Guns banned from Tennessee neighborhood
- Thread starter TheBluesMan
- Start date
So, who's the wannabe? Your second quote was in reference to your denial of being an attorney. You've twice been asked if you even have a job, and what it is. Answer some things like that, and I'll worry about your simple-minded demands, sir. Or perhaps you're afraid of what that might do to your ability to spew forth nonsense?
Call and raise back.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Okay, so you can't prove he is wrong and so you try changing tactics to demand employment status as a justification for not being able to justify your claims?
To stay with the poker terms, you are bluffing, but you aren't even in the hand.
To stay with the poker terms, you are bluffing, but you aren't even in the hand.
Keeping up with what's going on with the HOA is all well and good..until you get a situation like in a Townhome complex where I work. The HOA got slowly taken over by seniors, who, once they had the majority to do so changed the meeting tiems to 10am on Wed mornings, effectively making sure that anyone who was employed couldt attend the meetings..then they went on a rampage, banning kids from riding their bikes on the streets, and other ridiculous nonsense..it took one of the other residents who was an Attorney to finally straighten things out..and that was basically by filing injunction after injunction in the county court until they gave in and returned things to some modicum of fairness. Of course the guy behind all of these changes was the one that made a big stink about ud (Police Dept) not being welcome on the property unless called, then bitched when they had a string of car burglaries..asshat.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Number 6 and JR47 - cool it. 
I'd hate to close this thread just because of two posts, but I will if necessary.
If you can't disagree without being disagreeable, take it to email.
Thank you.
-Dave
I'd hate to close this thread just because of two posts, but I will if necessary.If you can't disagree without being disagreeable, take it to email.
Thank you.
-Dave
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Yeah... That should have happened a long time ago.
Incorporation
Not just the South and not just blacks. The fact that deeds are recorded with the state was part of the process by which such restrictions were nullified.
However, those were voided via the 14th Amendment through the process known as "incorporation." The Second Amendment has NOT been applied applied to the individual states, meaning that basis for negating an HOA's restriction of the Second Amendment would not fly.
"Interstate commerce," the even more common ploy for the imposition of Federal rules on local action, is not terribly tenable as an argument, either.
Hence my assertion that there is no "state action" in the HOA action under discussion.
Not just the South and not just blacks. The fact that deeds are recorded with the state was part of the process by which such restrictions were nullified.
However, those were voided via the 14th Amendment through the process known as "incorporation." The Second Amendment has NOT been applied applied to the individual states, meaning that basis for negating an HOA's restriction of the Second Amendment would not fly.
"Interstate commerce," the even more common ploy for the imposition of Federal rules on local action, is not terribly tenable as an argument, either.
Hence my assertion that there is no "state action" in the HOA action under discussion.
I guess my whole point is, typically when you have a contract with an open-ended provision stipulating future amendments, it is understood in contract law that the amendments have to bear some reasonable resemblance to the current provisions in the contract.
For example, let's say I contract to paint your house, and a provision specifies that I will inform you of any "supplies which I require during the provision of services," and that you have to provide those supplies. For the first few days, I ask for paint, brushes, and a ladder. Then, on day five, I tell you that I need a new SUV, a diamond necklace, and six tons of caviar. You don't have to provide those things, because they don't bear a reasonable relationship to the pre-existing terms of the contract back when it was signed. The new amendment, requiring you to provide these "supplies," is outside the scope of the original agreement. I did not INTEND to agree to those KINDS of provisions.
That was an exaggerated example, but I think you could make a similar argument on the HOA's ban on guns. I think you could argue that, when the person signed up for the HOA, they did not intend to sign away their right to bear arms (or any other Constitutional right, for that matter). I think you could argue that the ban on guns was outside of the scope of the original agreement, and that the amendment to the HOA contract (the new rule) should not be enforceable.
Everything make sense? Number 6, any other hateful comments? You still haven't told us what you do for a living...
For example, let's say I contract to paint your house, and a provision specifies that I will inform you of any "supplies which I require during the provision of services," and that you have to provide those supplies. For the first few days, I ask for paint, brushes, and a ladder. Then, on day five, I tell you that I need a new SUV, a diamond necklace, and six tons of caviar. You don't have to provide those things, because they don't bear a reasonable relationship to the pre-existing terms of the contract back when it was signed. The new amendment, requiring you to provide these "supplies," is outside the scope of the original agreement. I did not INTEND to agree to those KINDS of provisions.
That was an exaggerated example, but I think you could make a similar argument on the HOA's ban on guns. I think you could argue that, when the person signed up for the HOA, they did not intend to sign away their right to bear arms (or any other Constitutional right, for that matter). I think you could argue that the ban on guns was outside of the scope of the original agreement, and that the amendment to the HOA contract (the new rule) should not be enforceable.
Everything make sense? Number 6, any other hateful comments? You still haven't told us what you do for a living...
Georgia requires that all HOAs be regulated via Georgia Code Title 44-3-220 through 235.
Additionally, Georgia Code Title 16-11-173 also applies as far as rules limiting firearms goes.
Maryland regulates them via Section 11B 101-115 of the Maryland Code. I believe that you will find, in both, that many of the most serious transgressions we read about would be prevented by these laws. Not all, but many.
Additionally, Georgia Code Title 16-11-173 also applies as far as rules limiting firearms goes.
Maryland regulates them via Section 11B 101-115 of the Maryland Code. I believe that you will find, in both, that many of the most serious transgressions we read about would be prevented by these laws. Not all, but many.
Double Naught Spy
New member
No doubt it could be argued that the gun ban was outside the scope of the HOA contract, one would be hard pressed to argue specifically that people entering into the contract had no intent of signing away constitutional rights. We don't have that contract at hand to confirm or deny what it stipulated, but it would not be a surprise of the contract included clauses about not running a business out of the home, signage, painting, lawn decoration, etc. For example, the homeowner may be limited by the contract from starting up a press newspaper out of the home, establishing a church and holding services out of the home, rights under the First Amendment. Signage, painting, or other artistic expression also falling under the First Amendment.
Folks may not be cognitively signing away Constitutional rights when entering into various contracts, even if they agree with the provisions of the contract that do specifically that.
Since people can and do sign away various rights as a result of contractual agreements and given that rights have been repeatedly upheld in the courts as not being absolute, arguing that this is a Constitutional matter may not be valid or not be valid for claiming the HOA contract in unenforceable. However, your notion that the restriction is outside of the provision of the contract is another matter. That falls under contract law. If the restriction is beyond the scope of the contract, then it is invalid or not binding. The contract cannot be used to demand performance for that which is not contained within the contract and its scope.
Ah, but provisions restricting business operation within a piece of land zoned as residential are not restrictive of free speech. They are simply contracts to enforce zoning restrictions. I think you can differentiate between a contract provision restricting how you use the land and a contract provision restricting what you are allowed to own if you live there.
Provisions in HOA's that restrict, say, boats or RV's merely restrict whether those items can be kept outside. In other words, those provisions restrict the external appearance of the property. They do not restrict whether you can actually own a boat or an RV, provided you can find a way to store it indoors, such as within the garage.
Ultimately, I think a good argument exists that an outright ban on gun ownership is a provision outside the scope of the HOA.
And, remember, "only the government" can violate your Constitutional rights. In all the old court cases of Civil Rights violations, in order to eventually arrive that an employer's actions constitute a violation of Civil Rights, the court first had to somehow establish that the actions of the employer equated to an act of the government. (Now, we have laws specifically outlawing private employers from discrimination, so it's a moot point. But, back in the day, it made for some interesting legal gymnastics on the old Civil Rights cases.) The HOA is a private entity, not a governmental entity. So, I think if this HOA is to be struck down, it won't be on purely "Constitutional" grounds. I think you have to do it through Contract law, because when the HOA is enforced against you, it will be enforced as a contract, rather than as a law.
Provisions in HOA's that restrict, say, boats or RV's merely restrict whether those items can be kept outside. In other words, those provisions restrict the external appearance of the property. They do not restrict whether you can actually own a boat or an RV, provided you can find a way to store it indoors, such as within the garage.
Ultimately, I think a good argument exists that an outright ban on gun ownership is a provision outside the scope of the HOA.
And, remember, "only the government" can violate your Constitutional rights. In all the old court cases of Civil Rights violations, in order to eventually arrive that an employer's actions constitute a violation of Civil Rights, the court first had to somehow establish that the actions of the employer equated to an act of the government. (Now, we have laws specifically outlawing private employers from discrimination, so it's a moot point. But, back in the day, it made for some interesting legal gymnastics on the old Civil Rights cases.) The HOA is a private entity, not a governmental entity. So, I think if this HOA is to be struck down, it won't be on purely "Constitutional" grounds. I think you have to do it through Contract law, because when the HOA is enforced against you, it will be enforced as a contract, rather than as a law.