Apartment residents told they cant own guns.

[tmleadr03]

well.. a landowner as well as a private business has the right to prohibit anything they want other than deny someone a lease based on color. If the landlord is going this far it is likely that the complex has a lot of problems or they suck as a management company anyway and having to move might be the best thing to happen to these people.

His house, his rules. Don't like it move to another place.

[Dave_L]

Damn. I know this guy. He's one of my old customers. He's an awesome dude. He goes gold panning, turkey hunting, etc.

[StagLefty]

His house, his rules. Don't like it move to another place.

Guys in the same situation I am-retired-fixed income. Moving isn't always an option.

[Kraven251]

DISOBEY.

...and do your best to find somewhere else to live.

[Dave_L]

If the resident was being asked to move out because he was in a same sex relationship, would it still be "His house, his rules. Don't like it, move"? What is the difference besides one is a constitutional right.

[newracer]

I can see how this would be legal if you were entering into a new lease or renewing an existing one. However if you are in the middle of a lease I do not think it would be legal unless the lease states they can change the conditions at any time.

[Skip]

His house, his rules. Don't like it move to another place.

So could the owner say he won't rent to blacks? His rules, right? Or tell folks what they can't say in their apartments? Or tell them they have to go to church on Sunday?

It's interesting how some Constitutionally protected rights are more equal than others.

[asmo]

*yawn* this issue has been going around for awhile and is the subject of several current lawsuits. A private entity cannot make another give up its rights (neither can the government without due process). End of story.

The National Rifle Association has won a round in federal court in its fight with the Wilmington Housing Authority over allowing guns in common spaces in public housing.
The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to send a ruling that barred weapons from these public spaces back to the state so the Delaware Supreme Court can weigh in on, and possibly overturn, the restriction.

...

Specifically, the Delaware justices will consider whether the WHA has the authority under the Delaware Constitution to limit the possession of firearms in its buildings and if it has the authority to demand that residents produce documents related to the weapons, like a state-issued concealed carry permit.
Legal briefing in the case is expected to be completed by November, likely followed by oral arguments sometime around the end of the year, according to attorneys.
Once the Delaware Supreme Court rules, the case will return to the U.S. 3rd Circuit for a final decision.

[rondog]

The phrase SMD comes to mind.....

[tmleadr03]

So could the owner say he won't rent to blacks? His rules, right? Or tell folks what they can't say in their apartments? Or tell them they have to go to church on Sunday?

It's interesting how some Constitutionally protected rights are more equal than others.

Honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. He wants to do that he can go right ahead. Then word gets out and his business dies due to lack of participation in the form of renters.


Free market, how does that work?