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.
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.