homoeowners assoc. banned guns in neighborhood

[lord_casek]

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6242822

 

ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

Residents in Nashboro Village said it's unconstitutional and leaves them defenseless.

Two weeks ago, residents received a letter from their homeowners' association indicating that guns are not allowed on the property.

"It thought it was ironic that they say you can't have something when the United States government says you can," said resident Cristina Salajanu.

Salajanu would like to give her neighborhood management company a history lesson.

"I think it's unconstitutional," Salajanu said. "They can't tell you what to own or not to own in your own house."

Salajanu is talking about the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It's been an American freedom for 215 years but Salajanu and other residents said it's been taken away from them.

"Something needs to be done," she said.

Two weeks ago, the property management company at Nashboro Village told its residents no more guns on the property.

"It incensed me that it was written the way it was," said a resident who asked not to be identified.

She said there is a serious need to feel protected here and a firearm can do that.

"We've got dark areas, the lighting is very definitely very dim," she said.

Salajanu said that burglaries started to increase since late summer...

She said she believes her neighborhood has changed since she moved in last year.

"Three weeks ago someone was stopped at gunpoint," Salajanu said. "It seems the nature of those burglaries is becoming more dangerous."

Some residents at Nashboro Village have campaigned for better lighting and more security but if they can't get either they at least want their Second Amendment rights upheld.

"If I'm walking if I'm walking my dog or if I am outside walking and if I don't feel safe and I'm licensed then I'll carry a gun," said the resident who did not want her identity disclosed.

Officials with Ghertner and Company, the property manager at Nashboro Village, would not make an on-camera comment about the gun policy but said they plan on changing the rule soon to allow firearms on the property.

However, they would make it illegal to fire those guns, which residents say is still unconstitutional.

Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village but they don't believe that prohibiting firearms is the best way to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tell them what you think

http://www.ghertner.com/Email.asp

[lord_casek]

haha. homo owners.

jeez.

[angelofdeath]

looks like these people are just gonna have to hide them a little better.

this is a touchy subject because the homeowners and the association probablysigned some contract saying that the homeowners own the house, but the association can tell you what to do with it. (sort of like zoning laws)

 

if this is the case, looks like the homeowners moved into the wrong neighborhood if they want to be gun owners. if there is no contract and this association is just a group of neighborhood busy bodies, i'd totally ignore them and walk around on my lawn with an ak 47.

[Qawee]

i'm pretty sure its illegal in minnesota for a landlord to not allow people to keep guns in their residences.

[Mensa]

That's stupid. We need less gov't, not more.

[Dawood]

the stupid thing is publicising this will make this neighborhood a target for break-ins. Less risk of catching a hot one.

[Ski Mask]

what pisses me off about this is its just another example of people signing contracts without paying any attention to the contents, then acting pissed off when they find out what powers they've signed away.

you dont want the homeowners assoctiation telling you you cant have guns in the house, or what kind of color to paint the house, or how long your grass can grow before they force you to cut it? fine, dont move into a community that requires you to sign papers giving them that power.

 

this isnt some low-income development where the residents have no choice but to accep the terms and move in because they cant afford to live anywhere else. I have no sympathy for these people.

[leftwinghack]

[ATTACH]51891.vB[/ATTACH]

no way there takin my guns

[JigaboosPigaboos]

That compact is a keltec right? How is that thing?

[JigaboosPigaboos]

what pisses me off about this is its just another example of people signing contracts without paying any attention to the contents, then acting pissed off when they find out what powers they've signed away.

you dont want the homeowners assoctiation telling you you cant have guns in the house, or what kind of color to paint the house, or how long your grass can grow before they force you to cut it? fine, dont move into a community that requires you to sign papers giving them that power.

 

this isnt some low-income development where the residents have no choice but to accep the terms and move in because they cant afford to live anywhere else. I have no sympathy for these people.

 

Its not sympathy for them its sympathy for the state of constitutional rights if one person who isnt even the goverment can take them away. The second amendment protects the first nigga.

[leftwinghack]

its a laser sight

its wonderful

[angelofdeath]

"Its not sympathy for them its sympathy for the state of constitutional rights if one person who isnt even the goverment can take them away. The second amendment protects the first nigga."

 

im about as pro gun as you can get (as anyone on here that reads my stuff can vouch for) but im also about as pro property rights as you can get.

 

for instance, we have freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech does not give you the right to walk into my house, and speak any sort of language you want. you may do so on your own property.

you may have a god given right to bear arms, but if you go on someones property, they have to right to deny your entry if you have a gun... and the exact opposite could be true. you might not want anyone on your property unless they are carrying a gun.

 

what is going on, is these people voluntarily moved into a neighborhood with a homeowners association. sure, they own the house, but the association can tell you what to do. sort of like how you might own property, but the zoning board tells you what you can and cannot do on it.

 

there are two ways to combat this if you own a house in his neighborhood... hide your guns, or move. i'd probably just move, because who wants to be around these stick in the mud types anyway.

[KaBar2]

Homeowner's associations do have a certain amount of regulatory power, but they cannot legally pass rules that contradict the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they cannot pass rules that contradict State or Federal law. Suppose my HOA writes a rule that says reading pornography in my home is forbidden? Suppose they write a rule that says only people of a certain race may live in this neighborhood? Suppose they write a rule that says no dogs over twenty-five pounds are permitted?

 

There is a HOA where I live. They are constantly bitching about one thing or another. I think people ought to respect other people, their rights and their property, and mind their own business. HOA Board members are always those wet blanket busybody types that apparently don't have enough to do taking care of their own affairs.

[Juan Fuentes]

first they make it in certain locations,until it spreads into the whole country.

little by little they will feed you what they want,they cant just do it all at once.

[WORDISM45]

first they make it in certain locations,until it spreads into the whole country.

little by little they will feed you what they want,they cant just do it all at once.

 

 

 

yeha htis home owners association is the vanguard of the NEW WORLD ORDER :lol:

[.coma]

[ATTACH]51891[/ATTACH]

no way there takin my guns

 

nice ak.....;)

 

 

what mods?

[Theo Huxtable.]

i think all guns should be banned in this country. that constitution was written during a time when it took the average person about 1 minute to load a musketball, so you couldn't necessarily rob a bank or go on a school shooting massacre. this was also during a time when the frontiers of america were unpredictable, filled with those bad injuns and witchcraft and wild bears and vigilantes -- not to mention the US had a very dilapidated military and needed all the help it could get to prevent possible attacks from the british, french, indians, spanish, and mexicans -- based on the US's success with ordinary militia and minutemen that aided the u.s. continental regular army in the war of 1776.

 

all of that is not really necessary now. in japan, no citizen can own a gun, and it is a wonder that they only have about 25 murders a year, in a population of about 130 million.

 

anyhow, here are a few guns i was trained in and enjoyed firing:

 

9mil

 

m14 -- simply the m1 garand that has been improvised

 

12 gauge (side load)

 

m60 (actually i held it but never fired it -- which is wrong since they're supposed to train you first)

[Theo Huxtable.]

 

oh yes, and the 50 cal

[Qawee]

[ATTACH]51891[/ATTACH]

no way there takin my guns

 

[ATTACH]52072.vB[/ATTACH]

[russell jones]

i think all guns should be banned in this country. that constitution was written during a time when it took the average person about 1 minute to load a musketball, so you couldn't necessarily rob a bank or go on a school shooting massacre. this was also during a time when the frontiers of america were unpredictable, filled with those bad injuns and witchcraft and wild

 

In Japan, I believe you are referring to gun murders, not the overall number of murders, which is no doubt higher.

 

Canada has very liberal gun laws, yet their gun murder rate is very low in comparison to the U.S. Let me steal something from the N.R.A. and say that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[lord_casek]

theo: by banning the guns you are taking away waht america is. we have every right to be armed. it's not because muskets were loaded in 1 minute or so. it's because the founding fathers didn't want anyone to get out of line for fear of the people revolting. that is what they wanted. we just turned pussy on the govt as time went on.

[KaBar2]

The men who founded the United States were firm supporters of the idea that every CITIZEN had the right to keep and bear arms, both for self defense and for defense of the Nation. They also strongly supported the idea that if the Federal government became oppressive, the people have the right to dissolve it and form another one more to their liking.

Ever since the ratification and implementain of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, people have been steadily trying to undermine the Constitution's guarantee of individual and States' Rights. The worst blow came during and after the Civil War, when the Federal government succeeded in crippling the states' power to control their own affairs, write their own laws and govern themselves. The Federal government has gone to great lengths to impose their version of freedom upon the states, without much regard for what the people of that individual sovereign state might think about it.

 

One of the first things they did was to change the Constitution and make the election of Senators an election from a Congressional District, rather than by the LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE. Senators were never intended to be as independent or as politically powerful as they are today. Senators are supposed to be REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES IN CONGRESS. Anytime the State Legislature didn't like what the Senators were doing, they could recall them and elect a Senator who would do what he was sent to Congress to do. They were the servants, not the master, of the State Legislatures.

 

With the legal formation of Congressional Districts, senators are now (so-called) "democratically elected directly by the people." This just allows the Senators to do whatever they please, since they no longer have to answer to the State legislators, and "the people" are as maleable as Play-Doh.

 

Another change came in the late 1890's, when judges were suddenly empowered to no longer properly "charge the jury", which meant that the jurors had to be told that THEY (not the judge) are SITTING IN JUDGEMENT OF BOTH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LAW. Today, judges routinely tell jurors that they are not PERMITTED to consider anything not presented as evidence in the Courtroom when they make their decision. This is totally untrue and inappropriate, the Constitution does NOT permit judges to have this much power. THE JURORS are sitting IN JUDGEMENT,

 

NOT THE JUDGE.

 

The judge is only a referee for the attorneys. It is the JURY who is the power in a Courtroom. If the jury chooses to find the defendant "not guilty" then NOT GUILTY he is, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE JUDGE AND THE STATE THINK ABOUT IT.

If the jury finds the defendant "Guilty", then GUILTY HE IS.

 

When they changed this, they completely destroyed the power of the concept of trial by

 

A JURY OF ONE'S PEERS.

 

What we now have is a sham, a fake, a lie. It is "trial by judge" and if he doesn't like the jury's decision, he can just throw it out. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TYRANNICAL.

 

 

True Liberty rests on three boxes:

 

 

1.) The BALLOT box.

2.) The JURY box.

3.) The CARTRIDGE box.

 

 

The tryants are doing their best to render the United States into a country that is essentially subjugated under the boot of the rich, well-educated and powerful---in essence, a "ruling class." When you look at UK, you are looking at the American future. SUBJECTS OF A QUASI-SOCIALIST WELFARE STATE GOVERNMENT.

 

 

READ WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF GUNS:

 

 

 

 

The Founding Fathers On Firearms

 

 

Thomas Jefferson:

 

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

--Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th Century criminologist,

Cesare Beccaria, in "On Crimes and Punishment" (1764)

 

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June12, 1823

 

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to the Virginia Constitution

 

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

 

---"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

 

---"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787

 

 

George Washington:

 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"

- George Washington

 

 

James Madison:

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]

 

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

 

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."

---James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46

 

 

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

---James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46.)

 

 

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it."

---- James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46

 

 

Patrick Henry:

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

- Patrick Henry

 

 

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

 

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."

- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

[Dawood]

word, kabar is back, maybe we can squeeze some tales from rails out of you while youre here. nice to see you back.

[fermentor666]

That's stupid. We need less gov't, not more.

 

Idiot, the government isn't telling them not to carry guns.

[fermentor666]

Haha, Kabar, thanks for the legal lesson. :p

[LIVERWURST*]

Kabar - How do you rectify your stance on jury power VS. your stance on direct election of federal reps? You seem to contradict yourself, though I don't have an emotional stake in either, so take it for what it's worth.

 

Your statement about the reps did make me think though. Being a news junky I prefer direct elections on principle. However being a realist, state level reps are likely to be more informed and concerned with the interests of the state over the spin and advertising that so clearly sways elections. I guess in a way state reps electing our federal reps creates a certain protection of voters because it keeps the system in line: voter > state rep > federal rep. This would empower the state government much more than we currently see.

[fermentor666]

Kabar thinks America is supposed to be a direct democracy, but it's not. Shit, we couldn't even vote in our own senators until 1913. Liberty in this country rests on threes, but not boxes: judicial, legislative, and executive. If you don't like it, go start a revolution.

[LIVERWURST*]

And the elctoral college? And the surpreme court?

[angelofdeath]

the supreme court and electoral college are both constitutional.

 

the direct election of senators was part of hte progressive revolution, which was the early 20th century push for a more centralized state. when the states had the right to elect senators, they could be held accountable. now, they are virtually untouchable once seated. the senators are no longer representatives of thier respective states to DC, they are now senators from DC to thier states.

 

this also, back in the days of somewhat limited government that the senators who went to DC had a direct interest to thier state as the state legislatures could impeach them. also, it was rather uncommon for election money to come from out of state to elect a senator as it does now, because the state legislatures elected the senators. this shows the states autonomy and that they retained much more power than they do today. and we all know that jefferson and other states righters considered the states the best barrier against consolidation and tyranny. the 17th amendment was one of the last nails in the coffin of the 10th amendment and divided sovereignty. re 17th amendment existed a vital check on the tyranny of majority, i mean, the god of democracy, which by its very nature violates individual rights.

 

jury nullification is a great thing. EVERYONE would do good to learn about it. you dont have to listen to the judge, you can vote your conscience, you are sovereign citizen. if an unconstitutional law is passed, and someone is convicted of it, you can set them free. actually, the drug legalization lobby is getting in on this, and not just guys like kabar.

[Theo Huxtable.]