johnyt101 Posted January 6, 2009 at 04:19 AM Share Posted January 6, 2009 at 04:19 AM It appears to be a win for the good guys. The only down side is that there will be no precedent set here. SF to drop its handgun ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 6, 2009 at 04:27 AM Share Posted January 6, 2009 at 04:27 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted January 6, 2009 at 05:26 AM Share Posted January 6, 2009 at 05:26 AM So far it a good direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 6, 2009 at 06:06 AM Share Posted January 6, 2009 at 06:06 AM So far it a good direction.Now only if Chicago (and Oak Park) would follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbaltzx Posted January 6, 2009 at 06:54 PM Share Posted January 6, 2009 at 06:54 PM You can already own handguns in San Francisco/SF county. The only difference here is publicly owned housing. It sure is a step in the right direction though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted January 6, 2009 at 09:23 PM Share Posted January 6, 2009 at 09:23 PM This may be city public housing, but wasn't there a department of public housing ban during the Clinton era? It wasn't a law, but the department's policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 7, 2009 at 04:46 AM Share Posted January 7, 2009 at 04:46 AM You can already own handguns in San Francisco/SF county. The only difference here is publicly owned housing. It sure is a step in the right direction though.This is true :Drunk emoticon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted January 7, 2009 at 01:46 PM Share Posted January 7, 2009 at 01:46 PM Now only if Chicago (and Oak Park) would follow :Drunk emoticon: At this point, it looks like they are going to hold out for a court order. This will force the case higher up the food chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric2281 Posted January 7, 2009 at 02:39 PM Share Posted January 7, 2009 at 02:39 PM Now only if Chicago (and Oak Park) would follow At this point, it looks like they are going to hold out for a court order. This will force the case higher up the food chain. Stubborn Ba***rds. :Drunk emoticon: Daley doesnt want to admit that the ban has NEVER worked & NEVER will. The ONLY thing the ban has ever done was keep law abiding citizens from protecting themselves & their family....& make it difficult for them to enjoy the fine world of shooting sports. As far as SF...Cali laws are way out of hand so anything pro 2A in that state is definatley something to be happy about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted January 7, 2009 at 05:03 PM Share Posted January 7, 2009 at 05:03 PM The higher the better - Daley's going to fool around here and get the 2A incorporated!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 7, 2009 at 07:07 PM Share Posted January 7, 2009 at 07:07 PM Now only if Chicago (and Oak Park) would follow At this point, it looks like they are going to hold out for a court order. This will force the case higher up the food chain. Stubborn Ba***rds. :Drunk emoticon: Daley doesnt want to admit that the ban has NEVER worked & NEVER will. The ONLY thing the ban has ever done was keep law abiding citizens from protecting themselves & their family....& make it difficult for them to enjoy the fine world of shooting sports. As far as SF...Cali laws are way out of hand so anything pro 2A in that state is definatley something to be happy about. The higher the better - Daley's going to fool around here and get the 2A incorporated!!!!!:Angry!: Yea, I guess this is how it's going to have to be; since "King Daley attacks guns because he knows they don't shoot people, he doesn't attack gangs because he knows they do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 7, 2009 at 07:09 PM Share Posted January 7, 2009 at 07:09 PM Now only if Chicago (and Oak Park) would follow :Drunk emoticon: At this point, it looks like they are going to hold out for a court order. This will force the case higher up the food chain.Too sad, too sad. Good thing we will move up the food chain though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted January 17, 2009 at 03:38 AM Share Posted January 17, 2009 at 03:38 AM Public housing is like renting though, isnt it? You sign some type of lease and then it becomes your private residence, subject to all the normal laws. Or is it something different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:43 AM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:43 AM Public housing is like renting though, isnt it? You sign some type of lease and then it becomes your private residence, subject to all the normal laws. Or is it something different?I have heard of (non specific) places where you are not allowed to live there if you plan on bringing firearms into your residence, even though you pay the rent and "live" there. While I am presuming that isn't law anywhere that it does take place, you can slip just about anything into a "legal contract" ie... a lease. Another good reason I always read all fine print. (I think I had a friend make a claim to having read a potential lease he was about to sign, until he read a part about "no firearms allowed" on the property >.<) I am not 100% sure on any of the above information, it is all hearsay... I would presume the thing in SF was a "law", opposed to being part of a "legal contract" or lease, or any other form of legal paperwork. I would think with the SCOTUS ~ Heller decision any "laws" like these are going to be attacked (pretty obvious). When it comes to any "private policy" like the one my friend supposedly encountered, I just don't think I would waste the time, I would just keep looking for somewhere else to rent, and just refuse to rent somewhere that had such a policy. (Kinda like refusing to shop somewhere {in an LTC state} that has a no firearms post/policy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:48 AM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 03:48 AM I have heard of (non specific) places where you are not allowed to live there if you plan on bringing firearms into your residence, even though you pay the rent and "live" there. While I am presuming that isn't law anywhere that it does take place, you can slip just about anything into a "legal contract" ie... a lease. Another good reason I always read all fine print. (I think I had a friend make a claim to having read a potential lease he was about to sign, until he read a part about "no firearms allowed" on the property >.<) I'm sorry but as a property owner who rents to people, I have to disagree. My property becomes their home for the length of the lease. While I can put things in the lease, like no drugs or illegal activity, I cannot take away a constitutional right to a tenant. I even have to give notice before entering the premises. So providing my tenants are not smoking crack or running a brothel out of my places, they can legally arm themselves to the cows come home... and of course I encourage that... When I run for congress on my "A chicken in every pot, and a gun in every home" platform, I expect you all to vote for me... :Drunk emoticon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:06 AM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:06 AM I have heard of (non specific) places where you are not allowed to live there if you plan on bringing firearms into your residence, even though you pay the rent and "live" there. While I am presuming that isn't law anywhere that it does take place, you can slip just about anything into a "legal contract" ie... a lease. Another good reason I always read all fine print. (I think I had a friend make a claim to having read a potential lease he was about to sign, until he read a part about "no firearms allowed" on the property >.<) I'm sorry but as a property owner who rents to people, I have to disagree. My property becomes their home for the length of the lease. While I can put things in the lease, like no drugs or illegal activity, I cannot take away a constitutional right to a tenant. I even have to give notice before entering the premises. So providing my tenants are not smoking crack or running a brothel out of my places, they can legally arm themselves to the cows come home... and of course I encourage that... :Drunk emoticon: When I run for congress on my "A chicken in every pot, and a gun in every home" platform, I expect you all to vote for me... Well he probably is "full of it" (my friend that I made reference to that is), there is no legal way a landlord could make a no firearm stipulation??? That's good to hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:50 AM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 04:50 AM Well he probably is "full of it" (my friend that I made reference to that is), there is no legal way a landlord could make a no firearm stipulation??? That's good to hear :Drunk emoticon: Even if I did, its easily contestable in court by the tenant and the law almost always favors the tenant. Thats why we have to screen our tenants so carefully. They could not pay the rent and it would take months to evict them, all while I'm taking a loss and they're trashing the place. We do credit checks, background checks etc... you have too... I've been burned before. Other landlords on here know what I'm talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 18, 2009 at 07:37 PM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 07:37 PM Well he probably is "full of it" (my friend that I made reference to that is), there is no legal way a landlord could make a no firearm stipulation??? That's good to hear Even if I did, its easily contestable in court by the tenant and the law almost always favors the tenant. Thats why we have to screen our tenants so carefully. They could not pay the rent and it would take months to evict them, all while I'm taking a loss and they're trashing the place. We do credit checks, background checks etc... you have too... I've been burned before. Other landlords on here know what I'm talking about...Ah... Thanks for the insight. I didn't know you were a landlord... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted January 18, 2009 at 07:41 PM Share Posted January 18, 2009 at 07:41 PM Ah... Thanks for the insight. I didn't know you were a landlord... Yep and 95% of the time its cool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.