Pro-gun discrimination.

[-..__...]

Hypothetical question for anti-gun types (pro RKBA types can play also).

You're a landlord. You own at least one or more multi-dwelling buildings (3 or more units each). You may or may not be living in one of the units you own.

Depending on the locality, there are rental agreements involved.

You find the perfect tenant... excellent references, long term employment and credit history, but the person (of their own free will), tells you that they own firearms. Would you rent to this person or not? If they didn't tell, would you ask if they did own firearms? Would it make a difference if you lived there or not? Would you prohibit any sort of firearms in the rental agreement? Suppose the person is a member of the NRA? (you know this because they have an NRA sticker on their vehicle). What if you didn't know at the time, but found out later that the person owned and stored firearms in one of your apartments? How would you respond?

Keep in mind that the person you're renting to has no other black marks that would make for a less than ideal tenant.

For pro-gun people, I'm assuming the above mentioned questions are a non-issue. Given the same circumstances, how would you deal with another tenant that was complaining or over reacting about another tenant tat owned and kept firearms?

For all... are discriminatory practices against gun owners acceptable?

[efhmc]

1. Ah, you obviously do not live in Texas, where it would just be assumed

that you owned firearms.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Most NRA members are responsible

The NRA as an organization leaves a lot to be desired, but being a member is no indication of irresponsibility or impulsiveness.

Generally, firearms are not included in lease agreements, either as being allowed or forbidden. If the renter is restricted from owning firearms -- say, he's a convicted felon -- then it might be a violation of the lease. But under most circumstances of which I'm aware, gun owners are assumed to be innocent until and unless found guilty of some crime.

If another tenant is upset that the person owns firearms, that's probably his/her problem. There is such a thing as being "too sensitive".

I am NOT fond of the Gun Culture in this country, but if you're living within the law, then there should be no problem.

--bkl

[demsrule4life]

4. Man you are going to catch hell in about

eight hours.

[MrSandman]

5. Lack of influence from the membersip at large...

is what turns me off to NRA...and most other national RKBA groups.

[demsrule4life]

6. Influence or participation?

[MrSandman]

7. Participation breeds influence

Let them fight the court battles. With te information available online, I can participate more directly.

[alwynsw]

12. Wise words, Grasshopper

The NRA as an organization leaves a lot to be desired, but being a member is no indication of irresponsibility or impulsiveness.

But you ARE gonna catch hell over that statement. I can hardly wait for the fireworks to begin. I'll be in your corner - EXCEPT FOR - I am NOT fond of the Gun Culture in this country, but if you're living within the law, then there should be no problem. But, it is a semi-free country and I'll support your right to that opinion all day long.

What can I say? I'm a proud, gun totin', lunatic asswipe who just happens to embrce personal rights and freedoms.

[lcordero]

3. I'd keep him or her

and tell the rest of the tenants not to turn up the radio or have any parties to disturb the new tenant because the new tenant might go postal:evilgrin:

[Fescue4u]

8. I wouldnt care (and didnt care)

Im progun but I've was a landlord back when I was anti-gun.

There so many ways you can (and do) get screwed as a landlord, guns were never even a consideration.

As long they paid ontime, and didnt tear up the place, I was quite happy.

There are WAY many more concerns when renting real estate than their stance on this particular civil right.

(on edit: My concern was always drug use/dealing, as my locality had some laws that punished the landlord for drug issues with tenants(!).)

[mulethree]

9. courts

Courts can't seem to agree whether the U.S. constitution and 2nd amendment protect gun ownership. There are many Supreme Court rulings saying it is only a right within the context of a militia. But other cases basically define everyone as militia, or at least men 17-49, draft-able = militia?

Other arguments are you don't need an explicit right. You have the right to life = right to defend your life = right to have the tools to defend your life = right to guns of the sort used for defending oneself. right to life = right to feed yourself = right to tools for hunting.

The Clinton justice department had a brief out that it WAS NOT PROTECTED except in the context of the right to serve in a state militia. Ashecroft's justice department was rumored to try and reverse that, I see a few news articles implying he was about to do it (summer 2002?), But I don't find anything they actually released stating it. But evidently, the Justice departments agree that - the Supreme Court and Constitution are nebulous on the matter, such that it will remain open to debate.

ACLU - seems to be neutral on the issue.
US constitution says if it's not in there (and I don't see any other mentions of arms control) then it's a matter for the states, though somewhere along the line (maybe 1860?) they seem to have twisted that meaning so that congress started taking over stuff the constitution had put in the hands of the individual states.
My state's constitution does - explicitly state everybody may keep a gun for self defense.

I happen like the "right to defend yourself = right to appropriate gun" logic and most gun control laws seem to reflect that - people who aren't known troublemakers should have the right to keep some classes of guns. The laws differ on whether you should be able to carry them open, concealed or not at all and on the classes of guns.

I think you should think about ..... His truck. It's 3 tons of metal, can go 90 miles an hour, could easily kill you or maim you or knock the building down. Much more dangerous than a gun. Yet you trust people with trucks all the time.

[RoeBear]

10. My response would be...

...so what?

On edit...Maybe I would ask if he was wanting to put in a very large and heavy gun safe. I would also suggest that he carry insurance to cover theft, but I suggest that to anyone anyways.

[alwynsw]

11. What's the issue?

Sounds like a sterling tenant to me.

Unless the firearms are illegal in your area or the porspective tenant is legally barred form ownership (which he evidently is not, given the scenario described), there's no problem at all. Legal firearm ownership is not a black mark. Would you deny residence to someone who owned liquor, porn, cigarettes - barring any local ordinance or deed restriction prohibiting these things? This would be akin to a Christian lessor denying a lessee because he owned a Koran.

The complaining tenant needs to tend to his own affairs. If no laws are being broken; he has no complaint.

Discrimination in any form as outlined above is equivalent to racial, religious, etc. discrimination.

[iverglas]

13. not a hypothetical question here

About 10 years ago, I rented an apartment to a good friend, who had started out being the contractor who did some reno work on my own house and then on the duplex I'd just bought that he moved into, in my downtown neighbourhood in a medium-to-large sized Canadian city.

I knew he owned firearms -- two, as I understood it, one of them a handgun. Legally, but I don't know for what purpose. Although I gathered that he had a licence to own, but not to transport -- don't ask me.

I told him that I would require that the firearms not be kept in the apartment. He agreed without hesitation. He was engaged in one of those "trial separations" with his wife, and he was perfectly happy to leave the firearms at their home in the country, where she was still living and he still had most of his stuff. Whatever he might have used them for, if anything, he didn't need them here.

I now have a standard "no-firearms" clause in leases for the duplex, but since I've mainly rented to friends, and none of my urban friends except him have ever owned firearms, it's not an issue. Otherwise, I would certainly ask, draw the person's attention to the clause in the lease, and ascertain that s/he agreed not to keep firearms on the premises. If I found out that the rule had been violated, and if the tenant did not remedy the violation as permitted in Ontario provincial law, I would have grounds for early termination of the tenancy.

There are all sorts of quite good reasons why I don't want firearms in my neighbourhood and on property I own. I don't have to explain them, or justify my decision, to tenants or prospective tenants of my property.

I am required, by Ontario law --
http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h19_e.htm
-- to provide the residential rental services that I provide to the public "without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance". Obviously, I would never dream of discriminating on any such basis.

I would, however, "discriminate" against people with large barking dogs, or multiple-tailpiped cars, or anything else I happened to think it was not in my interests to have on my property. Discrimination is only "discrimination" when it denies someone equal treatment on the basis of an inherent characteristic or a characteristic that is fundamental or where discrimination would be inconsistent with the person's dignity and worth as an individual:

And Whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province; ...

If someone measures his/her dignity and worth by the firearms s/he possesses, that's his/her problem, and is not reflected in public policy any more than my measuring my dignity or worth by the potted plants I possess would be.

It's my property, and subject to any legislation that applies, I'll do what I damn well want with it. Wouldn't that be consistent with the American Way?

.

[iverglas]

14. well gosh

I guess everybody agreed with me. Glad to see such clear thinking, y'all.

.

[RoeBear]

15. As a tenant I would not have asked you...

...unless I was wanting to put in a large gun safe.

If I was renting from you and you found out later that I owned guns what would you do? (no gun safe)

[iverglas]

16. I know there were probably too many words there ...

But I really did answer your questions before you asked them in this post.


As a tenant I would not have asked you...
...unless I was wanting to put in a large gun safe.

As a LANDLORD, *I* would have asked *YOU*.

Your original post said:

You find the perfect tenant... excellent references, long term employment and credit history, but the person (of their own free will), tells you that they own firearms. Would you rent to this person or not?

I replied (emphasis added):

"I now have a standard 'no-firearms' clause in leases for the duplex, but since I've mainly rented to friends, and none of my urban friends except him <the friend who was my first tenant> have ever owned firearms, it's not an issue. Otherwise, I would certainly ask, draw the person's attention to the clause in the lease, and ascertain that s/he agreed not to keep firearms on the premises."

I really do have a no-firearms clause in my leases; as I said, this was not hypothetical. (I just looked for a copy to show you, but it's on my old computer which isn't here.) I might not have thought of it were it not for the fact that I knew that my first tenant owned firearms, but it's so unlikely that anyone I would consider renting to would own firearms that it's kinda moot anyhow.

Of course, I figured it would be understood that if the tenant did *not* agree not to keep firearms on the premises -- and signing the lease would be agreement not to keep firearms on the premises, I would just make sure that the prospective tenant clearly understood this fact -- I would *not* rent the apartment to him/her.

And if it seemed to me that the prospective tenant was not being truthful about agreeing not to keep firearms in the apartment, then I also would not rent the apartment to him/her.


If I was renting from you and you found out later that I owned guns what would you do? (no gun safe)

If I found out that a tenant had a firearm in the apartment I had rented to him/her, I would point to the no-firearms clause in the tenancy agreement ("lease") that the tenant signed, and inform the tenant that I required him/her to remedy the breach of the tenancy agreement -- to get the firearm off the property immediately and not bring it onto the property again. (I might well call the police, so that they could ascertain that the tenant was not in illegal possession of the firearm and deal with it if s/he was, before taking steps myself.)

I could do this informally if I wanted, by visiting the tenant and obtaining his/her agreement to abide by the rule and not break it again in future, if I thought we could resolve the problem amicably and wanted to keep the tenant. I can't think of any reason why I would want to keep such a tenant, of course.

Otherwise, the way things are normally done in Ontario is to serve a written notice of early termination of the tenancy agreement by the landlord, informing the tenant what the reason for the termination is, and - in cases of rules violations - telling the tenant that s/he has ten days to remedy the violation, i.e. stop breaking the rule and obey it from now on, or the tenancy will be terminated and the landlord may proceed to get an eviction order and have the tenant put out.

(If it turned out that the tenant was in illegal possession of the firearm, I'd hope that I would *not* have to give him/her a second chance, but I'd have to look into that.)

A tenant who believes that the notice is not valid may dispute it in court. A tenant who remedies the violation -- in this case, removes the firearms from the premises -- is entitled to a second chance and gets to stay, but doesn't get a third chance if s/he breaks the rule again.

And I would absolutely not hesitate to do any of those things if that was what it took to get the firearms off my property and out of my neighbourhood.

In the real world, there is very little chance of anything like this ever happening. No normal person who applied to rent an apartment from me would be remotely likely to possess firearms. And so I'd probably have other reasons for being unwilling to rent an apartment to someone who was likely to have firearms -- like the fact that the person didn't have a job, didn't have references from a former landlord, or gave other common indications of being a criminal or at least an unpleasant and untrustworthy sort of character.

This being Canada and all, y'know.

.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

20. I'm laughing so hard I can barely breathe!

Thanks for the link, RoeBear. I think a lot of "enthusiasts" on this board could use that treatment.

[RoeBear]

19. As a LANDLORD, *I* would have asked *YOU*.

And I would have either said "Fuck off it's non of your God damned business" or lied and moved in with my weapons of mass destruction.

[MrBenchley]

22. "...lied and moved in..." Sez it all, doesn't it?

[RoeBear]

37. I just find it hilarious that...

...a landlord would be such a bed wetter over whether a tenant had guns or not.

Things I would want to know: credit history, pets, past landlord reference, criminal record, current employer...etc. You know things that actually make a difference.

[iverglas]

58. well hey

I just find it hilarious that...
...a landlord would be such a bed wetter over whether a tenant had guns or not.

I'm sure some people, possibly me among them, would find it hilarious that a landlord would be such a bed wetter over whether a tenant had pets or not.

You irrationally afraid of goldfish or something?

Ichthyophobia can be treated, you know.


Actually, I wouldn't laugh at all. Laughing at people who actually do have problems like enuresis and phobias just isn't nice.

And of course making fun of people by pretending to think that they have such disabilities, and pretending to laugh at them for it, is nothing more nor less than making fun of people who really do have such disabilities.

.

[CO Liberal]

24. Is This Yet ANOTHER Example.....

...of the mindset of the typical "law-abiding gun owner" that we don't have to worry about???

With each passing day, RoeBear, your posts only serve to strengthen my resolve to support reasonable gun control measures.

[RoeBear]

29. This has nothing to do with being a "law-abiding gun owner" ...

...it has to do with people asking questions that are non of their business.

[MrBenchley]

30. Sure it does

A lease is a legal document.

And a landlord has a responsibility to provide a safe dwelling for his tenants.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

35. Hmm

And a landlord has a responsibility to provide a safe dwelling for his tenants.

IF true then the landlord in this case is doing the exact opposite.

Seems that a landlord truly interested in a safe dwelling would not hold to the assinine and erroneous viewpoint that wishing guns away makes people safer.

[MrBenchley]

44. <sarcasm> Yeah, somebody lying about their guns

will certainly make people feel safe.</sarcasm>

[Man_in_the_Moon]

47. It has nothing to do with 'feelings'

It has to do with a landlord creating a situation where someone does not have the tools with which to protect themselves from predators.

'Feeling safe' has little or nothing to do with the issue.

I am sure many people out there might 'feel safe' if no one of color was allowed to be a tenant, but denying those people of color the ability of living there in reality does little to change the actual safety of the property. The same is true with firearms.

[MrBenchley]

51. Sure it does...

There's no reason to endanger tenants just beccause some paranoid is sniveling about "predators".

[RoeBear]

53. So if I rent from you...

...you'll guarantee that if some bad person tries to enter my apartment the police (men with guns) will arrive in time to stop them?
Or are you going to stop them yourself?

[MrBenchley]

59. You're not renting from me

now that I know you lie on your lease and brag about it.

[Superfly]

65. Just be sure to keep a lookout for somebody who

puts "RoeBear" on their application.

:freak:

[RoeBear]

66. What does that emoticon...

...mean anyways? I never quite got it.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

54. Who is the paranoid?

The person who chooses to have on hand a tool with which to defend themselves. Much the same as people keep a fire extinguisher around.

OR

The person that would insanely ban tenants from having such a tool, out of an irrational and silly fear?

[MrBenchley]

60. I'd say the sort of person who asks the landlord

about "predators" will fit the bill...

"And is this the only closet? And can I kill any predators I see? Who pays for the electricity?"

[iverglas]

63. I give up - me?

The person that would insanely ban tenants from having such a tool, out of an irrational and silly fear?

Or did you have someone else in mind?

If you say you did, maybe you could provide us all with a statement, in your own words of course, of why *I* ban my tenants from having firearms on my property ... one that would distinguish me from a "person that would insanely ban tenants from having such a tool, out of an irrational and silly fear".

I'm very sure that you don't think -- and you would certainly not say at DU -- that *I* do what I do insanely and out of irrational and silly fear. Please show me that my faith is not misplaced, and dispel any suspicion I might have that I have been the subject of a personal attack!

.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

43. Hahahahahahahahahaha

Great site!

[DoNotRefill]

76. violating the terms of a lease...

isn't a criminal act. Never has been, never will be.

[CO Liberal]

33. Ahh, But They ARE The Landlord's Business

A landlord has a right to know if any hazardous or dangerous items will be stored in their building.

This just sounds like more of the same old gun owners line - "I'll only obey the laws I agree with."

[Man_in_the_Moon]

39. Hmm

I guess you feel that a landlord should know and be able to stop someone from owning a bottle of clorox bleach, or some ammonia, or some liquid drain cleaner, for those are truly hazardous and dangerous items.

[iverglas]

61. yeah, actually

I really am perfectly entitled to require that my tenants not use substances like bleach and ammonia or drain clearner, if I happen not to want my property used to pollute the environment. I am entitled to require that there be no smoking on the premises, too.

If I want my tenants to abide by a set of rules that include using only biodegradable cleaning products on the property, and not permit a fire hazard (which smoking is) to exist on the property, I may require that they abide by those rules. If they don't like it, they can go someplace else.

That answer the question?

Of course, a smoker could always argue that s/he has a disability ...

.

[Superfly]

40. No they are not...

It's as absurd as asking a tenant if they engage in sodomy. None of their fucking business.

Now, where there are local, state, or federal requirements for the disclosure or storage of items such as explosives, caustic chemicals, etc, yes, then the landlord is justified.

But, then again, the prospective tenant always has the right to move along, as I would even if the landlord asked the question. It would indicate a level of "snoopiness" that I would not be comfortable with.

[iverglas]

62. you might think something absurd

But that simply does not mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to do it.

It also doesn't mean that you are right, of course. Absurdity is just so often one of those eye-of-the-beholder things.

I just love how some people argue the letter of the law, as they interpret it, for their own purposes ... and seem to think that there should be some other standard for other people's purposes.

My local human rights legislation does not prohibit me from refusing to rent to individuals on the ground that they intend to keep firearms on my property. (And my constitution does not require that my local human rights legislation prohibit me from doing that.)

And I really just can't think of any justification for my provincial government prohibiting me from refusing to rent to individuals on the ground that they intend to keep firearms on my property.

I'm not clear; do you think that it should prohibit me from doing that?? (And of course: if so, why?)

And if not, why would you think (if you do) that anyone else's opinion about what I do with my property would be of interest? Surely, it being *my* property, all that needs to be said is that I can do with it what I want, within the law.

If you owned a vegetarian restaurant, would you be interested in the opinion of someone who thought that you ought not to refuse to sell your patrons steaks?

.

.

[DoNotRefill]

78. How about refusing to rent to a registered conservative?

Or refusing to rent to registered voters?

[iverglas]

79. well there ain't no such animal ... but

Electors here don't register as supporters of any party -- that there is personal private information. They can take out membership in a party if they want (and party membership lists are kept confidential), and thus have a say in the party's policy and nomination processes, but they get registered (until recently called "enumerated") to vote by Elections Canada, by name and address only.

So ... I suppose I could ask people to declare to me whether they belonged to a political party and what it was, and send them packing if they told me it was the Liberal Party. (Frankly, I'd likely be more inclined to rent to a member of the Conservative Party ... less likely to be a corrupt slimeball.)

I quoted the relevant bit from the Ontario Human Rights Code -- I don't think it says anything about not discriminating in the rental of accommodation on the basis of political opinion or affiliation.

I don't have access to information about whether someone is registered to vote. That's personal private information, again. Of course, if I were a member of a party and had scooped a copy of the voters' lists provided to the party in the last election (probably improper, possibly even illegal, but the lists get spread around to everybody working in a campaign), and knew where the prospective tenant had lived at the time, I could check it out.

Or maybe I could ask whether the prospective tenant planned to allow his/her name to be placed on the voters' list, and only offer to rent if s/he said "no", and make it a rule that tenants not be registered to vote -- maybe if I were a JoHo, like. And then if I found his/her name on the list, try to evict for violating a rule?

Well, if my reason for the rule were religious, it would be discrimination on the ground of religion. If it were purely a whim, I dunno. Interesting question. My lease rule might be tossed out on general contract law principles -- a contract term that is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable. If this is the closed-book law school exam question of the day, I'll make that my answer.

But nope, a clause prohibiting firearms on the rented premises would not be contrary to public policy. That I can assure you of. ;)

.

[DoNotRefill]

80. Laws differ...

here at least, under our state's landlord-tenant act, a clause prohibiting firearms in the dwelling would likely be ruled to be unenforceable.

[DoNotRefill]

77. Please cite the criminal code....

that violating a lease condition breaks.

[FeebMaster]

36. You know CO,

since your resolve to support reasonable gun control measures is so strong, you might find it interesting that the Democrats are a distant second as far as the passing of federal gun control legislation goes. At least in the last 25 or 30 years or so.

[DoNotRefill]

75. Ummm, CO....

violating a term of a lease isn't a criminal act, is it? Does violating a lease carry stiff jail sentences out there?

[CO Liberal]

83. Depends How You Violate The Lease

Running a meth lab would be one thing - anything else (such as having a gun when the landlord specifically said "no guns") may constitute a breach of contract. There may be civil penalties for something like that but since I'm not a lawyer, I don't know.

BTW, sorry to hear about your family members - if I don't see you for a while, take care.

Wayne
(CO Liberal)

[DoNotRefill]

84. running a meth lab...

is a criminal act regardless of a lease. The breach of contract would be immaterial for such a charge.

[Superfly]

26. I'm with you...

but you have to realize that iverglas is Canadian and they have different rules up there for landlord-tenant disclosures.

I have never been asked whether or not I have firearms, and I would never disclose that information if I was ever asked, just as I would not disclose my sexual practices, what TV shows I like to watch, etc..

If it became a barrier to occupation, I would most likely just move along as the issue of firearms will probably not be the only isolated source of future tension and friction.

[iverglas]

55. and then ...

I have never been asked whether or not I have firearms, and I would never disclose that information if I was ever asked, just as I would not disclose my sexual practices, what TV shows I like to watch, etc..

... your prospective landlord could simply refuse to rent you an apartment. **Unless** what you were refusing to disclose related to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

(Up here, that would include at least some aspects of your "sexual practices", you will have noted from the legislation I quoted. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the Canadian Constitution requires any provincial human rights codes that do *not* include a prohibition on discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation must be applied as if they did include such a prohibition, because failing to prohibit such discrimination is a violation of the constitutional equality rights of GLBT people. Ha, match that.)


If it became a barrier to occupation, I would most likely just move along as the issue of firearms will probably not be the only isolated source of future tension and friction.

There ya go! Kind of a litmus test, eh?

Someone who didn't want to rent to you because you owned firearms is probably not the kind of person you want to rent from ... just as someone who owns firearms would probably probably not be the kind of person I want to rent an apartment to.

The difference between owning firearms and things like having a disability and being of a particular ethnic origin is that you have a choice as to whether to own firearms or not, and people don't have choices about whether to have a disability or whether to be of a particular ethnic origin. We can put "being homosexual" in this category too, in all probability. Up here, at least, we don't think that people should be denied housing or other services because of things they have no control over.

And the difference between owning a firearm (or liking to watch Dragnet on TV) and being a JoHo or a parent is that owning a firearm (or liking to watch Dragnet on TV) is not a fundamental element of a person's identity, and permitting the refusal of a service to someone because s/he is in possession of a firearm does not express disrespect for the worth and dignity of that individual. Up here, at least (and the Massachusetts Supreme Court does seem to agree), we don't think that people should be treated in ways that make them feel that their inherent worth and dignity are less than other people's because they are different from others in ways that define their very being.

There's also the fact that while a tenant's race or religion or sexual orientation is of no relevance in assessing his/her qualities as a tenant, firearms possession is very arguably relevant to a landlord's choice of tenant, given the statistically higher probability of harm occurring where a firearm is present and the fact that a landlord might quite reasonably wish to avoid disputes involving him/herself or his/her other tenants, which are reasonably foreseeable in the residential rental biz, being disputes with armed tenants, in favour of disputes with unarmed tenants.

Of course, there's also the fact that firearms owners are not members of a historically persecuted and stereotyped minority needing protection against discriminatory treatment by the majority. (You may think that *I* have a stereotyped vision of firearms owners, but that would be just me.)

If a landlord turns me down because I have a purple sofa, them's the breaks. Unless I can successfully argue that because women have a higher propensity than men to own purple sofas (or, if I were a man, that gay men have a higher propensity to own purple sofas than straight people), this was really disguised discrimination on the ground of sex (or sexual orientation). Kinda like turning me down because I have a crucifix around my neck wouldn't really be because the landlord didn't like people who wore jewelery.

Hey -- since men have a higher propensity than women to own firearms, maybe somebody could argue that I was discriminating against a prospective tenant who was a male firearm owner on the prohibited ground of sex ...


(ed. because I'd misread "barrier to occupation" as meaning a barrier to employment in an occupation rather than to occupation of premises)

.

[iverglas]

17. oh, and btw

If I applied to rent an apartment from someone who made it a condition of the lease that I keep a firearm in the apartment, and I refused to agree to do so, that landlord could perfectly legally "discriminate against" me and refuse to rent the apartment to me, too.

I mean, unless maybe I were a Quaker and it was against my religious beliefs to have a firearm, which would make the rule discrimination on the ground of religion ... or maybe if I were a parent and successfully argued that requiring me to keep a firearm, which I believed would endanger my children, amounted to discrimination on the ground of "family status" against people who have children, which is illegal discrimination ...

.

[RoeBear]

21. So all I need is a religious loophole...

...there's gotta be some religion that requires gun ownership.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

23. Christianity

Didnt Jesus say something about if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one?

Seems to me he was advocating personal arms.

[iverglas]

31. seems to you

But of course, how something seems to you might not be our best guide to what something means.

Didnt Jesus say something about if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one?
Seems to me he was advocating personal arms.

And wouldn't ya just think he might have practised what he was, it seems to you, preaching??

Funny how he didn't.

How it seems to a possibly more informed, thoughtful person -- a professor of New Testament at a theological centre:

http://www.ecapc.org/articles/RensbeD_HS4_BuyASword.htm

... What sense does it make, though, for Jesus to urge his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords if they need to, only to tell them a few minutes later not to use the few swords they have? Only in Luke do the disciples ask whether they should attack with their swords, and their question is a very obvious reference back to the dialogue after the Last Supper.

Therefore it seems to provide a kind of commentary on that dialogue, a guide for interpreting it -- or at least for how it should not be interpreted. It is not to be taken literally as a commandment to acquire and bear arms; if it were, Jesus would not (a) be satisfied with two swords, (b) tell his disciples to stop using even those two, and (c) undo the effects of their use. In fact, the events at Jesus' arrest may indicate that his comment "It is enough" (Luke 22:38) means, "All right, that's enough, you folks with your swords clearly aren't getting my point."

What is the point, though? What does the instruction "whoever does not have one should sell his cloak and buy a sword" mean? It goes along with taking purses and bags for a journey, and also with Jesus' assertion that he must be "counted among the lawless" in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12.

How does one get ready to be "counted among the lawless"? Jesus' answer to that is ironic. He is about to be arrested, tried, and crucified as an outlaw; very well then, let his followers behave like a gang of thugs, grab their bags to fill up with loot, and get a grip on their swords! He's going to be strung up between two criminals -- Luke makes a point of calling them that (22:32-33) -- so his disciples might as well equip themselves for the part. What, they only have two swords? Well, that's enough -- since Jesus is not seriously giving them instructions, only making an ironic joke out of the whole situation.

His disciples don't seem to get the joke; but is that anything new? Indeed, it has been suggested that the disciples' use of purses, bags, and swords in this moment is part of their failure under the testing of Satan, the same failure that includes their dispute about greatness and Peter's denial of Jesus (see 22:24-26, 31-34). They want to be great, they deny Jesus when they feel themselves endangered, they fortify themselves with goods and weapons -- it sounds all too much like the failures of the church in many ages. ...

And the failures of uninformed, unthoughtful people throughout the ages, some might say.

... Of course, it is true that the disciples do actually possess two swords. Does this tell us something about the nature of following Jesus? If Jesus was that much of a pacifist, what were his followers doing bearing arms? It's a valid point as far as it goes; but it doesn't go very far. As noted above, the "swords" in question were only short daggers, of a kind that scholars often characterize as standard equipment for travelers in that culture. In fact, the more relevant question is, if wearing these daggers was so commonplace, why weren't more of Jesus' followers so equipped? Why were there only two swords among them? Going on a journey without a sword was like going without a bag of supplies: it left a man vulnerable and defenseless. Why were nearly all of Jesus' disciples so ill equipped -- unless it was precisely their discipleship that had made them that way?

Jesus was evidently not hard-nosed about this, and some of his followers hadn't yet been able to part with their daggers. But he seems to have been nudging them in that direction, and he gave them one last pointer when he was arrested: totally unarmed himself, he refused to let the disciples use the few weapons they still possessed. There is not only a new vision of personal morality here, but a new social and political vision as well. Far from truly wanting his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords, in Luke's story Jesus takes an ironic jab at their situation as "outlaws" who have no weapons, and sends them forth to his crucifixion -- and their own -- as defenseless as he is.

This appears to be a very common Christian interpretation of the whole thing.

One thing I looked at pointed out that, apart from the fact that Jesus himself never lifted a finger in his own defence or permitted anyone else to do so, there is no record in the New Testament of ANY Christian EVER doing any such thing, except Peter whom Jesus rebuked in the incident referred to in the passages above -- despite all the Christians who were being persecuted and killed by their adversaries.

Odd, that.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I always find it interesting when self-described Christians don't quite seem to match the model. And of course I'm never pleased when anyone represents anything at all as meaning something that it very likely doesn't mean at all.

.

[iverglas]

25. you could ask the Taliban

They might have a religion to suit you.

Or hell, maybe that Ashcroft fellow would oblige.

How about old "Moses" himself?

.

[MrBenchley]

27. Why not a fake religion too?

It will fit right in with the phony interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the revisionist history, and Mary Rosh's pseudoscience, and the phony "grassroots groups" and all the rest of the claptrap that makes up the bogus "gun rights" movement.

[Superfly]

28. Tell you what....

You keep peddling that unabridged horseshit and I'll just post this little map to remind you of your progress in getting your message out there:

[MrBenchley]

32. Gee, fly....

All the map shows is what blood money and the crooked GOP can do.

It doesn't make the "gun rights" movemennt any less a dishonest piece of shit.

[Superfly]

34. Uh, yeah....suuuuuurrrre

(I think your side is losing)

[demsrule4life]

38. You think?

[Superfly]

41. I don't know....it's a pretty close race....hahahahahahahahaha

[Wcross]

71. Waitin for the blood here in Tennessee......

We have adopted "shall issue" and I am waiting for all the shootouts to start. Of course I have been waiting 3+ years, even went and got a permit myself. Seems like the criminal element never worried about permits and such. In fact, it seems the only people applying for a permit are those that DON'T want to commit a crime.

[MrSandman]

72. Only 3 years?

I have been waiting for going on 15 years. Nothing yet.

[FeebMaster]

73. It's only a matter of time. (nt)

...

[MrBenchley]

45. Gee, and yet I don't have to lie on MY lease

or invent a fake religion for the sake of a fetish...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

48. Nope.

I can actually use real sources, not crap from right wing cesspools like Newsmax and fraudulent cut and paste jobs.

[Superfly]

50. Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh, man you're killing me today! Really...stop it!

[FeebMaster]

49. fake religion?

How does one distinguish between a "fake" religion and a "real" one?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

56. 'fake' ones make more sense.

[RoeBear]

52. What would your response be if...

... a landlord told you 'we don't rent to people who post to message boards about gun control'?

[MrBenchley]

57. Gee, I'd find another apartment

But then most people are in favor of gun control.

[iverglas]

64. oh no

But then most people are in favor of gun control.

We're the *majority*??

Does that mean that firearms owners really *are* a persecuted minority and that I can look forward to being forced to rent apartments to them??

I shall refrain from expressing any thoughts about how one might tell the difference between a persecuted minority group and a roomful of paranoids ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

74. Did you do anything to improve overall security?

I know the laws differ between the US and Canada, but I recall hearing something a while back about the liability aspects of such an act.

IIRC, there was a store which had a "no CCW in the store" policy. One of their customers was attacked in the parking lot on the way in. He had left his licensed firearm in the car to comply with their policy. He was injured but survived. He sued them, and the court found that by posting the sign and having the policy, the store owed a greater duty to provide for the security of their customers on their property. By allowing the customer to be attacked after requiring that the customer was disarmed of the means to resist the attacker effectively, the store assumed liability for his injuries. I recall another similar case involving a local hotel which had a "no guns" policy and had an in-house bar, after an intoxicated bar patron raped a female hotel guest who was disarmed by the policy. The hotel in question had an armed security guard on-site 24/7, but was still held to be liable.

[iverglas]

81. forgive me, but

That just looks like one of those litigious-idiot cases, waaaay down the evolutionary scale from hot coffee and transfatty food cases.

<i><b>Did the individual in question at some point lose the ability to choose for himself whether or not to enter a store that prohibited him from toting a firearm into it???</b></i>

Whew, spare me from that kinda "reasoning", I'm afraid.

What did I do to improve "overall security"? I didn't have to do anything. The tenant was perfectly free to rent or not rent the apartment, under the terms and conditions I and the law imposed on him. If he didn't like those terms and conditions, he could either lump them and comply with them, or walk away.

I provided a rental unit with brand new, lockable doors and windows, a brand new furnace, brand new wiring and light fixtures, brand new hard-wired smoke detectors, and the seal of approval from the city building apartment and all the relevant authorities. I provided exactly what I was required by law to provide (and a fair bit more). If someone had thought that s/he needed a personal bodyguard on the premises in order to be safe, I wouldn't have had to provide that.

And I don't have to be governed by any tenant's or prospective tenant's notions about what else s/he needs to be safe -- because I am entitled to take *my* interests, and my other tenants' interests (which obviously at least overlap my interests), and the interests of anyone else I like, into account in deciding what is safe and what is not safe, and what will be allowed and what won't. Imagine if one tenant thought that having a chihuaha made him/her safe enough, while another didn't feel safe unless s/he had ten trained attack-Dobermans in the house ... and I had to allow it. Ha! I think not.

.

[DoNotRefill]

82. So, since bungee-jumping is an ultra-hazardous activity....

people running bungee-jumping services shouldn't be held accountable if they make reckless and irresponsible decisions which result in their customers being killed?

Here, at least, if you deny somebody the ability to defend themselves, you assume responsibility for protecting them. Failure to adequately protect them to the level that they could have protected themselves is actionable. And unlike the "McDonald's made me fat" case, these not only survived motions for summary judgment, but the plaintiffs in both cases were victorious on the merits.

[iverglas]

85. that's as may be

" the plaintiffs in both cases were victorious on the merits"

There's just no accounting for trial outcomes, is there? 'Specially if a jury is involved.

I'd still love to know how the plaintiffs explained what bizarre compulsion they were acting under when they entered a business that denied them their means of self-protection. Surely if they thought it necessary to have a firearm with them at all times to ensure their survival, their own stupidity in going somewhere without it would have been a complete answer to any claim against someone else for what happened to them that they could have prevented if they'd had their trusty concealed weapon.

Whither all that personal responsibility??

I'd sure as hell expect any Canadian court to agree with me on that point, if any tenant o' mine tried such a silly legal stunt here.

You didn't feel safe without a gun by your bed? Then why did you rent an apartment where you could not keep a gun??


So, since bungee-jumping is an ultra-hazardous activity....
people running bungee-jumping services shouldn't be held accountable if they make reckless and irresponsible decisions which result in their customers being killed?

Now you really are just being silly, right?

Their silly irresponsible decisions would presumably relate to the operation of their equipment, or the location of their equipment, or something else having to do with the service they are selling their customers. Obviously they would be liable for the consequenes of those decisions. But if they decided to offer peanut butter sandwiches for sale on their premises, and posted a sign saying "peanuts on the premises", and someone allergic to peanuts entered their premises anyway and died, are you suggesting that they would be liable for the death??

It beats me how a store owner could be held liable for injury caused by someone committing a crime on his/her premises, anyhow. As far as I know, store owners are not insurers of their customers' safety. Occupiers' liability to "invitees", which is what customers are, sure wasn't liability as an insurer when I went to law school. And I just don't see how the reasonable care they are required to take could involve guaranteeing that no third party will unlawfully enter and commit a crime.

Now on the other hand ... that case of the guy who burgled the insecticide-filled house and died ... that, the owner would be liable for. Occupiers have a duty not to lay traps even for trespassers, and failing to erect strong warning signs about the serious danger within that house would indeed be a failure in that duty. Failure to securely lock the building would also be problematic. (Imagine if a kid had wandered in.)

Then the burglar could have just taken his/her own chances, and been responsible for his/her own injury or death. Just as a customer who chose, of his/her own free will, to comply with the conditions placed on "invitees" of a business, and was injured by someone over whom the business had no control and for whose actions the business had no responsibility, would be responsible for his/her own injury or death (as between him/her and the business owner, of course).

Hell, businesses that sell food that harms people's health go to great effort and expense to get people to buy that food, without warning them at all of the dangers. I find it much easier to see liability for the resultant harm there than I do in those weirdo cases of yours.

.

[DoNotRefill]

86. With the insecticide-filled house...

if it wasn't filled with insecticide as a trap, and instead was simply being fumigated in the normal course of making the place habitable, why would there be liability if the intruder was breaking and entering? If that was the case, then wouldn't a homeowner be liable if a burglar tripped over the ottoman one too many times and lost his mind?

It's true that you can't set traps such as spring-guns, et cetera, in an unoccupied dwelling with the intent of killing an intruder in the US, but that's based upon the idea that life is more valuable than property. I've never heard of charges being brought in the US for somebody boobytrapping their own home while they were IN RESIDENCE, as a matter of protecting their own lives from an intruder. Certainly, it's legal in most of the US to shoot a home invader if you're in fear of your life, without even fleeing if an escape route is readily available.

While store owners are not insurers of the safety of their customers, they ARE liable for things that happen on their premesis, if their actions contributed to it. Just as a company would be liable for having wet, slippery floors that they failed to correct which causes a slip and fall, a company which forces it's customers to behave in a certain way which causes them to be injured also conveys liability. This is why you never see combination shooting ranges/taverns. By mandating that customers be disarmed, you not only remove the ability of the customer to resist attack, but you telegraph to criminals in the area that people on the property are unable to effectively resist attack, which makes them a more attractive target to criminals than customers in public or at places which allow CCW. As such, US courts have recognized that a greater duty exists to protect customers if they've been disarmed. The company, by adopting the policy, has assumed the risk.

[UncleJoe]

67. Err....

You're about 70 times more likely to be shot by a gun-owner than by someone who doesn't own a gun. You want me to put my life at 70 times the risk it is in to avoid discriminating against gun owners?

[demsrule4life]

68. In order for someone to shoot you

they have to have a gun. If they don't have a gun they can't shoot you. So I would put it at %100.

[UncleJoe]

69. 0wn3d

"If they don't have a gun they can't shoot you."

I rest my case.

[MrSandman]

70. Where does this come from?

without a gun one cannot shoot another. Ergo...70 x 0 =0

[Jimb100]

87. Logic

You are more likely to be run over by a person with a car than one without. The odds are really dramatic.

These types of statistical mind games are designed to elicit a fear response and don't contribute much to the solution.

There's not just one gun ownership question that needs to be addressed. Just as the wants and needs of hunters are different from the needs of target shooters and they are both different from the wants and needs of people who want carry a gun for protection and those who want to keep one in the house for the same reason.

This is an issue that, unfortunately, can't be simplified because it goes to the heart of many aspects of what this country is all about.

We have a country based upon innocent until pr oven guilty and we extend this to cover individual freedoms. Until you prove you are irresponsible, whether that's with a car, a gun, or even with words, we extend the privilege to all citizens.

Unrestricted ownership of any sort of gun is just as illogical as banning all firearms and as long as the pro and anti factions insist on a monolithic approach, nothing much will happen.

[FeebMaster]

88. Nice speech.

blah blah blah freedom this blah blah freedom that blah blah extending privileges. Oh by the way we need regulations on what guns are available.

[MrSandman]

89. I got lost on the wants and needs...

of this group being different than wants and needs of...

But where does "...shall not be infringed." say anything about needs?

I really wasn't so uncompromising until I met the real abolitionists.