Apartment residents told they cant own guns.

[Dave_L]

Sweet! I just emailed him. I'll keep the thread updated if I hear anything.

[centrarchidae]

The Constitution restrains governments, not private actors.

Nobody but me has the right to free speech in my house. I decide for myself who gets to be armed in my house. The other two or three members here who've been in my place, I'm just fine with them being armed, but it's my house. Or if I think someone needs to be searched before he comes in, then if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to come in. And the "right to travel" described in (I think it was) the Lemuel Penn case doesn't give anybody the right to jump my fence and cross my backyard.

BTW, asmo's post immediately below yours does not describe a private landlord. The Wilmington Housing Authority is a part of city government.

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.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Anyone see on the news that the apartment complex is publicly owned and the policy has been thrown out?

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

[newracer]

http://www.9news.com/news/article/34...icy-thrown-out

[Irving]

So an HOA did something ridiculous?

[BushMasterBoy]

I knew my email to them this morning would shake them up....lol

[UrbanWolf]

http://www.9news.com/news/article/34...icy-thrown-out

Read the comments.

[asmo]

BTW, asmo's post immediately below yours does not describe a private landlord. The Wilmington Housing Authority is a part of city government.

The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.

[SA Friday]

The Constitution restrains governments, not private actors.

Nobody but me has the right to free speech in my house. I decide for myself who gets to be armed in my house. The other two or three members here who've been in my place, I'm just fine with them being armed, but it's my house. Or if I think someone needs to be searched before he comes in, then if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to come in. And the "right to travel" described in (I think it was) the Lemuel Penn case doesn't give anybody the right to jump my fence and cross my backyard.

BTW, asmo's post immediately below yours does not describe a private landlord. The Wilmington Housing Authority is a part of city government.

The constitution restricts private parties actions all the time... Individual rights have been protected on many occasions from private entities stopping one form of discrimination or another. In this case, the entity in question is a company in the business of renting living spaces. Living spaces are afforded more restrictive constitutional rights. One cannot simply toss a guy out on his ear that is renting an apartment even if he's a month behind on the rent. They have to be evicted, 90 days if it's fast. You cannot shut off their power or water to get them to leave. You cannot change the locks or remove their private possessions. These have all been held up in court. Both of my parents were property managers my whole life and managed apartments. No way this would stick. A new contract, probably grounds for beginning an eviction but still none of the above until the eviction is completed.

Ultimately, I would like to see a court rule on something like this ban. After DC v Heller established 2a as an individual right, I think any challenge of this type of policy would be found unconstitutional, much like any other individual right barring someone from living there legitimately. This smells like allowing someone to live there and then telling them they can't have any visitors darker than a paper bag at their residence. I just don't see it surviving legal challenge of any muster.

[asmo]

The Constitution restrains governments, not private actors.
Nobody but me has the right to free speech in my house.

Sorry. Not quite true. You cannot violate anothers civil rights just because they are on your property.