[Retire Early]

Do you think that the DC vs Heller Supreme Court ruling could affect home owners associations from banning firearms in their housing? It would seem that an all out ban in a condo or town-home is no different than an all out ban in DC.

BYU currently has a policy for off-campus student housing that you may only have a firearm in your OFF CAMPUS apartment, if all of your roommates agree to you having it, as well as your landlord approving it. I think the roommate clause is open to interpretation, but the landlord clause reeks of DC vs Heller.

So what do you think? Does DC vs Heller give enough grounds for BYU students to sue to have pistols under their pillows regardless of their liberal landlords? What about HOAs?

**EDIT: My bad, this should have been posted in Gun Control Issues, not in the Bills section. ***

 

[MarshallDodge]

Good question. Would it fall under private property?

 

[Retire Early]

Good question. Would it fall under private property?

It is private property, but I guess the question is what rights of control have the landlord relinquished when they rent the property? Landlords can't just barge in unannounced, etc.

HOA parking lots & grounds are private property outside of your direct control, but you own the .002 acres "from the wallpaper in" that your dinky condo sits on. It doesn't seem that private property argument should apply inside the condo or town-home.

 

[apollosmith]

For now, today's ruling really doesn't mean much of anything unless you happen to be a citizen of D.C. Chicago is vehemently attesting that the second amendment and the ruling only apply to federal government and to the citizens of D.C. respectively. The concept of incorporation (that the U.S. Constitution applies to state governments) is relatively new. In fact, there are a few cases (some noted in the ruling) that indicate that the second amendment does NOT apply to state governments, though these were all based upon the militia clause and collective right interpretation, both of which have now been clarified.

So while this case will inform state and local legislatures, it is going to take a lot more case law and precedents and probably another Supreme Court ruling (i.e., at least several years) before we can even begin thinking that this ruling might apply to something as dissimilar and extracted as BYU's housing requirements.

BYU, being a private institution, can require pretty much anything they want of student. Their rules are not laws. It's not illegal for them to require short haircuts, just as it is not illegal for them to disallow firearms. You don't go to jail if you break their rules (and are caught) - you just get to go to the U instead. :lol2:

 

[Retire Early]

BYU, being a private institution, can require pretty much anything they want of student. Their rules are not laws. It's not illegal for them to require short haircuts, just as it is not illegal for them to disallow firearms. You don't go to jail if you break their rules (and are caught) - you just get to go to the U instead. :lol2:

Thank you for your interpretation. I now clearly see the difference. At first my mind said, "Heller couldn't defend himself in his home because DC wouldn't let him have a gun." I jumped to the conclusion that it was similar that, "BYU students can't defend themselves in their own homes (off campus) because BYU allows landlords to refuse them that right.

But you are correct that you can still live in Provo and have a handgun in your home, you just can't CHOOSE to attend BYU and have that right in your home.

As far as HOAs are concerned, if Chicago says the ruling doesn't apply then we've got the same problem with HOAs. I guess we're in a wait and see.

 

[Sam Fidler]

How totally STUPID do you have to be to truly believe that the 2A only applies to DC or the Fed gov? Would ANYONE remotely consider applying this same logic (rather, lack thereof) to the first, fourth, or fifth amendments? This leaves me to believe that any proponent for this line of reasoning is the very definition of evil.

 

[MarshallDodge]

How totally STUPID do you have to be to truly believe that the 2A only applies to DC or the Fed gov? Would ANYONE remotely consider applying this same logic (rather, lack thereof) to the first, fourth, or fifth amendments? This leaves me to believe that any proponent for this line of reasoning is the very definition of evil.

Whoa! Easy there cowboy! :shock:

States have constitutions as well.

 

[Paul]

This is just 1 example of thousands of questions and issues that will eventually be addressed as a result of today's ruling. There are far reaching consequences of the victory today but it will take years and years of legal action with the anit's fighting it all the way.

 

[apollosmith]

How totally STUPID do you have to be to truly believe that the 2A only applies to DC or the Fed gov? Would ANYONE remotely consider applying this same logic (rather, lack thereof) to the first, fourth, or fifth amendments? This leaves me to believe that any proponent for this line of reasoning is the very definition of evil.

Easy there tiger. I'm not suggesting there isn't broader applicability of this ruling, but by itself, it only applies directly to DC and the federal government. The only way that it can have broader application is when it influences legislation and when it is referenced and applied in other case law. And it certainly will do this.

There are several cases that show that the first, fourth, and fifth amendments have applicability to states and states have accepted such. The 14th amendment helps to define this - and it wasn't ratified until almost 100 years after the original amendments were. There are no such cases for the second amendment. As noted, there are several that clearly show that the 2nd amendment DOES NOT apply to states, but these are based upon the militia clause and the idea of collective rights, not individual rights.

I guess all I'm saying is that don't read too much into this interpretation yet. This is a great victory that will lay the groundwork for future battles. It's one big step toward having ALL of our gun rights restored and maintained, but it isn't the whole enchilada.

Interestingly, the Illinois Constitution states, "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Even if 2A doesn't apply to Illinois, it's pretty clear that the courts should rule that based upon the SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment that there is absolutely no way that the Chicago ban of guns for "the individual citizen" does not violate Illinois' own constitution.

 

[GeneticsDave]

:mod:
Thread moved to Gun Control Issues in the United States and Utah per OP request.

 

[bane]

I could have sworn that there was already a law on the Utah books that prohibited a landlord from restricting a renter from keeping a legal firearm in their home. But I haven't been able to find it... maybe someone else can. Or maybe it was just a proposed law that never passed????

 

[NPD]

You don't go to jail if you break their rules (and are caught) - you just get to go to the U instead. :lol2:

Quiet!!! Don't argue with BYU students about how much better the U is, you might convince them to come up here.

 

[jaredbelch]

I could have sworn that there was already a law on the Utah books that prohibited a landlord from restricting a renter from keeping a legal firearm in their home. But I haven't been able to find it... maybe someone else can. Or maybe it was just a proposed law that never passed????

76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.

(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
(a) transport a firearm into:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence; or
(b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
(i) a house of worship; or
(ii) a private residence.
(2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by:
(a) personal communication to the actor by:
(i) the church or organization operating the house of worship;
(ii) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
(iii) a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii);
(b) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence;
(c) announcement, by a person with authority to act for the church or organization operating the house of worship, in a regular congregational meeting in the house of worship;
(d) publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, or similar document generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation regularly meeting in the house of worship; or
(e) publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state.
(3) A church or organization operating a house of worship and giving notice that firearms are prohibited may:
(a) revoke the notice, with or without supersedure, by giving further notice in any manner provided in Subsection (2); and
(b) provide or allow exceptions to the prohibition as the church or organization considers advisable.
(4) (a) (i) Within 30 days of giving or revoking any notice pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e), a church or organization operating a house of worship shall notify the division on a form and in a manner as the division shall prescribe.
(ii) The division shall post on its website a list of the churches and organizations operating houses of worship who have given notice under Subsection (4)(a)(i).
(b) Any notice given pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e) shall remain in effect until revoked or for a period of one year from the date the notice was originally given, whichever occurs first.
(5) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.
(6) A violation of this section is an infraction.

 

[bane]

Good job, Jared! Thanks. I didn't bother to re-read that section b/c it didn't seem it would be there... obviously I was wrong.

So there you go -- within the confines of Utah State, no landlord can prohibit a renter from possessing a firearm in their rented home. Of course this would apply to BYU off-campus housing and should be challenged. But I'm not as sure it would apply to on-campus housing since if you are on-campus you would be considered to be in violation of campus rules.

Unless I am wrong, I don't see why BYU would have any more legitimate a claim to their off-campus housing as any other landlord... ???

 

[apollosmith]

What happens if/when your landlord finds out you have a gun? Does he just notify BYU or do you get evicted? If you are evicted because you own a gun, you probably have an argument under Utah law. A landlord can decide not to begin renting to you for about any reason they want (pets, smoking, you're a redhead, you own a gun, etc.), but the law does state that once you have possession of the rental, he cannot restrict you from having a gun. But the law is very unclear - while he can't have a rule against guns, there's nothing that says he can't evict you for having a gun. What BYU does in this situation is totally separate from what your landlord does - the law only applies to the landlord.

I suppose that if BYU kicks you out for having a gun, and you are then evicted (whether on or off campus) for not being a BYU student, then you're probably SOL. The real key is to get cool roommates.

At Utah State University student housing, where state laws definitely apply, the only rule they have is that you can request a roommate change if you find out your roommate has a gun.

 

[bane]

I don't think it's at all a stretch to argue that evicting you b/c you have a gun is tantamount to restricting your right to have gun. If that is the stated reason for eviction, it's just a rule put into action. Eviction for gun ownership is a de-facto rule restricting gun ownership.

If some landlord-BYU joint agreement contains aspects similar to this I think it still amounts to de-facto regulation against gun ownership.
And I doubt BYU could just kick you out of school merely because they found out you own a gun. If that were to hold up, imagine if they then created a rule to kick you out of school if they found out you weren't Mormon, or you were too old, or you were black. Being a Civil Rights issue, it seems an honest Judge would not be able to see a connection between ownership of a firearm in your off-campus housing and attendance at school.

I just fail to see the connection (or their grounds for being able to limit ownership in off-campus housing).

 

[marksman]

If byu can kick you out for having a beard then trust me they can kick you out for having a gun. And I'm guessing the mechanism for evicting you is probably that they only allow byu students to rent so if you get kicked out of byu here comes the eviction.

 

[bane]

My point was regarding your activities OFF-CAMPUS not on-campus. Having a beard is generally something you can't do only off-campus, you have to also do it on-campus (which is what would result in being kicked out of school... not the fact that you had a beard while you were off-campus).

Having a firearm in your off-campus residence creates no logical connection with your status as a student as long as didn't bring the firearm onto the campus; again, just like my Atheist Mother-in-Law was able to go to BYU and graduate from there despite her Atheistic beliefs... so long as she attended the required religious classes and behaved herself while ON campus, what she practiced OFF campus was none of their business. I really don't see how private ownership of a weapon off-campus is any different.

 

[Guest]

Dude, don't get me started on HOA's.

Biggest pile of bull crap there ever was.

"We decided that, because we're neighbors, we have a say in how you live your life."

I want to kick whoever invented HOA's in the gonads.

But no, the ruling on DC vs. Heller has no bearing on private contracts -- which includes HOA agreements and other similar kinds of covenants and codes.

 

[bane]

The HOA bit is news to me... I live in an HOA and don't go too far out of my way to hide my firearms (and my neighbor openly carries his rifle through the parking lot). But then again I didn't notice anything in our CC&R's specifically forbidding it either.

The funny thing is I'd like to see an HOA successfully press the issue with a gun owner. The vast majority of HOA's are a gnat's-&@! away from bankruptcy anyway... challenging them to a face off would not be too hard and they'd likely be forced, financially, to back down.