Condominium Rules against guns?

[Titan]

1) No.

2) You have no constitutional right against private racial discrimination.

3) You have a federal statutory right against private racial discrimination, in some circumstances.

4) Has no relevance to guns prior to "incorporation" of Second Amendment and most likely will have no relevance after "incorporation."

Do you really believe you have no right to armed self defense until 'incorporation' occurs?

Do you really believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers that only residents of Washington D.C. have an 'individual right to keep and bear arms'?

It's a never ending source of amazement to me that so many people think they GET THEIR RIGHTS from the Constitution or how the Constitution is interpreted by the SJC.

 

[GSG]

According to the article they plan to reverse this rule. The article refers to a HOA rather than a condo association. It also doesn't mention whether the 'residents' are homeowners or renters. It'll be interesting to follow this one.

Yup, it looks like it's still pretty current. I haven't read the NES condo owner thread that I linked to since it was originally posted, and I didn't really keep up with it, so I don't know how all of that turned out. But either way, as a realtor it might be of more interest to you than to others on here.

Does belonging to a condo mean you lose basic constitutional rights? If so, if the covenants say so can they kick me out because I am not a specific race.?

I actually lived in a deed restricted community once (in Mass.) where one of the rules was that if you offered up your house for sale, you had to give the association first dibs on buying it if they wanted. Someone implied to me that it was to keep non-whites out of the neighborhood, and to the best of my knowledge, there's not a single non-white that lives there to this day.

While it's not a policy that's stated outright, it seems to be going according to plan.

It's a never ending source of amazement to me that so many people think they GET THEIR RIGHTS from the Constitution or how the Constitution is interpreted by the SJC.

Agree 100%, although I don't think that's what RKG believes.

 

[RKG]

Do you really believe you have no right to armed self defense until 'incorporation' occurs?

Do you really believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers that only residents of Washington D.C. have an 'individual right to keep and bear arms'?

It's a never ending source of amazement to me that so many people think they GET THEIR RIGHTS from the Constitution or how the Constitution is interpreted by the SJC.

1) You will always lead yourself astray if you refer to a "right" unless you also ask or state, "against whom?"

2) Yes, the Founding Fathers most definitely intended the Bill of Rights to apply to, and to limit the powers of, only the then-new federal government. They had no fear of what they might do within their own states, but they were petrified of a bunch of people in other states, over whom they had no control and whom they could not vote out of office, taking action that would afffect them.

3) So let us get this loud and clear: the Second Amendment applies to, and limits the power of, the federal government. Only.

4) What "incorporation" will do (if it happens) is to include the substance of the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to, and limits the powers of, the states.

5) Now, for the question of "natural rights," that is to say, rights that inhere in an individual's mere existance, and do not depend on any specific grant of any governmental constitution:

A) Sticking, for the moment, to the issue of the individual versus the government, this notion is a wonderful conversation starter of no practical utility whatsoever.

i) As for the individual versus the federal government, the federal legislature has no general "police power," but only those legislative powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. So, for instance, one has a "right" not to have a generalized federal school zone ban, but only because such a ban depends on the general police power, and the federal legislature doesn't have such a power. It does, however, have the power to regulate interstate commerce.

ii) The states, on the other hand, do have general police powers, which means that they can enact any regulation or rule of conduct that is rationally related to maintaining an ordered society, so long as the enactment does not run afoul of some specific limitation on their legislative powers in either the federal or state constitutions.

B) Turning to the issue of one individual versus another individual, constitutions generally have no role in regulating individual relationships; their function is to set forth the structure, powers and limitations of a government.

C) In all events, there is no such thing as a "right" unless a court of competent jurisdiction is prepared to recognize and enforce it. So, yes, it is 100% true that one "gets" their "rights" from something (a constitution, a statute, or something else) "interpreted" by a court (be it the SJC or some other court). You are free to be amazed, if you like, but you cannot avoid or change this reality.

6) Putting it all together:

A) Where a person buys a condominium in which possession of firearms is forbidden, or where he agrees to be bound by rules promulgated from time to time by a unit owners' association without stated limitation, this is a matter of private action, not government action, to which the constitution has no application.

B) Prior to incorporation, a state could (consistent with the federal constitution at least) pass a statute outlawing the possession of firearms within a condominium (or any multiple occupancy dwelling), or a statute authorizing (but not requiring) a unit owners' association or landlord to ban firearms in such a dwelling.

C) Even in the absence of such a statute, and in the further absence of a statute banning such, an individual dedicating property to condominium has the legal power to ban firearms, or to authorize a unit owners' association to do so.

D) The most interesting question would be whether, after incorporation of some form of right to keep and bear arms into the Fourteenth Amendment, enforcement of such a private ban might be construed to be an unconstitutional exercise of state power. My guess is not, but in all events, in the context of the present issue, that is the most you could get out of the federal Constitution.

 

[RKG]

although I don't think that's what RKG believes.

What I, or anyone else believes, is irrelevant; the question is: what is the law?

The lawyer whose advice to a client is based on what the lawyer believes the law should be, rather than what the law is, gives his client very bad service.

 

[GSG]

2) Yes, the Founding Fathers most definitely intended the Bill of Rights to apply to, and to limit the powers of, only the then-new federal government. They had no fear of what they might do within their own states, but they were petrified of a bunch of people in other states, over whom they had no control and whom they could not vote out of office, taking action that would afffect them.

3) So let us get this loud and clear: the Second Amendment applies to, and limits the power of, the federal government. Only.

We're going to have to disagree here, and pretty strongly.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When the 2A was ratified in 1791, the Founding Fathers had just completed a bloody, years long house-to-house war for their independence. They understood that people had rights, and they knew from experience that governments would try to take them away.

Does the 3rd Amendment, ratified the same day as the 2nd, mean that the federal government can't force one to house federal soldiers in their homes, but state soldiers can be forced to reside in your home?

Does the 5th Amendment mean that only federal courts can't subject you to double jeopardy, but state courts can?

No, all of them are recognizing basic human rights that "shall not be infringed," not by any government entity.

i) As for the individual versus the federal government, the federal legislature has no general "police power," but only those legislative powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. So, for instance, one has a "right" not to have a generalized federal school zone ban, but only because such a ban depends on the general police power, and the federal legislature doesn't have such a power. It does, however, have the power to regulate interstate commerce.

(This part I'm not aiming at you, just saying to express my general sense of disgust/frustration).

I don't see how any sane individual can think that the Commerce Clause has ever extended enough authority to allow the federal government to write the Gun Free School Zones Act.

From United States v. Lopez 1995:

Congress argues that guns lead to violent crime and insurance coverage effects the national economy. Furthermore, guns on schools affect educational environment and that leads to less educated citizens and that affects economy.

[vomit]

This is one more example of how certain people in power are always willing to stretch, bend, break or ignore rules to suit their own purposes. It's absurd to think that they have any kind of right to interfere with this area of law.

C) In all events, there is no such thing as a "right" unless a court of competent jurisdiction is prepared to recognize and enforce it. So, yes, it is 100% true that one "gets" their "rights" from something (a constitution, a statute, or something else) "interpreted" by a court (be it the SJC or some other court). You are free to be amazed, if you like, but you cannot avoid or change this reality.

I'd argue that there's no such thing as a right unless someone standsup and fights for it, regardless of what a court might say, especially a court that might find that you're an untermensch.

C) Even in the absence of such a statute, and in the further absence of a statute banning such, an individual dedicating property to condominium has the legal power to ban firearms, or to authorize a unit owners' association to do so.

Agreed, if people don't like it, don't buy into a condo/HOA.

What I, or anyone else believes, is irrelevant; the question is: what is the law?

The lawyer whose advice to a client is based on what the lawyer believes the law should be, rather than what the law is, gives his client very bad service.

I think one of the biggest issue we face is that there are millions of pages of law that are built off of one another that bring us further and further away from what the Founding Fathers believed when they wrote the Constitution.

 

[RKG]

We're going to have to disagree here, and pretty strongly.

There is nothing to disagree about; history is history. Read the Federalist Papers.

Does the 3rd Amendment, ratified the same day as the 2nd, mean that the federal government can't force one to house federal soldiers in their homes, but state soldiers can be forced to reside in your home?

Does the 5th Amendment mean that only federal courts can't subject you to double jeopardy, but state courts can?

Correct on both points.

I suspect you're quite young; young people are astounded to learn (more history) that until the middle of the 20th Century (or later), there were no Fourth Amendment rights (search and seizure) or Fifth Amendment rights (self-incrimination) in state criminal proceedings. In some states, there were similar provisions in the state constitutions, but you could not have claimed these rights under the federal constitution. Why? Because they had yet to be "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment, and the first ten amendments apply only in limitation of federal power.

Think about it: if the first ten amendments applied to the states as well as the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment would not have been necessary and would never have been proposed and ratified.

(This part I'm not aiming at you, just saying to express my general sense of disgust/frustration).

I don't see how any sane individual can think that the Commerce Clause has ever extended enough authority to allow the federal government to write the Gun Free School Zones Act. . . . This is one more example of how certain people in power are always willing to stretch, bend, break or ignore rules to suit their own purposes. It's absurd to think that they have any kind of right to interfere with this area of law.

What happened is that when the first Zones statute was passed, Congress gave no thought to the question "Do we have the legislative power to do this?", and the rationale it offered up to defend what it had done was entirely post hoc. Which is why the Court rejected it. More importantly, this example illustrates brightly the modern trend to address all issues from the federal level, whereas our Founding Fathers intended that most government would come from the state governments.

By the way, if the other parts of your response are "aimed at [me]," you're guilty of shooting the messenger. Nothing in my post states my view of how things ought to be; my post tells you only how things are. Since you live here, you ought to be interested in that.

I'd argue that there's no such thing as a right unless someone standsup and fights for it, regardless of what a court might say, especially a court that might find that you're an untermensch.

You can "argue" what you like for as long as you like, but that doesn't make something true.

A power obtained through force isn't a "right," it is a "might." A legal "right" is, by definition, something that will be recognized and enforced by a Court.

 

[Titan]

1) You will always lead yourself astray if you refer to a "right" unless you also ask or state, "against whom?"

2) Yes, the Founding Fathers most definitely intended the Bill of Rights to apply to, and to limit the powers of, only the then-new federal government. They had no fear of what they might do within their own states, but they were petrified of a bunch of people in other states, over whom they had no control and whom they could not vote out of office, taking action that would afffect them.

3) So let us get this loud and clear: the Second Amendment applies to, and limits the power of, the federal government. Only.

4) What "incorporation" will do (if it happens) is to include the substance of the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to, and limits the powers of, the states.

5) Now, for the question of "natural rights," that is to say, rights that inhere in an individual's mere existance, and do not depend on any specific grant of any governmental constitution:

A) Sticking, for the moment, to the issue of the individual versus the government, this notion is a wonderful conversation starter of no practical utility whatsoever.

i) As for the individual versus the federal government, the federal legislature has no general "police power," but only those legislative powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. So, for instance, one has a "right" not to have a generalized federal school zone ban, but only because such a ban depends on the general police power, and the federal legislature doesn't have such a power. It does, however, have the power to regulate interstate commerce.

ii) The states, on the other hand, do have general police powers, which means that they can enact any regulation or rule of conduct that is rationally related to maintaining an ordered society, so long as the enactment does not run afoul of some specific limitation on their legislative powers in either the federal or state constitutions.

B) Turning to the issue of one individual versus another individual, constitutions generally have no role in regulating individual relationships; their function is to set forth the structure, powers and limitations of a government.

C) In all events, there is no such thing as a "right" unless a court of competent jurisdiction is prepared to recognize and enforce it. So, yes, it is 100% true that one "gets" their "rights" from something (a constitution, a statute, or something else) "interpreted" by a court (be it the SJC or some other court). You are free to be amazed, if you like, but you cannot avoid or change this reality.

6) Putting it all together:

A) Where a person buys a condominium in which possession of firearms is forbidden, or where he agrees to be bound by rules promulgated from time to time by a unit owners' association without stated limitation, this is a matter of private action, not government action, to which the constitution has no application.

B) Prior to incorporation, a state could (consistent with the federal constitution at least) pass a statute outlawing the possession of firearms within a condominium (or any multiple occupancy dwelling), or a statute authorizing (but not requiring) a unit owners' association or landlord to ban firearms in such a dwelling.

C) Even in the absence of such a statute, and in the further absence of a statute banning such, an individual dedicating property to condominium has the legal power to ban firearms, or to authorize a unit owners' association to do so.

D) The most interesting question would be whether, after incorporation of some form of right to keep and bear arms into the Fourteenth Amendment, enforcement of such a private ban might be construed to be an unconstitutional exercise of state power. My guess is not, but in all events, in the context of the present issue, that is the most you could get out of the federal Constitution.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with regard to your bizzare view of rights and the Constitution.

I will note, however, that I never argued that a condo couldn't prohibit guns. I just said I wouldn't live in one because they can.
When a person agrees to be voluntarily bound by a set of condo rules and by the rulings of the 'condo board', they have surrendered their rights.

 

[fencer]

To the OP, If at all possible I would avoid buying a condo I would say that the exception to this rule would be if you travel a lot and just can't take care of a house.

I have known very few people who have been happy with their condo experience. They are always a dime a dozen and no one ever gets along with all of their neighbors. Add to that the power of the Association and you have a recipe for unhappiness. I am sure that this is not always the case but I would say the odds are greater than I would like.

A Condo Association is just another governing body and the last thing I would be looking for is yet more goverment. Especially one that is appointed as the result of a local popularity contest in the land of the Libtard

Whatever you decide, best of luck.

 

[P-14]

To the OP, If at all possible I would avoid buying a condo I would say that the exception to this rule would be if you travel a lot and just can't take care of a house.

I have known very few people who have been happy with their condo experience. They are always a dime a dozen and no one ever gets along with all of their neighbors. Add to that the power of the Association and you have a recipe for unhappiness. I am sure that this is not always the case but I would say the odds are greater than I would like.

A Condo Association is just another governing body and the last thing I would be looking for is yet more goverment. Especially one that is appointed as the result of a local popularity contest in the land of the Libtard

Whatever you decide, best of luck.

I absolutely disagree. I've lived in a townhouse condo for 4 years, get along with all our residents, am a Trustee in the Condo Association, and love not having to care for the yard or shovel the snow. I've owned a house in Buffalo for 23 years. Now that the kids are grown, condo life provides freedom and flexibility for us.

We are 10 minutes from downtown Boston and work is 15 minutes away in Cambridge. And, there are 2 parking spaces in the lot deeded with the condo so I don't have to fight for off street parking. Oh, and they close 3 of the 4 roads of the complex down at 10 PM and security patrols every night at dusk all night long.

Each to their own. I've lived in an apartment, 4 bedroom house with 2-car attached garage, and now a 2 bedroom townhouse. All are good depending on your situation.

Just read the condo documents before you sign to purchase. Mine are verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry unrestictive and because I'm a Trustee, I'm making sure that they stay that way.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Guys....I really think this has been done at nauseum.....

Bottom line, if the condo association or HOA votes to restrict guns in the community, they can do it and you can't do shit about it. If this is a big concern for you then buy a single family home. Otherwise, roll the dice and hope that the rules don't change.

 

[fencer]

I absolutely disagree. I've lived in a townhouse condo for 4 years, get along with all our residents, am a Trustee in the Condo Association, and love not having to care for the yard or shovel the snow. I've owned a house in Buffalo for 23 years. Now that the kids are grown, condo life provides freedom and flexibility for us.

We are 10 minutes from downtown Boston and work is 15 minutes away in Cambridge. And, there are 2 parking spaces in the lot deeded with the condo so I don't have to fight for off street parking. Oh, and they close 3 of the 4 roads of the complex down at 10 PM and security patrols every night at dusk all night long.

Each to their own. I've lived in an apartment, 4 bedroom house with 2-car attached garage, and now a 2 bedroom townhouse. All are good depending on your situation.

Just read the condo documents before you sign to purchase. Mine are verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry unrestictive and because I'm a Trustee, I'm making sure that they stay that way.

Valid point of view and I respect it. Perhaps as I approach my retirement years I would reconsider but I do know quite a few people who have had a negative experience. As you say " To each his own"

 

[GSG]

RKG, I think the wall we're running into is that you're approaching this like a lawyer, which is fine, because IIRC you are a lawyer.

I'm suggesting that throughout history, we have allowed stacks of law books to get in the way of the intent of the government that was created to run this beautiful nation. All the 14th Amendment shows is how quickly our government went astray with their thinking (and by government, I don't just mean the elected officials, the people are just as much to blame).

What happened is that when the first Zones statute was passed, Congress gave no thought to the question "Do we have the legislative power to do this?", and the rationale it offered up to defend what it had done was entirely post hoc. Which is why the Court rejected it.

Exactly. This is a huge issue that we're facing today. All they're asking right now is "Do we have enough votes to force every American into a healthcare system?" I have yet to hear anyone in office argue about whether or not they ever had that authority in the first place.

By the way, if the other parts of your response are "aimed at [me]," you're guilty of shooting the messenger. Nothing in my post states my view of how things ought to be; my post tells you only how things are. Since you live here, you ought to be interested in that.

No, your post states how you view things. There are many well educated legal professionals on both sides of the issue we're discussing.

You can "argue" what you like for as long as you like, but that doesn't make something true.

A power obtained through force isn't a "right," it is a "might." A legal "right" is, by definition, something that will be recognized and enforced by a Court.

To a lawyer, yes, that's all a right is. To a starving Jew facing armored Panzer divisions in a Warsaw ghetto with a captured pistol clutched in his hands, or to a poor farmer making his way to Lexington and Concord with a flintlock rifle slung over his back, all the courts would recognize was that what they were doing was wrong.

I'm not advocating an armed revolution here either, just telling you...I don't know what. You don't seem to want to hear it.

 

[Navy Moose]

This thread is very timely, in the minutes for my last condo association meeting the board is asking the management company to update the bylaws because they have been unchanged since the complex was first built. Currently they are very open and relaxed. Currently no mention of any restrictions of firearms. I will be keeping a close eye on this, and I will be speaking to members of our board to find out what is being proposed.

 

[Titan]

This thread is very timely, in the minutes for my last condo association meeting the board is asking the management company to update the bylaws because they have been unchanged since the complex was first built. Currently they are very open and relaxed. Currently no mention of any restrictions of firearms. I will be keeping a close eye on this, and I will be speaking to members of our board to find out what is being proposed.

Another thing to watch out for is prohibitions against display of the U.S. flag. Lots of condo boards and homeowner associations are barring this (or enforcing existing guidelines) so 'other members' aren't offended.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Another thing to watch out for is prohibitions against display of the U.S. flag. Lots of condo boards and homeowner associations are barring this (or enforcing existing guidelines) so 'other members' aren't offended.

Did you hear about that poor guy in the southwest a few years ago with the flag issue? He served is country for like 20 years, was a vet in two wars, and lost his son in Iraq. The guy had always had a very nice flag area (flower bed, stacked stone wall, etc.) at his house. Well, the HOA decided they didn't like it, so they banned his flag and made him take it down. I was really offended on his behalf. This guy serves his country, his son dies for it, and now some yuppies want to trample his rights? These are the same people that go around and measure their neighbor's grass for violations.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

Another thing to watch out for is prohibitions against display of the U.S. flag. Lots of condo boards and homeowner associations are barring this (or enforcing existing guidelines) so 'other members' aren't offended.

This is the United States of America. If anyone is offended by a proper display of the U.S. flag, maybe they should try living in some other country that shares their sentiments. China, Cuba, Venezuela or Zimbabwe, perhaps?

 

[Titan]

Did you hear about that poor guy in the southwest a few years ago with the flag issue? He served is country for like 20 years, was a vet in two wars, and lost his son in Iraq. The guy had always had a very nice flag area (flower bed, stacked stone wall, etc.) at his house. Well, the HOA decided they didn't like it, so they banned his flag and made him take it down. I was really offended on his behalf. This guy serves his country, his son dies for it, and now some yuppies want to trample his rights? These are the same people that go around and measure their neighbor's grass for violations.

Yes I heard that one. It's one of the incidents that triggered my post.

Outrageous!

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Yes I heard that one. It's one of the incidents that triggered my post.

Outrageous!

and that was a HOUSE!! Unfortunately, it was part of an HOA and they changed the rules on him. Looked like he spent a ton of money on it too. Poor guy.

 

[Realtor MA]

If this is what you're all talking about it was not a prohibition on flags. It was an existing prohibition on lawn signs and it has been resolved in favor of the Marine.

Homeowners association drops opposition to Marine flagText Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
ShareThisJanuary 08, 2010
By Buffy Pollock
for the Mail Tribune
EAGLE POINT — A homeowners association that drew the ire of a former Marine for prohibiting lawn signs that support the local Young Marines unit has changed its policy.

The board of the Eagle Point Golf Community Homeowners Association agreed Tuesday to relax its rule against most lawn signs to allow homeowners to display the signs, which depict an American flag above the words "God Bless America — We Support the Young Marines."

Larry Nathan, a former Marine who lives in the development, said the Marines' commitment to "God, country, and corps" prompted him to challenge the rule prohibiting signs.

Nathan said his promise to publicize the original order to remove the signs was "probably what changed their mind.

"I'm sure they all have their own reasons, but I think it might have been a contributing factor that nobody wanted to stand in front of the camera and say, 'No, I don't approve,' " Nathan said.

"To forbid homeowners to display an expression of patriotism during a time of war is unconscionable," he said.

The controversy began last fall when some two dozen signs were sold in the golf course community for $5 each. Nathan, who served in Vietnam, said he received verbal warnings to remove his sign and a written notice to remove it last week. He said his sign was one of few that had not been removed or trimmed to remove the text.

A federal law allows the American flag to be flown in developments that generally prohibit the display of flags and signs.

Bob Hartwig, secretary of the association's board of directors, said the board's role is to uphold the community's restrictions, but Tuesday's vote showed some willingness to be flexible on issues pertaining to national symbols.

"When people purchase a home in our community, they sign that they will agree to abide by those covenants, including one that specifically prohibits signs," Hartwig said.

"We had originally decided that the Young Marines signs did not meet restrictions within our community," he said, "but Larry came and asked the board to reconsider, so we gave an exception for that specific sign because people in our community seemed to want to be able to put that particular sign on their lawns."

Buffy Pollock is a freelance writer living in Medford. E-mail her at [email protected].

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

If this is what you're all talking about it was not a prohibition on flags. It was an existing prohibition on lawn signs and it has been resolved in favor of the Marine.

Homeowners association drops opposition to Marine flagText Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
ShareThisJanuary 08, 2010
By Buffy Pollock
for the Mail Tribune
EAGLE POINT — A homeowners association that drew the ire of a former Marine for prohibiting lawn signs that support the local Young Marines unit has changed its policy.

The board of the Eagle Point Golf Community Homeowners Association agreed Tuesday to relax its rule against most lawn signs to allow homeowners to display the signs, which depict an American flag above the words "God Bless America — We Support the Young Marines."

Larry Nathan, a former Marine who lives in the development, said the Marines' commitment to "God, country, and corps" prompted him to challenge the rule prohibiting signs.

Nathan said his promise to publicize the original order to remove the signs was "probably what changed their mind.

"I'm sure they all have their own reasons, but I think it might have been a contributing factor that nobody wanted to stand in front of the camera and say, 'No, I don't approve,' " Nathan said.

"To forbid homeowners to display an expression of patriotism during a time of war is unconscionable," he said.

The controversy began last fall when some two dozen signs were sold in the golf course community for $5 each. Nathan, who served in Vietnam, said he received verbal warnings to remove his sign and a written notice to remove it last week. He said his sign was one of few that had not been removed or trimmed to remove the text.

A federal law allows the American flag to be flown in developments that generally prohibit the display of flags and signs.

Bob Hartwig, secretary of the association's board of directors, said the board's role is to uphold the community's restrictions, but Tuesday's vote showed some willingness to be flexible on issues pertaining to national symbols.

"When people purchase a home in our community, they sign that they will agree to abide by those covenants, including one that specifically prohibits signs," Hartwig said.

"We had originally decided that the Young Marines signs did not meet restrictions within our community," he said, "but Larry came and asked the board to reconsider, so we gave an exception for that specific sign because people in our community seemed to want to be able to put that particular sign on their lawns."

Buffy Pollock is a freelance writer living in Medford. E-mail her at [email protected].

No, that wasn't it. This was only a flag (a very large flag, but not oversized for the house and property)

 

[RKG]

I'm . . . just telling you...I don't know what. You don't seem to want to hear it.

What you're telling us is what you think the law should be. For instance, when I tell you that the first eight amendments to the U. S. Constitution (by themselves, and putting aside the effect, if any, of the much later ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) only apply to the federal government (which is what their framers said in support of their ratification and what every court has since held), you respond that I'm wrong because you believe the framers should have intended the first eight amendments to apply also to the states.

It is not that I mind hearing it, only that I recognize that the fact that one wishes history had been different doesn't change history.

(Actually, had the framers drafted their amendments so that they would have applied also to the states, the Bill of Rights would never have been adopted. In the 18th century, the delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention from Massachusetts weren't afraid of what the Massachusetts government might do -- in part because they controlled that government and in part because any concerns about rights to be shielded from the Massachusetts legislature (a/k/a "The General Court") could be addressed by amendments to the Massachuetts Constitution. What the delegates from Massachusetts were afraid of when our federal Constitution was being debated was the specter that Connecticut and Rhode Island and Delaware might get together and enact something that affected Massachusetts, without the Massachusetts people having any ability to do anything about it. By the same token, the delegates from Massachusetts had zero interest in giving the delegates from other states any power to decide what rights should be granted to Massachusetts citizens against the Massachusetts government. Had the constitutional debates been expanded to include a provision-by-provision review of the constitutions of each of the ratifying states, the process would have ground to a halt and been abandonned.)

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

What you're telling us is what you think the law should be. For instance, when I tell you that the first eight amendments to the U. S. Constitution (by themselves, and putting aside the effect, if any, of the much later ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) only apply to the federal government (which is what their framers said in support of their ratification and what every court has since held), you respond that I'm wrong because you believe the framers should have intended the first eight amendments to apply also to the states.

It is not that I mind hearing it, only that I recognize that the fact that one wishes history had been different doesn't change history.

(Actually, had the framers drafted their amendments so that they would have applied also to the states, the Bill of Rights would never have been adopted. In the 18th century, the delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention from Massachusetts weren't afraid of what the Massachusetts government might do -- in part because they controlled that government and in part because any concerns about rights to be shielded from the Massachusetts legislature (a/k/a "The General Court") could be addressed by amendments to the Massachuetts Constitution. What the delegates from Massachusetts were afraid of when our federal Constitution was being debated was the specter that Connecticut and Rhode Island and Delaware might get together and enact something that affected Massachusetts, without the Massachusetts people having any ability to do anything about it. By the same token, the delegates from Massachusetts had zero interest in giving the delegates from other states any power to decide what rights should be granted to Massachusetts citizens against the Massachusetts government. Had the constitutional debates been expanded to include a provision-by-provision review of the constitutions of each of the ratifying states, the process would have ground to a halt and been abandonned.)

RKG...those are some good points. In history class (as well as some books I've picked up) they don't really get into the details with the states as much. Can you recommend some reading materials, books, sites? Thanks in advance

 

[RKG]

RKG...those are some good points. In history class (as well as some books I've picked up) they don't really get into the details with the states as much. Can you recommend some reading materials, books, sites? Thanks in advance

It has been too many years (way too many) for me to be knowledgeable about what's out there now.

If you want to jump into the deep end, you can attack the Federalist Papers in the original text; I believe they are still available in paperback, perhaps at a college bookstore. The trouble is that people wrote funny (and spelled funny) back then, which makes the going even tougher.

I recall two superb books by Forrest MacDonald, an outstanding American History scholar, now retired; one was called E Pluribus Unum and the other We the People, I think.

You might also want to see what you can find about John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, and who intended that the substance of the first eight amendments would be automatically incorporated and thus applicable against the states. This is known as the doctrine of "wholesale incorporation." It was rejected by the Supreme Court in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Gitlow adopted a doctrine known as "selective incorporation," and it selectively incorporated portions of the First Amendment. Mr. Justice Black vigorously (but unsuccessfully) argued for wholesale incorporation, citing the contemporaneous statements of Bingham. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947) (wherein the Court held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination did not apply to the states).

For those who may be interested, Mr. Justice Black's dissent (and its informative Appendix) can be found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0332_0046_ZD.html

 

[dwarven1]

Guys....I really think this has been done at nauseum.....

Oh, but it's such fun watching the[STRIKE] ping-pong match[/STRIKE] back and forth!

This thread is very timely, in the minutes for my last condo association meeting the board is asking the management company to update the bylaws because they have been unchanged since the complex was first built. Currently they are very open and relaxed. Currently no mention of any restrictions of firearms. I will be keeping a close eye on this, and I will be speaking to members of our board to find out what is being proposed.

A good question to ask would be "what problem is this rule intended to solve?". Stay vigilant and don't let them slip anything by you!

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Bear in mind, just because they don't have a current ban, doesn't mean that it will stay that way. I think that is even a worse situation. Imagine you move in, maybe build your collection, then you suddenly have to find somewhere else to store them if they change the regs.

 

[Uncle Ogre]

5) Now, for the question of "natural rights," that is to say, rights that inhere in an individual's mere existance, and do not depend on any specific grant of any governmental constitution:

A) Sticking, for the moment, to the issue of the individual versus the government, this notion is a wonderful conversation starter of no practical utility whatsoever.
...
B) Turning to the issue of one individual versus another individual, constitutions generally have no role in regulating individual relationships; their function is to set forth the structure, powers and limitations of a government.

C) In all events, there is no such thing as a "right" unless a court of competent jurisdiction is prepared to recognize and enforce it. So, yes, it is 100% true that one "gets" their "rights" from something (a constitution, a statute, or something else) "interpreted" by a court (be it the SJC or some other court). You are free to be amazed, if you like, but you cannot avoid or change this reality.

A power obtained through force isn't a "right," it is a "might." A legal "right" is, by definition, something that will be recognized and enforced by a Court.

So what is your position on the "natural rights" argument put forth in the Declaration of Independence? Would you consider "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" to have only become "mights" once we started fighting, and meaningless prior to that? Is the Declaration ever used as a backstop to the Constitution from a legal standpoint, or does it hold no weight short of using it as a model for the start of the 2nd American Revolution?

 

[SHOOTTOOT]

Not Silly at all!

Condo gun laws are a very sensible question that I had never thought about. I was more concerned about being able to afford a place.

Yesterday, I received a phone call from the Police. Apparently one of the neighbors at my Condo building accidentally fired his gun. The bullet went through all my Condo walls and missed my tenants head by 12". I'm glad he wasn't hurt but it's upsetting.

I have to sort through the bi-laws and maybe we'll have to change something. My neighbor wasn't arrested. I'm not sure what his consequences are if any?

 

[atilla]

march over there and kick the dude's ass for shooting your condo. that should be the only consequence, dude should be a lot more safe handling guns from now on.

...or he's just an idiot. at least no one was hurt.

 

[Palladin]

I could fire a gun in my house and have the round travel thru it and into the house across the street without a problem, maybe thru it, depending on placement. sheet-rock won't stop a bullet, a couple of studs may.

Your post leaves a lot to offer.

 

[FSTC]

Condo gun laws are a very sensible question that I had never thought about. I was more concerned about being able to afford a place.

Yesterday, I received a phone call from the Police. Apparently one of the neighbors at my Condo building accidentally fired his gun. The bullet went through all my Condo walls and missed my tenants head by 12". I'm glad he wasn't hurt but it's upsetting.

I have to sort through the bi-laws and maybe we'll have to change something. My neighbor wasn't arrested. I'm not sure what his consequences are if any?

?