Posted on 11/30/2018 11:03:03 AM PST by ptsal
A Massachusetts landlord told a Harvard University graduate student that he wanted her to move out of her apartment because her legally owned firearms made some of her roommates uncomfortable.
"Since it's clear that Leyla wants to keep her firearms, it would be best for all parties if she finds another place to live," Dave Lewis, president of Avid Management, said in an email to the household obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The request that the student, Leyla Pirnie, move out came after her roommates searched her room while she was not home and found her firearms. That prompted one of the roommates to email Lewis requesting he verify that Pirnie was in compliance with applicable firearms laws.
"We discussed with Leyla that all of us are uncomfortable with having firearms in the house, and that their presence causes anxiety and deprives us of the quiet enjoyment of the premise to which we are entitled," the roommate wrote to Lewis.
Pirnie said she feels her roommates violated her privacy and now they and her landlord are trying to violate her rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
You need to do more reading.
You need to think more about what you read.
The Constitution is a document that chartered our government. The Bill of Rights is not a set of laws to govern citizens, it is strictly a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the government from passing certain classes of laws. If the Bill of Rights were laws for the citizens to follow, then there would have been fines and prison terms prescribed for offenses against those rules. Notice that the entire Constitution is devoid of any laws. It consists entirely of organizational and operational rules for only the government itself. If you find otherwise, please direct me to the place in the Constitution I have misinterpreted.
I would also like you to direct me to a specific law that that penalizes any citizen who fails to admit armed people upon his own premises or prohibits another from exercising political speeches on his property. Show me a specific law that prohibits me from running those pesky Seventh Day Adventists from my doorstep.
Upon closer inspection, you will discover only the Federal government is limited by the Bill of Rights. You will also notice that most states were organized under a similar Bill of Rights. Those states would then be prohibited in the same manner as the Federal government. You should also notice that citizens are not subject to those restrictions; for we are a free People.
“OK, we sparred with pointed things. ;-D”
I like that! Really, no snark or bad intention on my part. It made me laugh.
The rest of your post deserves a decent response but real life is imposing itself on me at the moment, so that will have to wait a bit. I’ll have to respond later.
For clarity, the United States Constitution is a document that chartered the Federal Government. As you note below, there are State Constitutions that charter State Governments.
The Bill of Rights is not a set of laws to govern citizens, it is strictly a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the government from passing certain classes of laws.
I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.” The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights, some of which predate and do not depend on it for their existence and some of which are granted by it. The intent of stating them is to prevent the Federal Government from “passing certain classes of laws”, but they are not just a set of rules. The “rule” if you must put it that way, is that the Federal Government cannot “pass certain classes of laws” because such laws would violate the stated rights.
If the Bill of Rights were laws for the citizens to follow, then there would have been fines and prison terms prescribed for offenses against those rules. Notice that the entire Constitution is devoid of any laws. It consists entirely of organizational and operational rules for only the government itself. If you find otherwise, please direct me to the place in the Constitution I have misinterpreted.
The Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution and I maintain the US Constitution is itself law and therefore not “devoid of any laws”.
Samuel Johnson in his dictionary of 1785 defined “constitution” as:
6. Established form of government; system of laws and customs.
7. Particular law; established usage; establishment; institution.
https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft/page/n463
The US Constitution is listed in the US Code as part of the Organic Law of the United States:
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim
As to there being no fines and prison terms prescribed, a constitution is generally not the proper place for such detail. Such details are largely more appropriate for the government established by the constitution to put into more specific laws in accordance with the constitution.
As to “It consists entirely of organizational and operational rules for only the government itself. If you find otherwise, please direct me to the place in the Constitution I have misinterpreted”:
Those “organizational and operational rules” are the law in accord with which the Federal Government (I believe that’s what you meant when you wrote “government”) is to establish more detailed law for itself, the States, and the people. And I believe Article I, Section 10 is not only for the Federal Government.
Section 10
1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
I would also like you to direct me to a specific law that that penalizes any citizen who fails to admit armed people upon his own premises…
If the “armed people” noted above include the “any person authorized” noted below:
US Code, Chapter 109,
§2231. Assault or resistance
(a) Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, prevents, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and seizures while engaged in the performance of his duties with regard thereto or on account of the performance of such duties, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and—
(b) Whoever, in committing any act in violation of this section, uses any deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter109&edition=prelim
…or prohibits another from exercising political speeches on his property. Show me a specific law that prohibits me from running those pesky Seventh Day Adventists from my doorstep.
I don’t recall that I’ve stated a property owner can’t prohibit another from exercising political speeches on his property or run “pesky Seventh Day Adventists” from his doorstep. Whether or not the property owner can do so would depend on any contractual agreements.
My position is that one does not lose all one’s rights just because one is on another’s property.
By the way, could one run a pesky Seventh Day Adventist from one’s doorstep if that person was the owner of the property one was renting, or even had the owner’s permission to be there?
Upon closer inspection, you will discover only the Federal government is limited by the Bill of Rights.
I thought most of it had been extended to the States. In any case, I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.” The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights, some of which predate and do not depend on it for their existence and some of which are granted by it. The intent of stating them is to prevent the Federal Government from “passing certain classes of laws”, but they are not just a set of rules. The “rule” if you must put it that way, is that the Federal Government cannot “pass certain classes of laws” because such laws would violate the stated rights.
Furthermore, since certain rights are stated, and since governments are instituted among men to secure rights, I expect the government to secure these rights or in other words, to limit those who would violate them.
You will also notice that most states were organized under a similar Bill of Rights. Those states would then be prohibited in the same manner as the Federal government.
And obligated to secure those rights
You should also notice that citizens are not subject to those restrictions;
Bull. We are restricted from violating the rights of others.
…for we are a free People.
We are not free from the restrictions that keep us from violating others rights. And if that’s not true, who among us is free from such restriction?
Please see Post 45. I meant to post it to you and accidentally posted it to myself.
Understand that all laws must have penalties associated with them; otherwise, they simply are not enforceable.
We are not governed by opinion. We are governed by laws. It is extremely important that the Bill of Rights governs only the government and not We The People.
Good as any. ;-D
This is too funny... With even a little investigative work; they just told crooks, robbers and rapists they are un-armed and where they are.
The owner has his rights, and the lady has hers. Neither rights are stronger than the other. The lady can satisfy her rights by either purchasing the property and staying, or moving to a place which will accommodate her guns.
As I said before, the Bill of Rights controls the operation of the Federal government and no other entity. That is how it was intended and that is how it has been interpreted each and every time these issues have been brought to the Supreme Court.
It is the correct interpretation of this situation.
Landlords MUST bind tenants under a suitable lease. Tenants must seek clarification up front. Because this particular case was not mitigated under a suitable lease, the case must be referred to the court for resolution. The owner SHOULD lose the case, but in that state he probably will not.
It established a "system of laws", it DID NOT establish any laws! Read on: The Constitution clearly states that "only Congress can make laws, and Congress may not delegate". How could the Constitution Committee itself violate that rule?
Freedom to Petition the government
Quartering troops
Searches and seizures
Right to trial by jury
Protect against self-incrimination
Presumed innocence
Eminent domain
Powers delegated to the states
Those are just a few examples of rights that individuals clearly cannot control with respect to other individuals. How does one apply the idea that some of those Amendments are applied to We The People while some of them apply only to the government?
The fact that the Bill of Rights governs only the government is terribly important. To corrupt that notion is exceptionally dangerous to your Freedom.
All of them? In one instance I quoted the US Constitution itself and in another the United States Code, the latter of which admittedly may or may not be validated by the Founding documents but should be in accord with the US Constitution.
“It is extremely important that the Bill of Rights governs only the government and not We The People.”
Ignoring everything between the first and lasts sentence, I point out that I did not address one way or the other whether or not “the Bill of Rights governs only the government and not We The People”. I wrote, quoting you in part:
I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.” The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights, some of which predate and do not depend on it for their existence and some of which are granted by it. The intent of stating them is to prevent the Federal Government from “passing certain classes of laws”, but they are not just a set of rules. (Emphasis added.)
True.
“Neither rights are stronger than the other.”
That implies a stalemate in a conflict of rights. And it’s not always true. The owner’s rights may be stronger than the lady’s free speech right to shout partisan political statements from a window when the owner doesn’t want her to, but it is not stronger than her free speech right to say “No” to the owner’s request for sexual favors, nor is it stronger than her liberty right to leave the premises if the owner wants to hold her there.
“Landlords MUST bind tenants under a suitable lease. Tenants must seek clarification up front.”
“Must” might depend on local law, but they should in order to avoid problems. “Because this particular case was not mitigated under a suitable lease, the case must be referred to the court for resolution.”
That’s how we handle conflicts of and disagreements over rights.
I don’t know where you got that quote ("only Congress can make laws, and Congress may not delegate") but I didn’t find it in the US Constitution. Please cite the Article, Section and Clause you are quoting and then maybe I can address the question.
It established a "system of laws", it DID NOT establish any laws!
It’s establishment as the US Constitution was an establishment of law because the US Constitution is law. It says so itself in Article VI:
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
I wonder what that has to do with your question “How could the Constitution Committee itself violate that rule?”?
Regarding “Searches and seizures”, the original post seems to say the roommates interfered with a right stated in the Fourth Amendment when they violated the gun owner’s right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Are you going to tell me that We The People only have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches conducted by the Federal Government and that we have no such right when the unreasonable searches are conducted by others of us among We The People?
Regarding “Right to trial by jury” and “Presumed innocence”, I don’t have an instance at hand, but I believe there have been cases where guilt was presumed followed by a lynching with no trial by jury involved.
“How does one apply the idea that some of those Amendments are applied to We The People while some of them apply only to the government?”
And
“The fact that the Bill of Rights governs only the government is terribly important.”
Once again, what I wrote is:
I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.” The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights, some of which predate and do not depend on it for their existence and some of which are granted by it. The intent of stating them is to prevent the Federal Government from “passing certain classes of laws”, but they are not just a set of rules. (Emphasis added.)
That implies a stalemate in a conflict of rights. And it’s not always true. The owner’s rights may be stronger than the lady’s free speech right to shout partisan political statements from a window when the owner doesn’t want her to, but it is not stronger than her free speech right to say “No” to the owner’s request for sexual favors, nor is it stronger than her liberty right to leave the premises if the owner wants to hold her there.
Nobody's rights are EVER stronger than another's. The case you site for denying sexual advances or retaining someone against their will are not matters of free speech.
...Must” might depend on local law, but they should in order to avoid problems...
True, I meant "must" as only an idiot wouldn't. And, true All conflicts regarding conflict of rights are supposed to be handled in court
...I don’t know where you got that quote ("only Congress can make laws, and Congress may not delegate")...
This stems from Article I, section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. This means "Congress, and only Congress, has the power to make laws. And the Congress is a bicameral legislative body—that is, it's divided into two chambers, the House and the Senate." [http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-1]
...It’s establishment as the US Constitution was an establishment of law because the US Constitution is law. It says so itself in Article VI:...
You are just so very badly mistaken to think this document established law for anyone except the government itself. This a a very fundamental principle of out Nation.
...I wonder what that has to do with your question “How could the Constitution Committee itself violate that rule?”? ...
See the bit about only Congress can make laws
...I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.”...
NO Constitutional scholar agrees with you.
Can you cite a single example of a private citizen being sentenced or fined for violating another person's Constitutional Rights? I can't find one case.
A law must be enforceable. To that end, it must must have fines or prison sentences specified. There are neither of these related to the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, courts rule against the Constitutionality of laws passed by government identities. This is of itself proof positive of my stance. Accept this. It is good for YOUR Liberty!
“I have a lease. So go **** yourself.”
L
If she didn’t have a Massachusetts firearms license she’s in very big trouble.
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.