lease infringes on constitutional rights

[jallman]

Constitution restricts the government, not citizens. I can rent out a room in my apartment but require the renter not to possess a gun.

I can see that if you are sharing the space with him and the lease is in your name. However, I can't see a leased space having restrictions that run counter to our Constitutional rights.

 

[RightinNYC]

I can see that if you are sharing the space with him and the lease is in your name. However, I can't see a leased space having restrictions that run counter to our Constitutional rights.

Why not? The constitution doesn't limit private citizens at all. Many states have passed laws requiring people to allow guns/etc., but those aren't "rights," they're statutory.

 

[jallman]

Why not? The constitution doesn't limit private citizens at all. Many states have passed laws requiring people to allow guns/etc., but those aren't "rights," they're statutory.

I'm sure you are right, but I just don't see how. When you lease a piece of property, you take over responsibility of it and it becomes your property for the duration of the lease. You're responsible for what goes on within it. I just don't see how you can have your rights restricted in your own home.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm sure you are right, but I just don't see how. When you lease a piece of property, you take over responsibility of it and it becomes your property for the duration of the lease. You're responsible for what goes on within it. I just don't see how you can have your rights restricted in your own home.

I had the hardest time getting this for a while, but my property professor explained it really well.

Think of a piece of property as a bundle of sticks that represent all the individual property rights. When you own something outright, you own the entire bundle - the right to hold it, the right to loan it out, the right to sell it, the right to destroy it, the right to profit off it, etc.

If you want, you can share some of those sticks with someone else. So if I invent a product, I can lease the patent to someone else in exchange for royalties. In that situation, I've given that person the rights (sticks) to use my product however they want. If I want, I can place special restrictions on how they use it - for non-profit uses, only in some countries, etc. In those cases, I've given out fewer sticks and have kept more for myself.

When I lease out a house, I can give out whatever sticks I choose. Many people choose to lease out almost everything, so the tenant has almost the full set of rights that the owner would have. However, many choose to lease out less than the full set, thus restricting the ability of their tenants to play music loud, sublet rooms, do construction, etc.

This is like that.

 

[new coup for you]

Constitution restricts the government, not citizens. I can rent out a room in my apartment but require the renter not to possess a gun.

but the state used the 10th amendment to integrate private facilities during the 60s

 

[winston53660]

I had the hardest time getting this for a while, but my property professor explained it really well.

Think of a piece of property as a bundle of sticks that represent all the individual property rights. When you own something outright, you own the entire bundle - the right to hold it, the right to loan it out, the right to sell it, the right to destroy it, the right to profit off it, etc.

.

In Dallas there is a historical society it is a part of the city government and they can keep one from destroying a house with a historical designation. They can also approve or disapprove any modifications to any structure with the historical designation..

 

[jallman]

In Dallas there is a historical society it is a part of the city government and they can keep one from destroying a house with a historical designation. They can also approve or disapprove any modifications to any structure with the historical designation..

Yeah, **** the historical societies. I had plenty of contact with them back in NC over an old plantation house I used to live in.

 

[RightinNYC]

but the state used the 10th amendment to integrate private facilities during the 60s

The federal government has passed plenty of antidiscrimination laws and many states have added on to those with gun rights laws and the like, but all those are specifically provided for by statute.

In Dallas there is a historical society it is a part of the city government and they can keep one from destroying a house with a historical designation. They can also approve or disapprove any modifications to any structure with the historical designation..

That's zoning law, which is a whole other ****storm. I hated that crap.

 

[Hollywood Landlord]

You have a constitutional right to bear arms in your place of residence.

If they state in the rules BEFORE you sign your lease that they don't accept residents with firearms, then that is within their rights, but not after you've moved in.

 

[Ikari]

I live in a small development of townhouses. The lease, which is renewed yearly has gone thru minor changes with every new manager. What has me and many of nieghbors considering a move is two new clauses in the lease.

The first states that residents are not allowed to have a gun of any type in their residence. I know that each of us is free not to sign and find another place but I am wondering if it legal for a landlord to make such a stipulation?

The second, due to an incident which is too involved to go into here, is targeted at the teenagers in residence. It stipulates that the teens may not congregate in groups larger than three. Again, I am wondering if such is legal?

Both are infringements upon our constitutional rights. Can anyone shed any light on this?

You do not own the property, so you can't set all the rules. If the property owner doesn't want guns, they can deny that. And also, everyone has the right to contract as well. When you sign it, you agree to the terms involved. It depends on the congregation point, if it's off the property they can't say anything about it. If it's on the property, it's more difficult to say. Association is definitely a right, but so is contract and property. But that one stands the best chance of being overturned, I doubt you'd get the gun one thrown out.