Guns banned from Tennessee neighborhood

[TheBluesMan]

http://www.wtvf.com/Global/story.asp?S=6242822

Community Suggests Gun Possession Is Illegal For Residents
March 19, 2007 05:16 PM

ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

Residents in Nashboro Village said it's unconstitutional and leaves them defenseless.

Two weeks ago, residents received a letter from their homeowners' association indicating that guns are not allowed on the property.

"It thought it was ironic that they say you can't have something when the United States government says you can," said resident Cristina Salajanu.

Salajanu would like to give her neighborhood management company a history lesson.

"I think it's unconstitutional," Salajanu said. "They can't tell you what to own or not to own in your own house."

Salajanu is talking about the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It's been an American freedom for 215 years but Salajanu and other residents said it's been taken away from them.

"Something needs to be done," she said.

Two weeks ago, the property management company at Nashboro Village told its residents no more guns on the property.

"It incensed me that it was written the way it was," said a resident who asked not to be identified.

She said there is a serious need to feel protected here and a firearm can do that.

"We've got dark areas, the lighting is very definitely very dim," she said.

Salajanu said that burglaries started to increase since late summer...

She said she believes her neighborhood has changed since she moved in last year.

"Three weeks ago someone was stopped at gunpoint," Salajanu said. "It seems the nature of those burglaries is becoming more dangerous."

Some residents at Nashboro Village have campaigned for better lighting and more security but if they can't get either they at least want their Second Amendment rights upheld.

"If I'm walking if I'm walking my dog or if I am outside walking and if I don't feel safe and I'm licensed then I'll carry a gun," said the resident who did not want her identity disclosed.

Officials with Ghertner and Company, the property manager at Nashboro Village, would not make an on-camera comment about the gun policy but said they plan on changing the rule soon to allow firearms on the property.

However, they would make it illegal to fire those guns, which residents say is still unconstitutional.

Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village but they don't believe that prohibiting firearms is the best way to do that.

This is the most asinine paragraph in the entire article:
Some residents at Nashboro Village have campaigned for better lighting and more security but if they can't get either they at least want their Second Amendment rights upheld.
Makes it sound like they'd rather have lights and security, but if not, they'll settle for a constitutional right.

This just reinforces my conviction to NEVER live in a place with a homeowners association. :barf: Why would anyone willingly subject themselves and their rights to the whims of one's neighbors, or worse, an unelected management company?

 

[Trip20]

It sounds as if you're reading it as though they'd substitute that right if only they could get better lighting and security.

I didn't read that portion of the article in the same manner...

I read that paragraph as meaning: at the very least they want their 2A rights, but in addition to this they've been petitioning for better lighting and security. Almost as if the 2A thing should be a given... (as it should)

On another note, I can't imagine wanting to live in a community to the extent that I'd subject myself and my family to the demands of a home-owners association. It just about defeats the purpose of buying a home... might as well rent.

 

[invention_45]

The nub of this problem is the existence of homeowners' associations.

I specifically told a realtor when I bought my first house that I didn't want to be in one. I didn't find out until closing that there was an association. My first contact with them was when two mafia-looking goodfellas stepped out of a car while my then-wife and I were doing an initial cleaning of the garage. They wanted to "introduce themselves", but more they wanted to introduce us to the fact that there were rules and we should abide by them.

It was a cheap association. $7 every month. Until...a cop drowned in the lake (on which we did not live) trying to save a kid, and those surrounding the lake decided they wanted insurance to cover such events. It was then $21 every month.

In Coral Gables (not the same association) they can dictate what color you paint the INSIDE of your house!

Where I live now has an informal association. No fees, no power. And guess what? Everybody keeps their places up reasonably well, and the property values remain up despite the recent sags.

Homeowners' associations are nothing but havens for those who want to flex their muscle but couldn't get into any other form of politics.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"This just reinforces my conviction to NEVER live in a place with a homeowners association."

Yep, the actions of one homeowner's association certainly should be the basis for your entire perception of them.

Question for you...

Given that your neighbors vote, and that the politics of your locality, state, and nation are predicated on the "whims" of your neighbors, why do you continue to live in the United States?

Your freedom is being crushed by people you don't even know.

 

[Number 6]

It ISN'T just one

"This just reinforces my conviction to NEVER live in a place with a homeowners association."

Yep, the actions of one homeowner's association certainly should be the basis for your entire perception of them.

This is not unusual for homeowners' associations. Note the many instances of HA's and condo associations having rules against the display of flags, putting anything on your door, painting your house a non-approved color or even using a mailbox not of the prescribed type and color.

People who live in such places have abandoned individuality for mindless homogeneity; independence for conformity and self-reliance for the (illusion of) safety.

All they need is a Number 2 and "Rover."

They deserve all the abuse they get. :barf:

 

[CobrayCommando]

Yep, the actions of one homeowner's association certainly should be the basis for your entire perception of them.

Question for you...

Given that your neighbors vote, and that the politics of your locality, state, and nation are predicated on the "whims" of your neighbors, why do you continue to live in the United States?

Your freedom is being crushed by people you don't even know.

Maybe it's the same thing in principle, but it's very different in reality. I don't want my neighbors telling me what to do in such specific and power-mongering terms as already mentioned, arbitrary things like what color the inside of your house is. I'm the kind of person that really fumes when I'm told what to do, especially if I were told what kind of dog I could own and what car to drive by a power I would percieve as illegitimate.

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

 

[BlueTrain]

There are places in Tennessee where you can't legally buy an alcoholic drink, too.

 

[applesanity]

While the article is naive in some respects, it is still decidedly in the favor of the residents. Count the number of sentences vouching for RTKBA versus the opposite. At the very least, it's not frothing and screaming.

 

[TheFacts]

I just don`t get it guys. A homeowners assoc. telling you how to live your lives...this has got to be a joke right. You have the absolute, undisputed, god-given right to do what you want with your own property. The next time your h.o. association tries to tell you what color to paint the inside of your house or what pet you can own, why not tell them to go f#@$ themselves.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[Number 6]

False "facts"

You have the absolute, undisputed, god-given right to do what you want with your own property.

Really? Guess they don't have zoning where you live.

Or health, fire, plumbing and building codes.

As for the HA, the purchasers SIGNED AWAY THEIR RIGHTS when they bought into the association. It's called a contract for a reason.

 

[Musketeer]

If you signed an agreement to live there with the home owners association then you are the idiot and need to abide by the agreement. Then answer is to NOT live under there whims.

The poster who suggested that a HO assoc. is no different than the laws passed by members of the state and locality is completely wrong. No state or locality can overide the COTUS. A homeowners assoc. when you have signed a contract to abide by their rules CAN. That is very different.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Yep, the actions of one homeowner's association certainly should be the basis for your entire perception of them.

You assume much, Mike. Like I've made a statement based upon a single instance of abuse. Give me some credit...

As for your equation of HOAs to American voters, please take some time to consider the comparison a little more before you decide for sure you want to use it. That dog just don't hunt and you know it. (Checks and balances, redress of grievances, etc.)

Number 6 and Musketeer should Read The First Freakin' Post (RTFFP) before they comment. Here's the first sentence of the story:

ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

They changed the rules on these people after they signed. That *does* make a bit of a difference.

 

[SecDef]

They changed the rules on these people after they signed. That *does* make a bit of a difference.

Which is interesting, because HOA's have meetings and elected officials. If there was a new rule, it was brought up at a meeting, discussed, most likely notification of such discussion went out to residents, and officials voted.

I wonder if these furious people were active or just fell asleep at the wheel and as far as they know the notification letter of the new rule was the first they heard of it. There is a difference.

 

[Number 6]

Not really

Number 6 and Musketeer should Read The First Freakin' Post (RTFFP) before they comment. Here's the first sentence of the story:

Quote:

ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

They changed the rules on these people after they signed. That *does* make a bit of a difference.

The difference is minimal and largely imaginary. The HA would have had to propose it, notify the members and then enact it by a majority vote. How many of the present whiners do you think even read the notice, still less attended the meeting?

Note again, for those who missed it in my first ost, that simply by CHOOSING to live in such a micro-managed little world, these people brought it on themselves.

Rationalize THAT.

 

[Trip20]

How does one justify a HA assuming the authority to regulate/deny the Right to Keep and Bear Arms or any other Right for that matter?

One should not have to worry about protecting their Constitutional Rights from a HA. It just simply should not be.

I think one should have a reasonable expectation that their Rights will remain intact upon signing a HA contract. The "brought it on themselves" stuff only applies if we're talking about pools, fences, lawn care... etc.

 

[GoSlash27]

Traditionally, courts have held private 'actors' are not subject to constitutional limitations -- that is, enforcers of private contracts are not subject to the same constitutional limitations as police officers or courts. In joining an association, homeowners can "contract out" of their constitutional rights, because boards of directors are private actors, and not government agents.

The moral of the story? Don't live under the authority of a homeowners' association.

 

[JR47]

Actually, it would appear that the HOA has been given to a Management Company. This occurs in many places in the country. Builders hire out the responsibility for the HOA to private management companies. These companies are then responsible for the day-to-day operation of the properties and their HOA rules. In many cases, there is NO other group. No elected officials, no proposals of rules, etc.

We had such a group in out small community until last year. You never saw them, and they always raised the fees, year after year. We informed them that they were fired last March. There was no reserve operating fund, and the public areas weren't being properly maintained. Luckily, the community quickly resolved the budding "Rules Nazis" issue, and life goes on. In one year, we were able to repair the public areas, add additional lighting, increase police patrols, institute a Security Group, and clean up several properties that absentee owners had allowed to literally become overgrown. We also saved nearly $8k into the Reserve.

As for home colors, there is an Architectural Committee. They have a list of over 100 colors that your house may be painted without permission from anyone. Other colors have to be approved. They learned when they approved a blue for a house that turned out to be quite "bright". Fortunately, the home owner was just as appalled, and the color was toned down a bit.

All in all, it's been a positive experience here. In Georgia, most developers place an HOA into the development prior to the first houses being completed.

The article may have been in error as far as an HOA is concerned. It sounded more like a rental housing property from their description. They would have a management company that acts as the sole authority.

 

[Musketeer]

Duh me no read well as BluesMan say. Me still no dummy enough to sign HA agreement paper thingy.

Want to bet the HA agreement allows them to create whatever rules they wish if passed by a vote? If you sign the private contract to abide by the HA then you are stuck with any stupid rule they pass. They are not the Gov't and are not bound by the COTUS. This is a contract between private parties that someone was dumb enough to sign.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Note again, for those who missed it in my first ost, that simply by CHOOSING to live in such a micro-managed little world, these people brought it on themselves.

Rationalize THAT.

You are correct, sir. And have reinforced my point.

I infer from the story that the HOA in question is run by a management company and that notice of such a change probably never went out prior to its implementation.

They are not the Gov't and are not bound by the COTUS.

Traditionally, courts have held private 'actors' are not subject to constitutional limitations

This is popularly held to be true, but there are limitations. Places of business cannot perform searches and seizures of their patrons. You don't leave all your Constitutional Rights in the car when you go into the grocery store.

In the case of a HOA, there are many rights that you sign away when you join. In many HOAs, you can't fly an American Flag unless it conforms to their rules.

 

[MacGille]

Why on earth would anyone knowingly add another layer of government to his life? A pox on HAs. Obviously home owners associations are there to keep values up. The most important value we have is our Rights. To give up any part of our rights is to negate every sacrifice ever made to secure them. Every generation of my family since 1746 ( Battle of Culloden) has fought for our rights. I couldn't consider giving up one bit of mine. A whole passel of claidhaemmor(pronounced claymore) wielding ghosts would descend on me and force me to eat haggis.