Montana Gov signs new 'Gun' bill into law

well piss on you, its called the second amendment. dummy.

The second amendment doesn't mean that you can carry in my house if I don't want you to carry in my house.

I Will only rent to black, gay, jewish women who will shoot me if I piss them off.

11 is unconstitional and will get shot down by the first person to take issue with it.

The right to have a cat piss in the corner of the bedroom or a dog shitting all over the yard is not in the US Constitution.

The right to own a gun is in the constitution, wake the fuck up you dumbfuckers.

That IS interesting. I'm leaning toward "yes."

For instance, if the government required random drug testing of all citizens, that would be a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. But employers requiring drug testing as a condition of employment has generally been found to be legal. If the government is your employer, there are things it can tell you to do, but it's doing so as employer to employee, not government to citizen.

In the case of public housing, the government is serving as a landlord, and, again, has the right to do anything that a private landlord can do, in that capacity.

You dont make the laws of the land dummy, I would love to yank down my shorts and shit right on your living room carpet and laugh at your dumb ass while laying a huge turd.

The second amendment doesn't mean that you can carry in my house if I don't want you to carry in my house.

If I don't want you in my house, and you're in my house...then guess what...you're trespassing.

Why is that so hard for you stupid fuckers to understand?

It's amusing to me that Snoop fails to understand that the personal, individual right to protect one's person and property is what the Second Amendment was penned to guarantee. Using the Second Amendment as a justification for the misuse of another's property (misuse as in: doing things on their property they don't want done there) is high irony.

Wait. Are you telling me that, if I own a house and a black person applies to rent it, and I tell him "I'm sorry. I don't rent to coloreds," I'm legally within my rights?








Oh, don't get me wrong, in principle, this should be the case, but in practice I believe it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

I think the line to be drawn is that what a person is should not be a factor on which you can legally bar them from consideration. What a person does should be.

It's not like you can put a clause into the contract specifying that they're only permitted to be black when not on the property, for example.

I reckon it's a case of the person having a choice.

Someone can choose to disarm, but can't choose his or her race.

This is true. Back in the "Jackson Five" days, he was part of the human race.

​

Okay - I'm coming in WAAAAY late - and I'm not going to read through 5 pages of "he said" "he said."
Just tell me, doesn't # 11 mirror telling a landlord he can't stop a person from renting his apartment/house based on race color or creed?
Or am I missing something?


To Elwood: Is it the wording that you object to?

No, it doesn't, because an ethnicity is something you are, while bringing a firearm onto the landlord's property is something you do.

Landlords are prohibited from discriminating based on what a prospective tenant is (by birth), but discriminating based on what a prospective tenant does is not only legal in most cases, it's a fundamental right.

Okay - is there a way that the bill/law could be worded to make it less unconstitutional?
Something like if the landlord provides no means of defense, then the leasee is allowed to defend himself?

Wording it that way would make no difference. Either way, it's still establishing a requirement for a property owner which they have no pre-existing legal obligation to fulfill.

Here's an analogy -- let's say you own an apartment complex and someone moves in who wants to keep a horse inside a studio apartment. Well, people have every legal right to own horses, but does the prospective tenant have a right to require you to accept a horse in a studio apartment? Do they have a right to require you, as an alternative, to build and maintain a stable for their horse? The answer to either is no.

A gun isn't a horse, and most people don't try to use horses to defend themselves. And issues about being allowed to keep firearms, a constitutional right, have nothing to do with practicality (i.e. your horse in a studio apartment analogy) and everything to do with ideology (i.e. the "guns are evil!" crowd). And as I previously mentioned, other constitutional rights have been upheld for renters, like the right to privacy - you don't lose them simply because you rent instead of own property. The only thing a renter should lack are actual property rights, as in what can be done to the property itself.

Some of you have brought up examples to defend the idea that property rights should take precedence, but to be frank all of them are specious. For instance, the example of being allowed to protest on private property is wrong - the protester in this case is not a renter and thus have no claim on being able to exercise their freedom of speech on someone else's property. A closer analogy would be a landlord kicking a tenant out of their housing for say running a political website or putting up a campaign sign on the front lawn for a candidate the landlord doesn't like - something like that. Likewise, a landlord does not have the right to come into a tenant's apartment or house without permission from the tenant or law enforcement, and in the later case they basically just get to unlock the door and stay out of the way while the police execute a warrant. There have been cases where this has been violated, and courts have upheld the tenant's right to privacy. Property rights do not give landlords the right to do whatever the hell they want to their tenants whether they can seek housing elsewhere or not. That's why landlords who drill peepholes and set up hidden cameras still get into legal trouble for violating the renter's privacy.

Hrm. Well, I was going for 'obvious by virtue of extreme' with the horse analogy, I admit. Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be a landlord barring cigarette smoking as a condition of the lease. Both present a hazard, although with both, the hazard is remote and, if it does occur, is most likely to affect the renter and not the landlord directly.

The cigarette analogy would be closer, but it still fails because smoking is not a constitutionally protected right.

Okay, I've got one that's even closer, then. Many property management companies prohibit the placement of signs or placards on rental property by tenants: Hanging flags in windows, for example. (I got sternly lecturized one year for putting a sticker in my window after having donated to the Fraternal Order of Police or some such similarly named organization.)

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right that does indeed conflict with rental agreement clauses fairly often.

My landlord does have a right to tell me not to put a political sign in the front yard of his house, yes.

Maybe someone should take that up in the Supreme Court than, because that's a very obvious abridgment of the first amendment.

No it isn't. You're perfectly free to put whatever political lawn sign you want on any property you own.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where does it say that private entities can't restrict whatever speech they choose?

Bad argument, IMHO. Because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about Congress making restrictions. It just says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

I view whether or not you keep firearms as None Of The Landlord's Business, otherwise you open the door to your landlord having full and complete access to anything you do the space you've rented.

No guests.
No sex.
Video monitoring of all areas.

By the standards ya'll are setting forth, the landlord has the right to do anything he wants, while the renter has none.

And?

If all of that is right there in the lease, I see no problem.

However, I can't imagine such a rental property having many takers.

I don't know it it's more disturbing that you're advocating for one set of individual rights should extend past the point that they interfere with the rights of others, or that you're basically saying renters should have no civil liberties. Basically what some of you are advocating is a return to lords and serfs, with the only difference being that the serfs can actually move about and choose what lord they get to surrender their civil liberties to.

You're failing to understand that when you CHOOSE to rent out property for the purpose of residence, you CHOOSE to give up certain rights to your property, namely the ability to decide what goes on inside the residential area you've rented out... Unless those actions can be determined to affect the value of your property. You may not like having to give up those rights, but again, it's your choice to rent out property.

Huh.

But no.

Don't like it, don't rent your property out. The renter has rights also, just as in any other contractual relationship. Don't like it? Fuck off.