Great arguement

A great arguement is going on in the comment section over at Say Uncle regaurding gun rights versus property rights. While the article is on the rights of landlords and tennants These simmmilar arguements could be made when deciding if an employer can restrict a gun from being in their parking lot.

Some highlights...


pdb Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:26 am
Can the landlord require that only people of a certain race rent there?

Can the landlord require that only Christians or Muslims can rent the house?

SPQR Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 11:28 am
This is an example of people not understanding the difference between constitutional rights, and anti-discrimination law.

Anti-discrimination law are statutes adopted that restrain the conduct of private parties. Hence prohibitions on discrimination against potential tenants on race.

Constitutional rights restrain governmental action, not private action. Hence no prohibition on discrimination of potential tenants on behavior like owning firearms.

10.Montieth Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 11:35 am
Yeah, I have to disagree with this as well.

Can an individual really give up fundamental constitutional rights via contract? Could a block of property owners in an area not allow their tenants to vote? Or read? Or talk to their congressmen?

11.Bryan S. Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
SPQR nailed it.. this is a property rights issue, not a constitutional law issue. Unless the Tennessee constitution says something about it, but I highly doubt that.

Just like the people who move into an area with a HOA, and complain they cant put up a flag pole, when you agreed to the contract, you gave your word.

Although, in this case, the landlord sounds like he is changing the terms after the fact, but thats a contract law issue, I would believe.

IANAL and all that.

14.Chas Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:37 pm
What if the rental agreement included prohibition of exercising the right to vote, or free speech or other civil rights? How about a landlord prohibiting NRA members?

15.Jake Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Constitutional rights restrain governmental action, not private action. Hence no prohibition on discrimination of potential tenants on behavior like owning firearms.

While it’s not a Constitutional Rights issue, it is a natural Rights issue. Just like a tenant’s natural right to privacy in his home can create a legal restriction on the landlord’s right to access his property, a tenant’s natural right to armed self-defense can restrict a landlord’s right to ban certain items from his property.

By allowing someone else to use his property as a home, the landlord implicitly gives up certain personal rights in regard to that property in favour of certain of the tenant’s personal rights which are implicit in the concept of a ‘home.’

16.Mr Evilwrench Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
If the landlord does not allow firearms, it does not interfere with your right to own firearms, just your right to do it there. You have the option to find a landlord who is more accommodating, so your right is intact. It’s the same thing with smoking. I don’t think there’s any dispute that a landlord may prohibit that. You do not have the right to violate the landlord’s right not to have firearms on his property.

18.TomcatsHanger Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:11 pm
If the government can force folks to rent to others regardless of their apparent race, religion, or sexual orientation, sure as he%% exercising armed self defense should be a protected class as well.

No discrimination is no discrimination. Either all or nothing. Property rights do NOT trump human rights.

19.Borepatch Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:26 pm
IANL, but it seems that (a) the landlord is free to put whatever he likes in the lease terms, and (b) if as a result of his terms someone is harmed (e.g. robbed because they cannot have a gun), then there is action for a tort.

“But for the landlord’s actions …” and all that. You could also argue that the landlord’s act of prohibiting armed tenants creates and attractive nuisance, and so people without a contractual relationship with the landlord might also have cause of action if they are attacked nearby.

As I said, IANL. However, if our side took a leaf from the progressives, it would form a non-profit to look for cases where it could sue landlords for this sort of thing. If the Bradys/Mayors Against Gun Stores can sue legitimate businesses to shut down gun rights, why couldn’t someone sue legitimate businesses to advance gun rights?

Of course, this sort of scorched earth strategy is part of what’s leading this country to he%%, but it’s headed that way no matter what. And aren’t we all told that the Personal is Political?