Guns banned from Tennessee neighborhood

The various jurisdictions have different limits on storage of flammables, toxics, and explosives. I came from Prince George's County, Maryland. There, all new construction must have residential sprinklers, and both hard-wired and battery smoke detectors. More than 2 gallons of a flammable liquid must be stored in a structure not attached to a house. Over 5 pounds of black powder must be stored in a vented, blast-proof, cabinet.

Many pesticides are banned entirely. Lead-based paints are banned, except for some Marine applications. Apartment and townhome owners cannot operate a BBQ on the balcony of their structures. No matter if owned or rental. Dogs and cats are to be licensed, vaccinated, and leash-laws are county wide. Many cities also have ordinances governing exterior grass and brush. They will remove it at your expense. Same goes with abandoned vehicles.

Should your home, through neglect, damage, or stupidity become a breeding ground for vermin, the Health Department may order you to vacate the premises until the situation has been rectified.

While most large cities do have areas where it's not politically correct to expect enforcement of these regulations, it's not that they can't. It's that they won't. Obviously, if you wish to live in squalor, Philly, or any other large city is the place to go. :)
 
You can't maintain "attractive nuisances" on your land without putting up barriers to keep kids out (ask someone who owns a pool).
Click to expand...

Crap. You mean I have to get rid of that bear trap baited with Trix cereal I keep in the front yard?
 
Please read the 8th line down...and by the way, take a tour of N. Phila. and check out some of the "beautiful rowhomes" that accomodate soooo many poor and working class families and tell them about building codes.
Click to expand...

What does that mean?:confused:
 
What part did you NOT read?

So, Number [sic], besides simply calling everyone else "wrong," what exactly IS your point? Is it right and true for homeowners' associations to ban gun ownership? Is every person who lives in a HA-regulated neighborhood a mall-ninja-sheeple-zombie? Repeat what it is that you're trying to establish, because in the recent flame-storm, I think it's become unclear.
Click to expand...

What is "right and true" for an HOA to do is a wholly different issue from what an HOA can do. Surely an "intellectual property [ what used to be patents and copyrights] attorney" can understand that.

Just as an IP attorney should know about contracts and the enforceability thereof.

As for my opinion of those who buy into HOA's, your question, if actually serious, was answered not once, not twice, but THREE times. Go back and read posts ## 5, 10 and 14. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
What does that mean?
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I was just trying to make a point about the building regulations that you mentioned while responding to Number 6.

Putting aside the other errors, these are still false statements. A property owner cannot use or abuse his/her property in such a way as to constitute a hazard to anyone else. Pathetic delusions notwithstanding, owning property does not grant unfettered rights.
Click to expand...

Once again, it seems I have failed in making my point. Your above statement is certainly correct but I was not trying to contradict it. I was just illustrating that we have the right to LAWFULLY USE AND DESTROY OUR PROPERTY IF WE SO CHOOSE. By that acknowledgement, you have to insinuate that unlawful use refers to using or abusing "his/her property in such a way as to constitute a hazard to anyone else".

Those are just a few of the obvious limits. Of course, most people on this forum already grasped that concept, but there are a few who might have been deluded by the above quotes, absurd as they are.
Click to expand...

Well I guess those few that you mentioned are a little more plentiful than you originally thought.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
And the point?

Once again, it seems I have failed in making my point. Your above statement is certainly correct but I was not trying to contradict it. I was just illustrating that we have the right to LAWFULLY USE AND DESTROY OUR PROPERTY IF WE SO CHOOSE.
Click to expand...

And that relates to a homeowners' association enacting a ban of firearms on its property HOW?
 
What is "right and true" for an HOA to do is a wholly different issue from what an HOA can do. Surely an "intellectual property [ what used to be patents and copyrights] attorney" can understand that.

Just as an IP attorney should know about contracts and the enforceability thereof.

As for my opinion of those who buy into HOA's, your question, if actually serious, was answered not once, not twice, but THREE times. Go back and read posts ## 5, 10 and 14.
Click to expand...

"And that relates to a homeowners' association enacting a ban of firearms on its property HOW?"



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yield extinction.
 
JR47: Sad shame that all those unnecessary and abusable (a word?) regulations could be avoided if people simply would RTFM and RTFL.

Everything you need to know to use and store this sort of stuff safely is there. The manufacturers' lawyers wouldn't have it any other way.
 
Personal responsibility has died a quiet death, sir. The first thing asked at the scene of many autos accidents we responded to was "who's gonna' pay for this?" Usually the person asking was the cause of the accident.

Number 6, the destruction of your house without permit, usually by fire, is called ARSON. The demolition of that same property requires permits from the jurisdiction.

You may not like it, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore laws passed during your watch, or even those of a century past, because you don't agree with them.

There have been no Constitutional arguements raised on the behalf of people who just don't like something. Not only that, but State's Rights, and the sovereignity of same, allows them to pass such ordinances.

IP is something that is not under discussion. Nor how it applies to an HOA. This is a tempest in a teapot, with the usual extremes of some posters insulting those who have chosen something that they disagree with. It's not much different than any other type of politics. If you don't like how something is done, get involved, and fix it. The fact that some do not belong to an HOA is fine for them. It doesn't require them to stupidly insult others who do belong, and have had no problems.
 
And now, for something completely different...

Number 6, the destruction of your house without permit, usually by fire, is called ARSON. The demolition of that same property requires permits from the jurisdiction.

You may not like it, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore laws passed during your watch, or even those of a century past, because you don't agree with them.

There have been no Constitutional arguements [sic] raised on the behalf of people who just don't like something. Not only that, but State's Rights, and the sovereignity of same, allows them to pass such ordinances.
Click to expand...

Reality check:

1. Arson is NOT an issue in this thread. At all. Still less one I raised in any way. I don't know what you've been reading, but you are clearly missing a number of points.

2. As for whether "you can ignore laws passed during your watch," you are also misinformed. I expressed no such sentiment; rather, only contempt for those who a.) bought into a controlled development; b.) ignored notices of the proposed rule; and c.) thus failed to attend the vote.

3. Your raising the hopeless flag of "State's [sic] Rights, and the sovereignity of same" is wholly inapposite. As this thread already showed, at length, there is no state action here, still less any "such ordinances." The HOA is a private entity; it passes no ordinances and its operations do not constitute the "state action" required for Constitutional scrutiny.

You have obviously not read or misread most, if not all, of this thread. :rolleyes:
 
Sorry, it was The Facts who was discussing the destruction of his property. THAT's where that came from. Check your reading skills, yourself.

3. Your raising the hopeless flag of "State's [sic] Rights, and the sovereignity of same" is wholly inapposite. As this thread already showed, at length, there is no state action here, still less any "such ordinances." The HOA is a private entity; it passes no ordinances and its operations do not constitute the "state action" required for Constitutional scrutiny.
Click to expand...

My point, which you so blindly ignore, is that HOA's are a STATE-regulated contrivance. The entire wasted diatribe about Constitutional rights on this thread is just that, wasted. Better?

Thank you for the grammar notes. However, to avoid any taint of discrimination, you should have been doing so all along. If, as you allude to, you are a para-legal, or, even more interesting, an attorney, you're talking to a national audience. Unless, and until, you're admitted to the Bar in those 50 states, and have studied their local laws, you are hardly qualified to make such pronouncements.:barf:
 
Reality check, redux

Sorry, it was The [False] Facts who was discussing the destruction of his property. THAT's where that came from. Check your reading skills, yourself.
Click to expand...

Yet it was ME whom you ascribed those remarks to. :rolleyes:
My suggestion regarding your reading skills stands accordingly.



My point, which you so blindly ignore, is that HOA's are a STATE-regulated contrivance. The entire wasted diatribe about Constitutional rights on this thread is just that, wasted. Better?
Click to expand...

NO. It was YOU who raised the false issues of "ordinances" and "State's [sic] rights" where none are involved. Your ex post facto excuse of HOA's being "a STATE-regulated contrivance" is just that - a contrivance. Just what state regulations do you now claim are involved?

If, as you allude to, you are a para-legal, or, even more interesting[ly], an attorney, you're talking to a national audience. Unless, and until, you're admitted to the Bar in those 50 states, and have studied their local laws, you are hardly qualified to make such pronouncements.
Click to expand...

I made no such allusions and I am aware of the scope of the audience. Hence my disdain for those who wilfully and repeatedly post false information.:barf:
 
Incidentally, Number 6, what DO you do for a living??? Are you a contract attorney?

...oh, and you forgot to mention Trademarks and Trade Secrets. They're included as Intellectual Property. ... I'm just saying...
 
The folks in the HOA crying about the new rule are the same folks who paid good money to live where they and and to join the HOA. People buy into said neighborhoods and HOAs because HOAs have the reputation of commanding higher values for the properties than comparable properties outside the HOA boundaries or because the HOAs command a higher status than non-HOA areas. In short, the folks who are crying now are the same folks who wanted all the benefits from the HOA and would be the same folks who turned on any of their neighbors that violated policies of the HOA that that criers liked.

Of course as is salient, HOA contracts are almost never binding to the rules of the organization at the time of signing, but are open-ended in the sense that they says signees will abide by all rules passed or deemed necessary by the HOA. Number 6 is right in that the residents signed contracts that effective waived many of their rights as part of being allowed to join. It is NOT unconstitutional for a person to voluntarily sign away their rights as part of a contract agreement. There are all sorts of performance clauses in all sorts of contracts that make stipulations on one's behaviors or activities that would be unconstitutional if the person had not contractually released said rights to the other party(s) in the contract.
 
Sorry, it was The Facts who was discussing the destruction of his property.
Click to expand...

Yes JR47, it was I who suggested that one was entitled to destroy his/her personal property. In conjunction, your are right that numerous laws abound regarding the disposal of private property. However, my contention has always been that all people are endowed by their creator with the liberty to do with their property as they see fit. Just because that freedom exists does not automatically nullify the regulation of property rights altogether. After all, the general consensus of this forum is the notion that all people are endowed with the liberty to lawfully possess and use arms, yet regulations still abound. In an utopian society where free will and personal responsibilty are plentiful, such rights would be acknowledged by our elected overseers and regulations would be at an absolute minimum. Unfortunately, that is not our reality.

In closing, if I wanted to bulldoze my house for whatever reason, assuming that it was all mine and no mortgage existed, I would have the right to do so...of course I would need a permit :rolleyes:. As for HOA, there authority over you extends no futher than the authority you grant them. Nuff said.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
This exchange is reminding me of something - who else remembers an "X-files" episode called "Arcadia"? Looks like I'll be digging through the old DVDs later.

Now that was an out of control HOA.
 
This exchange is reminding me of something - who else remembers an "X-files" episode called "Arcadia"? Looks like I'll be digging through the old DVDs later.

Now that was an out of control HOA.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite shows from the 90`s. That episode finds Mulder and Scully investigating a series of disappearances in a "planned community" that is run by a despotic HOA chairman who has the psychic power to conjure an evil manifestation made out of garbage (the community was built over a landfill). Weird, wild stuff.


Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
I believe that it was similiar to a Golem, wasn't it?

Yes JR47, it was I who suggested that one was entitled to destroy his/her personal property.
Click to expand...
The Facts, Post 56..

I made no such allusions and I am aware of the scope of the audience. Hence my disdain for those who wilfully and repeatedly post false information.
Click to expand...
Number 6, Post 53.

Actually, you aren't. Despite your wizardly use of vocabulary, you are as guilty of posting fasle information as anyone here. You AREN"T "aware" of local law, nor even of state law. If you were, this non-sensical idiocy that you've been attempting to cloak in pseudo-legalese wouldn't be cluttering up the thread. I'm not an attorney, but I do have access to the Web, and you're just painfully wrong.:barf: :barf:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top