Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do feel like landlords can say or do things, like in a multi-dwelling unit, I think it is perfectly OK to say 'no firearms'.

We had a 'no firearms on campus' thing at my college. Of course, we had hunters and such as hunting season was big so they allowed students to 'check-in' legal firearms and rifles to Campus Police where you could check them out when needed but not need to store them 'on campus'.

My Roomate got in trouble as he had a 'broadsword' in his closet. They said it fell under the 'weapons on campus' rule and he had to check it in to campus police and check it out at the end of the semester to take home.

If you don't like the rules, don't sign the lease. You lose a ton of rights when living in rented space.

Landlords have a lot of leeway in terms of what they are allowed to do/allow in their dwellings.

From that perspective, the university was within their rights, and these guys screwed up.

I think a review of the policy for off-campus housing is smart, though, there will be cases where the no-gun policy should remain in place.

For me, the issue concerning university owned off campus housing is how dense is the population of college students is in the area, and how intertwined with the rest of the community the area was.

On the one end of the spectrum, if a university owns a large number of buildings just off campus housing several hundred students or more, the living area is likely sufficiently similar to a campus dormitory setting, and thus it would make sense to ban weapons in said housing.

On the other end of the spectrum, if only 2-3 houses are owned by the university, housing 8-12 people usually, and are surrounded by and intertwined with homes from the community, then it make sense to life the ban on weapons, though in such a case I think it makes sense for the university to implement a rigorous pre-approval process.

last I checked, at least up here, contracts/leases that would try to take away a persons rights, be they speech, freedom of movement, ect, are not valid,

IE: your landlord cannot slip in a "you are my slave now" clause into the agreement, even if they do, and you sign it, you are not bound by it.

so while things like smoking can be prohibited, things that you have a right to, speech, unreasonable serach and seisure, and the 2nd amendmant, are not trumped by your lease.

your land lord cannot tell you not to have guns, any more then they can tell you not to be muslim.

 easysauce wrote:
last I checked, at least up here, contracts/leases that would try to take away a persons rights, be they speech, freedom of movement, ect, are not valid,

IE: your landlord cannot slip in a "you are my slave now" clause into the agreement, even if they do, and you sign it, you are not bound by it.

so while things like smoking can be prohibited, things that you have a right to, speech, unreasonable serach and seisure, and the 2nd amendmant, are not trumped by your lease.

your land lord cannot tell you not to have guns, any more then they can tell you not to be muslim.

Maybe that's how the second amendment works in Canada, but it's definitely not how it works in the US. For example, the oft-misunderstood first amendment only protects you from censorship from the government, not from private actors in contract agreements. And you guys already know this. You know if you walk up to your boss, and tell him what an idiot he is, and then say "can't fire me, free speech brah" everyone in the building will be laughing at your stupid ass while you are boxing up your desk.

Landlords can obviously restrict gun ownership on their own property or any other manner of restrictions they like as long as it's written in the lease. You appear to be thinking of unenforceable contracts, which a court will not enforce - these really only cover unlawful acts - you're expanding the scope of them too far.

The disallowal of discrimination based upon religion is tied to various federal housing laws.

hmm, well up here I know that things are different,

take for example, up here, schools put out a ban on knives in schools,

but it was overthrown for sihks who have some religious reason to have a knife in school,

so since the school was violating their rights, they were over turned,

OBS in canada we have no 2nd amendmant, so prohibiting guns doesnt violate anything,

could a landlord in the states prohibit you from having a copy of the bible/torah/koran in your house too then?

just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.

 easysauce wrote:
hmm, well up here I know that things are different,

take for example, up here, schools put out a ban on knives in schools,

but it was overthrown for sihks who have some religious reason to have a knife in school,

so since the school was violating their rights, they were over turned,

OBS in canada we have no 2nd amendmant, so prohibiting guns doesnt violate anything,

could a landlord in the states prohibit you from having a copy of the bible/torah/koran in your house too then?

just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.

Well schools are generally public here so they have to generally comply as well. Schools are given additional leeway because they are schools.
Private entities can indeed be hampered by Constitutional rights, however. It depends on the right and if there are constitutoinal statutes that exemplify that. Aka the Bill of Rights prohibits refusals to serve based on race.

 easysauce wrote:
last I checked, at least up here, contracts/leases that would try to take away a persons rights, be they speech, freedom of movement, ect, are not valid,

You have a right to your possessions, yet a landlord up here can still legally discriminate against you for having a dog, or a cat, which is just a particular type of possession. It's essentially the same thing. One thing is, a landlord can ask you certain questions, and can legally discriminate against those that give certain answers, but often times lying is not in itself illegal. And depending on your province, it might be too much of a hassle for landlords to evict you because you lied over owning a collection of broadswords, once they figure out you've lied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

but it was overthrown for sihks who have some religious reason to have a knife in school

Wasn't it that they had to have a knife on their person, and in the end settled to have it sown inside some religious garb they wear, in a way that it was almost impossible to get to it?

not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach.

on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.

 easysauce wrote:
not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach.

on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.

Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened.

Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school. They never did anything serious with them, but one of the girl lost her gak once, and stabbed a fellow girl with one of those tringular thingy that lets you draw circles (sorry, I forget the name).

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach.

on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.

Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened.

Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school.

Well, their teens. As if they'd follow the rules to a T.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
not sure, had a few at my school, the knives were actually quite large, and open, many a times were they playfully drawn and jokes were said about how we cant have utility knives with a 1" blade, but he could have his 4.5" blade within easy reach.

on of the guys is still in my social circle, he never seemed to get any flak for how easy it was to access.

Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened.

Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school.

Well, their teens. As if they'd follow the rules to a T.

Which, you know, might be an awesome argument not to let them have their knives at school, at least not until they're older. I was fine with it when I was thinking they'd have to spend an hour hacking at their own clothes to get to the knife. The same way we tell chronic suicidals to freeze all their knives in ice so that when they want to cut themselves they have to wait one hour for the ice to melt, and by then they almost always have forgotten what made them want to in the first place. If it's just that they get a free pass from the law, then I'm not so sure anymore.

It would be dangerous to put the block of ice containing the knife in a microwave.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be dangerous to put the block of ice containing the knife in a microwave.

Meh, I just know it works. I did phone relay services for deafs and mutes, including 911 and suicide watch calls, and we had one lady who would call at least six times a day.

Maybe chronic suicidals, like many suicidals, want to leave their life as orderly as possible, and thus wouldn't like the idea of burning down the house because of a knife in a microwave?

hmm get suspended then sue the University for not providing security for the off-campus housing. If its part of the university and people live on them, then university is responsible for the lives of the people living there.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


Huh, that's weird, I thought it was supposed to be a religious thing not to draw the knife unless the owner's family or life was threatened.

Then again, I had plenty of friends who brought butterfly knives and throwing stars at school. They never did anything serious with them, but one of the girl lost her gak once, and stabbed a fellow girl with one of those tringular thingy that lets you draw circles (sorry, I forget the name).

its called a "compass" the L arm with a pencil holder on one end and the spike on the other, can you tell im an engineer lol

and oddly enough, everyone I know has a story about someone being stabbed by one... myself included.

ban drafting tools!

while they are at it, they need to remove the 8's and 0's from all calculators intended for use by those under 18


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
If it's just that they get a free pass from the law, then I'm not so sure anymore.

unfortunately thats exactly how it is, they wont get away with stabbing someone OFC, but it just outlines the uselessness/hypocrisy of the 0 tolerance stuff.

Im basing this on my earlier experiences at school with sikhs where they were just playfullying showing them, and manjeet (one of the sihk guys sister) is the one who told me that they basically had a free pass, so thats what I base it on.

also, I remember some seniors, i guess since they were going to graduate, were going around and pushing the juniors/freshmen around during the last week of school, and them literally threatening us/other groups of kids with knives/sharpened screwdrivers, it was the first and only time I ever went to the principal to snitch.

his words were "there is nothing we can do" and thats where it was left

 easysauce wrote:
just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.

We restrict constitutional rights all the time. It's the only way to have a workable society. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, you can't easily own automatic weapons*, and so on. Your constitutional rights, again, are protections from the government - not protections from other non-state actors in a private covenant. I am licensed to carry concealed, but if I bring my 1911 to work I'd lose my job because we're not allowed weapons on company property. And so on, and so forth.

The Sikh situation you describe, I know little about so cannot comment.

*I said easily, pedants

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd honestly argue that someone at university is a de facto ward of the university. IMO, the university bares a responsibility to keep its students safe. Having guns on campus is dangerous when combined with booze, raging hormones, frat hazing, and other stupid stunts. Now I'm the first person to stand up and say campus cops suck dick. They're terrible and I know from first hand experience more than once. But that doesn't mean we whould be letting people still in the transition to adult hood arm themselves to the teeth.

We actually have a case study, the University of Colorado allows concealed carry on all campuses and students in the DORMS can request assignment to a room with a gun safe.


All that's happened since the carry ban was lifted in 2008 is the sexual assault rates on all campuses have dropped massively.

 Ouze wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
just seems odd that you can over rule the constitution with a lease in the states,
be it regarding guns, or any other human right.

We restrict constitutional rights all the time. It's the only way to have a workable society. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, you can't easily own automatic weapons*, and so on. Your constitutional rights, again, are protections from the government - not protections from other non-state actors in a private covenant. I am licensed to carry concealed, but if I bring my 1911 to work I'd lose my job because we're not allowed weapons on company property. And so on, and so forth.

The Sikh situation you describe, I know little about so cannot comment.

*I said easily, pedants

hmm, yeah that all is true OFC and you are right, I just find it so un intuitive to me. I guess I could see how the whole "fire in a theatre" could apply if there had been gross abuse of the 2nd amendment in this case,
but in this case there was a fire in the theatre, and someone was not supposed to be able to yell fire. so its bass akwards to me.

thats basically where im coming from i guess.

 Ouze wrote:
You appear to be thinking of unenforceable contracts, which a court will not enforce - these really only cover unlawful acts - you're expanding the scope of them too far.

This is something that actually differs quite a bit from country to country. Here in Australia most pre-nups are thrown out by the court, because your rights in a divorce are things you simply can't sign away. Similarly, contracts of sale that have all kinds of clauses that the manufacturer isn't responsible in the event of malfunction are worth less than the carbon paper they're printed on - your rights under the Sale of Goods act can't be signed away.

 easysauce wrote:
so its bass akwards to me.

thats basically where im coming from i guess.

Sure, I get that.

An interesting argument would be: if it's a state-run and owned university, can they prohibit firearms on campus? My guess is such a ban in that case is maybe unconstitutional.

According to case law established in Colorado it is unconstitutional. Which is why you can carry and keep arms (the university provides a safe if you live in the dorms) at University of Colorado campuses.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
hmm get suspended then sue the University for not providing security for the off-campus housing. If its part of the university and people live on them, then university is responsible for the lives of the people living there.

They are in the aspect of making sure the rented property is structurally sound, has a reliable gas boiler and so on, but not in terms of law and order.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
hmm get suspended then sue the University for not providing security for the off-campus housing. If its part of the university and people live on them, then university is responsible for the lives of the people living there.

They are in the aspect of making sure the rented property is structurally sound, has a reliable gas boiler and so on, but not in terms of law and order.

Nope, off-campus, but university owned housing is still under the 'protection' of the university. The students must follow the same rules and guidelines set down by the school, and in return the students have the expectation that the school's services will still apply to them. University owned off campus housing around here gets regular visits from campus security, and students are given numbers for campus security in case gak goes down.

Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?

On some campuses any property with a hardline the 911 calls go to the university security.

Thats amazingly sad.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?

If it was a major issue, you'd call the cops, if it was a drunk beating on your door, you called Campus Security, then this frumpy old woman that's been working there damn near thirty years would drive up in a golf cart, and then if it was an issue still then they call the cops and they're there in seconds (because there's nothing ever to do in a college town, and this goes for the cops too).

It does indeed suck, and these guys at the end of the day did the correct thing for their safety, and the school fethed up (though they did say they were going to review that policy). What's that you always say Frazz, when seconds count that lard-ass campus security officer is busting a party across campus? Or something like that.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats suchs. Why on earth would you call a rent a cop for a problem?

If it was a major issue, you'd call the cops, if it was a drunk beating on your door, you called Campus Security, then this frumpy old woman that's been working there damn near thirty years would drive up in a golf cart, and then if it was an issue still then they call the cops and they're there in seconds (because there's nothing ever to do in a college town, and this goes for the cops too).

It does indeed suck, and these guys at the end of the day did the correct thing for their safety, and the school fethed up (though they did say they were going to review that policy). What's that you always say Frazz, when seconds count that lard-ass campus security officer is busting a party across campus? Or something like that.

Exactly.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
...

It does indeed suck, and these guys at the end of the day did the correct thing for their safety, ...
...

Except they opened the door, and threatened the guy with a gun they shouldn't have had according to university rules.

They could have left the door closed, and/or called the police or the university security, or kicked him off by themselves without the use of weapons.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
...
It does indeed suck, and these guys at the end of the day did the correct thing for their safety, ...
...

Except they opened the door, and threatened the guy with a gun they shouldn't have had according to university rules.

They could have left the door closed, and/or called the police or the university security, or kicked him off by themselves without the use of weapons.

The student opens the door yes, and the guy at the door says he's homeless and needs money. The student offers blankets and canned food, but no cash. The guy becomes combative and angry, the student tries to close the door, but the guy tries to barge in. The other student comes in and brandishes his gun. The guy gets spooked and runs off. Nothing about the story says they knew who was at their door until they opened the door.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/guns-returned-gonzaga-university-students-20871618