Posted on 11/30/2018 11:03:03 AM PST by ptsal
Everything depends on what the Lease, and any agreements between the roommates say. Based on the article, the roommates are evoking the “quiet enjoyment” concept as a means to pressure the Landlord to evict the Student for them. If they had a legal basis to do so otherwise, I assume they would have.
Student has NOT been firing her guns, racking the actions loudly etc., on the premises; otherwise there would have been mention of it. Quiet Enjoyment is violated by actual noise and ruckus, not inanimate objects silently packed away (that the roommates would not have known about if they had not illegally ransacked Student’s possessions), and not someone’s “feelings”. The roommates are conspiring to deprive her of her rights to legally occupied housing. Their only legal option is to move out themselves, while continuing to pay their part of the rent until the Lease term expires, or they find replacement roommates.
I hope Student does get an attorney and the snowflake fascists leave.
In response to the email from Pirnie’s roommate, Lewis contacted Captain James Donovan
of the Somerville Police Department to inspect Pirnie’s firearms and ensure they
were in compliance with Massachusetts law. Pirnie agreed to allowing the police to
inspect her firearms and said she was told she is in compliance with all applicable
laws. Lewis acknowledged the department’s conclusion that Pirnie was not breaking
any gun laws in his email telling Pirnie to move out.
The girls who went through her stuff should be arrested for burglary. It was a private space that she rented for her use alone. I understand why black Americans get angry sometimes. Can you imagine if a black guy went into his neighbor’s apartment and rummage through all his things looking for what might interest him? He would be in prison so fast it would make your head spin, but these are white ivy league snowflake kids. Kids I say, they’re all in their early twenties.
The landlord could make entry, upon notice to conduct normal business, but no a landlord does not have a right to search through your drawers
“I’m pretty sure the landlord would be within his rights to search his property...”
Usually a landlord is obligated to give some kind of legal notice if they want to inspect the premises, and that is for an inspection, not a search. Once he leases it out, the tenants do have some legal expectation of privacy.
Co-lessees, on the other hand, all have an equal legal entitlement to the premises, so there is nothing outright illegal about them rummaging through each others’ stuff. It’s rude and you might be able to come up with some grounds for a civil suit over it, but it’s not illegal unless they stole something.
“It was a private space that she rented for her use alone.”
That’s not how it works when you rent with roommates. There is only one premises, and everyone on the lease has an equal legal right to access the entire premises.
Do you have to take something for it to be burglary? I don’t know. Definitely trespassing.
I don’t think a black women gets arrested in this case. I think a black guy probably gets arrested.
If a bunch of white women search a black women’s room I think all heck breaks lose.
It’s a conspiracy to deprive Leyla of her civil right to be armed for self protection. Not to mention the right to be safe in her property.
Federal civil rights case or cases is in order. Ask for a million for each legal citizen.
She can live with me, guns and all. ;-D
+1!!!!!
“Do you really want property owners to be stripped of their rights?”
Do you really want tenants to be stripped of their rights?
“Do you have to take something for it to be burglary? I don’t know. Definitely trespassing.”
If they unlawfully enter and take a nap on the sofa, it’ll be trespass. If they are in there to commit any other crime, however slight, it is burglary (with state to state variations)
“The owner must prevail,”
Maybe.
“because the owner’s rights occurred first at that location.”
What are the owner’s rights? The right to keep and bear arms is stated in the Bill of Rights. Where are the owners rights stated? The rights to life and liberty are stated in the Declaration of Independence. Do the owner’s rights, whatever they are, prevail over those too? Can the owner prevail and take a tenant’s life because the owners rights occurred first at that location? Can the owner prevail and curtail a tenant’s liberty right to leave because the owners rights occurred first at that location?
As far as I can tell, the whole “property rights” in relation to other rights is not defined very well.
“Naturally, the lease sure as crap must establish rules regarding such thing up front.”
I heartily agree with that.
One individual's rights do not supersede another's rights. Someone living on your property cannot dictate how you manage your own property. You are allowed to deny access to your property for any reason.
Exercise of your first amendment rights is making me uncomfortable. You’re evicted.
No, even the landlord has no right to enter rented premises without the permission AND knowledge of the tenant.
Tenant, not child.
The roommates should be charged with breaking and entering and trespass.
Property owners protect their rights through their leases.
Yep - from the article, I’d wager the lease doesn’t support any of the actual lawbreakers here. Sue the landlord and get the others kicked out.
“The Bill of Rights is directed ONLY at the Federal government.”
The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights. People establish governments to secure Rights.
“One individual’s rights do not supersede another’s rights.”
Then an individual’s real property rights do not supersede another’s right to keep and bear arms; then a landlord’s property rights do not supersede a tenant’s right to keep and bear arms. Or vice versa. “One individual’s rights do not supersede another’s rights” doesn’t make sense as a standalone statement.
“Someone living on your property cannot dictate how you manage your own property.”
That might depend on the terms of the agreement regarding someone living on another’s property.
“You are allowed to deny access to your property for any reason. “
Not for just “any reason”. In the face of a legal search warrant, “any reason” won’t allow you to deny access. If someone kidnaps my child, confining the child to their property, the reason that they don’t want my child freed doesn’t allow them to deny access to their property.
They may deny access, but that’s not the same as being allowed to deny access.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.