imthegrumpyone
New member
Find another place to live, I don't deal with anyone that I knowingly has a problem with owning or carrying. It's just for the principal of it. 
Is there a discreet way to ask...
- Thread starter firespectrum
- Start date
firespectrum
New member
I don't expect private parties to respect my rights, but I did expect there to be some form of legal protection from a landlord who doesn't respect my 2nd amendment rights in the same way that there are protections against a landlord who doesn't respect my race, gender, or national origin - especially in Florida!
I'd try and see if I could negotiate the clause off the contract, and if I couldn't, I'd find someplace else.
Luckily, my apartment, which is a mere block from campus, doesn't have a no-firearms policy. Then again, neither does the on-campus dorms*.
I love this town...
*they do require that you keep them in the firearms locker, which was in the basement of the dorms, though. And you have to have a trigger lock on the gun while it's physically on campus. However, I know of at least three people, including one RA (although I only suspect that he did), who ignored that rule...Also, OR law allows people to carry concealed on campus with a permit, but you are likely to be kicked out if caught, which is annoying...
Luckily, my apartment, which is a mere block from campus, doesn't have a no-firearms policy. Then again, neither does the on-campus dorms*.
I love this town...
*they do require that you keep them in the firearms locker, which was in the basement of the dorms, though. And you have to have a trigger lock on the gun while it's physically on campus. However, I know of at least three people, including one RA (although I only suspect that he did), who ignored that rule...Also, OR law allows people to carry concealed on campus with a permit, but you are likely to be kicked out if caught, which is annoying...
Your "legal protection" from the landlord is to not do business with him.
Your rights are freedoms *from* infringements, not "rights" to be provided with something by someone else. By your logic, for you to refuse to deal with a Nazi who wants to publish on your website or broadcast on your radio station would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
That's of course incorrect--he has the right to say what he wants and write what he wants, but not to do it on your servers, on your radio station, or in your office.
The same holds true for your right to carry a tool for self protection. No government or individual may come onto your land and forbid you from doing it, but you don't get to go onto his property uninvited (and whether the conditions of his invitation are that you're unarmed, that you're armed to the teeth, that you drink his brand of beer, or that you wear a swastika, you can come to an agreement or part ways peacefully).
The same holds for any other voluntary agreement--whether it's coming over for poker, or renting a piece of his property. You two can haggle, but you don't get to dictate terms he doesn't agree to any more than he can to you.
Once we forfeit property rights and the right of free- (and non-) association, what you can and can't do with your property and in your home becomes subject to government dictates. You may score a victory in requiring people to rent to you with your guns, and next year they reverse it so that any of your offended tenants can demand you rent to him and get rid of yours.
Or, they decide someone is entitled not to be offended by anything, so they can force you to rent to them (or hire them, or sell to them) while dictating what you can't say or display. Government is not a weapon to force others to do your bidding; it's there to make sure that when you disagree, you do so peacefully, and can't be forced to submit to someone else's views.
Your rights are freedoms *from* infringements, not "rights" to be provided with something by someone else. By your logic, for you to refuse to deal with a Nazi who wants to publish on your website or broadcast on your radio station would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
That's of course incorrect--he has the right to say what he wants and write what he wants, but not to do it on your servers, on your radio station, or in your office.
The same holds true for your right to carry a tool for self protection. No government or individual may come onto your land and forbid you from doing it, but you don't get to go onto his property uninvited (and whether the conditions of his invitation are that you're unarmed, that you're armed to the teeth, that you drink his brand of beer, or that you wear a swastika, you can come to an agreement or part ways peacefully).
The same holds for any other voluntary agreement--whether it's coming over for poker, or renting a piece of his property. You two can haggle, but you don't get to dictate terms he doesn't agree to any more than he can to you.
Once we forfeit property rights and the right of free- (and non-) association, what you can and can't do with your property and in your home becomes subject to government dictates. You may score a victory in requiring people to rent to you with your guns, and next year they reverse it so that any of your offended tenants can demand you rent to him and get rid of yours.
Or, they decide someone is entitled not to be offended by anything, so they can force you to rent to them (or hire them, or sell to them) while dictating what you can't say or display. Government is not a weapon to force others to do your bidding; it's there to make sure that when you disagree, you do so peacefully, and can't be forced to submit to someone else's views.
firespectrum
New member
I see where you're coming from, I really do. On almost all issues I usually find myself on the side of limited government and laissez faire, but in this case I have to go the other way.
I think more government should be local and community standards are important; however, our system is meant to protect the rights of a minority while governing based on the majority. Under normal circumstances, the power of the consumer through his discretion would regulate the situation naturally (just go somewhere else!) but these people have a geographic monopoly.
Maybe I should move to Minnesota where gun ownership in a rental unit is accepted, right? Well I can't go to FSU from Minnesota. Most college students financially have no choice but live within a certain distance from campus. If all the landlords within that distance ban guns, the student does not have any bargaining power or options. In monopolies, laissez faire does not work. This is where minimal protective legislation comes in.
Maybe where you are the ant-gun hysteria isn't as bad, but there are communities where every establishment is "no guns" - and you can bet the farm it's only going to get worse. If you can't have your gun at work; at your school; where you eat; where you bank; and even your home because you can only afford to rent, do you really have the right to bear arms?
I think more government should be local and community standards are important; however, our system is meant to protect the rights of a minority while governing based on the majority. Under normal circumstances, the power of the consumer through his discretion would regulate the situation naturally (just go somewhere else!) but these people have a geographic monopoly.
Maybe I should move to Minnesota where gun ownership in a rental unit is accepted, right? Well I can't go to FSU from Minnesota. Most college students financially have no choice but live within a certain distance from campus. If all the landlords within that distance ban guns, the student does not have any bargaining power or options. In monopolies, laissez faire does not work. This is where minimal protective legislation comes in.
Maybe where you are the ant-gun hysteria isn't as bad, but there are communities where every establishment is "no guns" - and you can bet the farm it's only going to get worse. If you can't have your gun at work; at your school; where you eat; where you bank; and even your home because you can only afford to rent, do you really have the right to bear arms?
Bobby, I refer you to this quote:BobbyT said:
As fiddletown said, every State has it own set of laws on what landlords and tenants can and can't do (as regards each other).
We, as a society, are way past the idea that your property is yours and you can essentially make whatever rules you like.
Go to any retail store to see the State in action. There are certain things they simply cannot do. Why? Because they have chosen to accommodate the public. This public accommodation leaves them open to regulation by the State. There is also federal action here. The various anti-discrimination laws, start at the federal level and are enforced by the State. In some cases, the State goes two or three steps further.
The overall effect is that by accommodating the public, in order to do business, your rights, as a property owner, are restricted. In some cases, severely.
The bottom line, if you don't like your property rights to be restricted or regulated, then don't do business with the general public.
I realize that our overbearing government has negated a lot of our property rights--that doesn't mean it's right.
Whether it's for stuff we generally agree with (discrimination is bad) or playing thought police (no criticism of group X allowed), it's wrong and should be fought.
The fact that in this case (you have to rent to me and let me bring my guns, even if you're opposed) we happen to benefit doesn't make it right. It's still trampling property rights, and it opens the door to an ever increasing loss of rights (now you have to rent to me, and get rid of your guns which offend me, and charge me an amount I consider "fair" that costs you money, and quit smoking because I don't like the smell...etc).
Just as the solution to government robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't for Peter to lobby for theft on his behalf, but to have government stop stealing, the solution to the fact that government negates some property rights isn't to try to get it to dictate more things that benefit us, but to honor individual rights.
And that means if someone's ignorance keeps you two from reaching an agreement, you take your business elsewhere and use reason to convince others to do the same. That's not a "monopoly", that's him having a right to be however irrational he chooses without you forcing yourself onto his property.
Whether it's for stuff we generally agree with (discrimination is bad) or playing thought police (no criticism of group X allowed), it's wrong and should be fought.
The fact that in this case (you have to rent to me and let me bring my guns, even if you're opposed) we happen to benefit doesn't make it right. It's still trampling property rights, and it opens the door to an ever increasing loss of rights (now you have to rent to me, and get rid of your guns which offend me, and charge me an amount I consider "fair" that costs you money, and quit smoking because I don't like the smell...etc).
Just as the solution to government robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't for Peter to lobby for theft on his behalf, but to have government stop stealing, the solution to the fact that government negates some property rights isn't to try to get it to dictate more things that benefit us, but to honor individual rights.
And that means if someone's ignorance keeps you two from reaching an agreement, you take your business elsewhere and use reason to convince others to do the same. That's not a "monopoly", that's him having a right to be however irrational he chooses without you forcing yourself onto his property.
firespectrum
New member
I don't think protecting the rights of a renter in this case is at the expense of the property owner. An apartment owner is a businessman doing business with the American public. It is not unusual or wrong for a private business to be subject to laws to prevent the exploitation of the American consumer. If he were a resturaunt owner he would be subject to laws compelling him to disclose the ingredients of the food he serves if asked. Even though he has freedom of speech he cannot legally make certain claims (false advertising) in his advertisements - to protect the rights of the consumer. I don't see how all this is acceptable, but protecting the 2nd ammendment rights of the consumer is somehow not acceptable.
** I do however see a distinction between an apartment complex owner and someone renting out a spare room in their house. The former should be subject to more scrutiny than the latter in much the same way that buying a gun from a dealer requires more scrutiny than a FTF transaction**
** I do however see a distinction between an apartment complex owner and someone renting out a spare room in their house. The former should be subject to more scrutiny than the latter in much the same way that buying a gun from a dealer requires more scrutiny than a FTF transaction**