18 replies to this topic

[johnyt101]

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

[BShawn]

[Nico]

So far it a good direction.

[BShawn]

Nico, on Jan 5 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

So far it a good direction.

Now only if Chicago (and Oak Park) would follow

[xbaltzx]

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.

[FST_Kent]

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.

[BShawn]

xbaltzx, on Jan 6 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

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

[mikew]

BShawn, on Jan 6 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

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.

[eric2281]

mikew, on Jan 7 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

BShawn, on Jan 6 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

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.   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.

[GWBH]

The higher the better - Daley's going to fool around here and get the 2A incorporated!!!!!

[BShawn]

[quote name='eric2281' post='131449' date='Jan 7 2009, 08:39 AM'][quote name='mikew' post='131443' date='Jan 7 2009, 07:46 AM'][quote name='BShawn' post='131200' date='Jan 6 2009, 12:06 AM']Now only if Chicago (and Oak Park) would follow [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

Stubborn Ba***rds.   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.
[/quote]


[quote name='GWBH' post='131473' date='Jan 7 2009, 11:03 AM']The higher the better - Daley's going to fool around here and get the 2A incorporated!!!!![/quote]
: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."

[BShawn]

mikew, on Jan 7 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

BShawn, on Jan 6 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

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.

Too sad, too sad. Good thing we will move up the food chain though

[Slappy]

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?

[BShawn]

Slappy, on Jan 16 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

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)

[Slappy]

BShawn, on Jan 17 2009, 09:43 PM, said:

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...  

[BShawn]

Slappy, on Jan 17 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

BShawn, on Jan 17 2009, 09:43 PM, said:

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...  

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

[Slappy]

BShawn, on Jan 17 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

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...

[BShawn]

Slappy, on Jan 17 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

BShawn, on Jan 17 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

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...

[Slappy]

BShawn, on Jan 18 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

Ah... Thanks for the insight.

I didn't know you were a landlord...

Yep and 95% of the time its cool...