rights end as the property owner and the renter's rights begin? Although it doesn't specify, should it matter whether the property is privately owned, association owned, authority owned, or fully government owned?

My thoughts are anything privately owned is fair game for posting: guns, hammers, knives and spoons (as long as it is clearly stated in the lease). If nothing was in the lease, and this gent is evicted because he protected himself, I would back him 100%, regardless of the he weapon used. Don't like private lease restrictions? Find something else. Basic supply & demand economics will level the playing field in the long run!

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ghts-for-maine

NRA Supports Second Amendment Rights for Maine
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015
Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association issued the following statement in support of Maine resident Harvey Lembo’s legal efforts to protect his Second Amendment rights. Lembo filed suit in Maine Superior Court today seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting his landlord from evicting him for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

“Threatening to evict Mr. Lembo for defending himself clearly violates his constitutional rights,” said NRA Maine State Liaison John Hohenwarter. “Self-defense is a fundamental, God-given right that belongs to every law-abiding American – no matter their tax bracket, zip code or street address. Furthermore, Article 1 Section 16. of the Maine Constitution echoes this sentiment by stating: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

“The 5 million members of the NRA stand in full support of Mr. Lembo’s efforts to preserve his Second Amendment rights and his ability to protect himself and his home from criminals.”

Confined to a wheelchair, Mr. Lembo resides in an affordable housing community in Rockland, Maine. He has lived there since 2009, and his home has been burglarized five times. On August 31, Lembo purchased a handgun to protect himself from future burglaries, and less than 24 hours later he successfully defended himself during a home invasion (http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/0...oots-intruder/). Mr. Lembo surrendered his right to self defense in order to avoid eviction from his home, and he is now fighting back by filing suit to prohibit his eviction based upon his lawful possession and use of a firearm.

[pacodelahoya]

If the government can force you to bake a cake ( a private transaction), surely they would protect one's right that is enumerated in the Constitution.

Ha ha ha lol

[Remington788]

The lease is a contract between two parties. It has little to do with constitutional rights.
The parties agreed to the terms when they signed the lease.
If one party decides to change the terms later then generally the lease can be broken or renegotiated by the other.

How many here waive their right to carry as a part of their employee code of conduct or avoid Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants because of those policies?

[Jhaydeno]

The lease is a contract between two parties. It has little to do with constitutional rights.
The parties agreed to the terms when they signed the lease.
If one party decides to change the terms later then generally the lease can be broken or renegotiated by the other.

How many here waive their right to carry as a part of their employee code of conduct or avoid Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants because of those policies?

I would agree, only so far as the landlord, if a government or authority, shouldn't have the ability to infringe any rights within said contract without passing judicial strict scrutiny.

In fact taking strict scrutiny a step further, one could argue that even teachers, since they are public employees (isn't their pay is public knowledge?), shouldn't be restricted from possessing firearms in their employment contract unless the governmental body trying to restrict them can prove that a teacher with a gun is more of a danger than one without. Just saying 'it's common sense' and 'for the kids' doesn't count!

[pacodelahoya]

The lease is a contract between two parties. It has little to do with constitutional rights.
The parties agreed to the terms when they signed the lease.
If one party decides to change the terms later then generally the lease can be broken or renegotiated by the other.

How many here waive their right to carry as a part of their employee code of conduct or avoid Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants because of those policies?

I agree also, but.
If the government can force someone to bake a cake, to protect a non enumerated right, surely the same government has the responsibility to protect an enumerated right?

I'm simply pointing out the double standards that exist in our world.

[Remington788]

He lives in a privately owned apartment.
His suit is claiming that because it is subsidized housing, that it is essentially government housing? Seems a very tenuous argument.

[GunLawyer001]

The lease is a contract between two parties. It has little to do with constitutional rights.
The parties agreed to the terms when they signed the lease.
If one party decides to change the terms later then generally the lease can be broken or renegotiated by the other.

How many here waive their right to carry as a part of their employee code of conduct or avoid Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants because of those policies?

I would agree that the govt has no Constitutional business forcing terms on private parties just to protect some rights, no right to force one private citizen to deal with another private citizen, but the ship has apparently sailed on that.

Can a private landlord discriminate against Blacks? Jews? Muslims? Single mothers with kids? Welfare recipients? Handicapped folks?

Nope.

Does a private employer have freedom to hire who he wishes, pay whatever an employee accepts, choose to provide health insurance or unemployment insurance? Choose to provide ramps or not, set the dimensions of his bathroom for his convenience, provide a fire extinguisher or not, place whatever signage seems like a good idea, sell incandescent bulbs and big toilet tanks and toy guns without orange markings?

Nope.

I guess that I'm coming around to the idea of feeding at the "rights trough". As long as the progressives eagerly pile on more and more govt micro-managing of private lives, we might as well benefit, before we have to build and offer "safe spaces" for pathetic strangers on our own sidewalks. Perhaps they'll get the message when govt agents kick in the door of some San Francisco apartment manager's office and take him away in cuffs for refusing to rent to an NRA member with a "MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN" bumper sticker. When Al Sharpton is compelled by law to attend sensitivity/re-education seminars for saying mean things about white folks. Maybe then it will seem like a bad idea to empower the government to intrude on private dealings and free speech.

[hog45]

He lives in a privately owned apartment.
His suit is claiming that because it is subsidized housing, that it is essentially government housing? Seems a very tenuous argument.

Yes, but it is an argument, and if the government is truly interested in protecting the rights of its citizens (hahaha) then it would use the leverage it has on this property to protect the rights of the tenant. I bet you if the landlord didn't want gays in the apartment the government would defend them and I don't see a big difference in choosing one right over another. Likewise if the government will freely hand out my money to welfare bums in my money subsidized housing, and not even test them for drugs because of respect for their right to privacy, then they should freely allow this person to own and carry a gun with respect to his privacy and the 2A.

But of course the government is truly not interested in protecting the rights of its citizens (except for certain citizens and certain rights based on which category and political party they fall into). I am rooting for this guy because I think its a worthy argument to pursue, and he is clearly in danger without a gun, and he is disabled, so moving is not going to be easy for him. Its not like its a hypothetical either. The guy has already had need for a gun and used it legally to defend himself.

Sadly the government will take about 5 years to deal with this case and by then he will be dead, possibly from a break in.

[Bang]

Lembo is probably not out of the woods yet. His "I got a little scream out of him" will probably wind up the focus of the incident as proof he was happy to shoot someone. Also, Lembo shot the intruder as he was trying to leave, headed for the door, without any indication of trying to harm him. I'm surprised the "girl on the phone" didn't "order" him to put the gun down.

[free]

I think you should be permitted to refuse to business with someone for any reason.