Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63

Thread: Guy I work with being evicted for ocing in his trailer park?

  1. #1
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Guy I work with being evicted for ocing in his trailer park?

    guy came to work today said he was ocng around his trailer park walking his dog. park manager told him he could not carry a pistol in the park, he continued to oc. now he is being taken to court for eviction from his trailer park for this.

    is this legal? if not what counter action can be taken?

  2. #2
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    I would say yes, given your facts. He could OC on his lot, he pays rent; therefore it is his property. The park as a whole is private property leased to each individual by the month. Private property rights govern the rules.
    However, I don't think the courts will see this as a good reason for eviction and may deny the claim.
    I would suspect, given the owner/managers quick and severe response...there may be more conflict between them than just a gun.

    IANAL....JMO

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    I would say it depends on the contract or lease agreements or whatever, if any exist. If it's a month to month deal, I would bet property rights will trump all else, and he's outta there. If a lease does exist, and mentions nothing about weapons, he's probably fine.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    I would say it depends on the contract or lease agreements
    Precisely. Leases in Michigan are pretty much standard in setting out not only the agreements governing one's privately leased space, but also any generally resident-accessible areas. If a rule ain't in the lease, it ain't enforceable.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belleville , michigan, ,
    Posts
    287
    I would bet money that just like most apartments it is in the lease

  6. #6
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Where do cops live?

    Quote Originally Posted by choover View Post
    I would bet money that just like most apartments it is in the lease
    If it is a standard clause in a rental lease, then cops and security guards must all own.

  7. #7
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by choover View Post
    I would bet money that just like most apartments it is in the lease
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    If it is a standard clause in a rental lease, then cops and security guards must all own.
    I realize your from Illinois, and not everyone their owns firearms in Illinois (gang-bangers excluded of course). Although in Michigan it seems that everyone and their brother owns a firearms, even a lot "sheep" own firearms here, they may be against carry, or even "loaded" firearms in the home, but they own them for hunting.

    So in short lockman, I agree with you, it seems highly unlikely that lease agrements (at least standard ones) include a no firearms clause.
    Last edited by eastmeyers; 07-31-2010 at 12:28 AM.
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    The only way that this person could know for sure is (drum roll, please)...

    to actually READ the lease agreement/ contract/ rental agreement, whatever he/she signed when they moved there.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Keep us posted. Can you get a copy of the lease agreement? Is it Michigan?

    My park manager doesnt want me to OC here either. So I just OC at home. If she needs the assistance of an armed citizen however, I'm not going to help.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    WRONG!

    I have a rental property with a number of rentals on this property and I can NOT abrogate, prevent nor stop someone from following his constitutional rights. You are dead wrong.

    Even if it is in the lease it is illegal. I can't write a lease that again prevents you from having, exercising or enjoying your rights PERIOD! The community he lives in or the trailer park as a WHOLE is part of his lease, unless you can argue he has no right to leave his lot? Come on think use your common sense here folks. So what if I live in an apartment I have no right to leave it and enter it via the hallways? WTF!?

    If we are to win this war on ideals we better start using that gray matter between our ears.

    One might check his facts before promoting things that are untrue.


    Quote Originally Posted by WARCHILD View Post
    I would say yes, given your facts. He could OC on his lot, he pays rent; therefore it is his property. The park as a whole is private property leased to each individual by the month. Private property rights govern the rules.
    However, I don't think the courts will see this as a good reason for eviction and may deny the claim.
    I would suspect, given the owner/managers quick and severe response...there may be more conflict between them than just a gun.

    IANAL....JMO
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 07-31-2010 at 12:20 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Where is this property? What court system? And why if he is clean and isn't some idiot, can we npt support him in his fight even if it is a show of support.

    ??
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    It means NOTHING! The rights are Unalienable which means in clear legal terms is not even WE can give them away via contracts, agreements, as they are GOD given and not our personal property. We have bought the lies of inalienable rights which were never enumerated in the constitution, they were called and defined as Unalienable rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    The only way that this person could know for sure is (drum roll, please)...

    to actually READ the lease agreement/ contract/ rental agreement, whatever he/she signed when they moved there.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  13. #13
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    Back off a little: I did state it was my opinion, given the facts he cited. I know he can and did state he can carry on his lot. I worked for a trailer park and YES it is considered private property. If I seen a car I know didn't live there or visiting someone who did, I had the right to ask them to leave. Same as a gated community.
    I have seen similar violations in the Genessee county circuit courts; and YES, the trailer park has the right to set rules for the park as a whole, as private property.
    So YES, in that regard; I do know what I am talking about.
    And yes, in my opinion, there is more to it that stated for such a severe reaction by the manager. Hence I only give opinions on second hand facts.

    Just another reinforcement on why I have about quit posting on here. Thanks for showing me it hasn't changed much.
    Have a nice day.... I'm back in the bushes

    Forgot to cite: The court upheld the eviction on the grounds that the tenant had been warned multiple times for working on his vehicle which is against park rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    WRONG!

    I have a rental property with a number of rentals on this property and I can NOT abrogate, prevent nor stop someone from following his constitutional rights. You are dead wrong.

    Even if it is in the lease it is illegal. I can't write a lease that again prevents you from having, exercising or enjoying your rights PERIOD! The community he lives in or the trailer park as a WHOLE is part of his lease, unless you can argue he has no right to leave his lot? Come on think use your common sense here folks. So what if I live in an apartment I have no right to leave it and enter it via the hallways? WTF!?

    If we are to win this war on ideals we better start using that gray matter between our ears.

    One might check his facts before promoting things that are untrue.
    Last edited by WARCHILD; 07-31-2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason: edit to add

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Back off?!? (Personal attack removed by moderator)

    The Genesse Circuit court is DEAD wrong! It wouldn't hold water in the Supreme court. By laws are fine and this car you speak of is on private property and trespassing as they did NOT live there. My living there brings my rights "intact" and I can never surrender them to you or anyone else and the trailer park can NOT under a condition of an agreement IE lease steal, or prevent your exercise thereof. A corporation is not a person thus does not have constitutional rights. A corporation is a Government created "entity created in FICTION" as defined. So no fiction or straw man can claim rights. Once again when you enter into an agreement you can NOT sell or surrender your UNALIENABLE rights, as they are not your property they are the sole property of GOD as defined in the constitution. You are entitled to not exercise them yes, but you can't sell what you do not own. Unalienable means you can't do as you wish with them.

    The problem at hand is we have been sold a lie for many decades that we can surrender our rights and the facts say otherwise. The mere fact you support the Gennesse Circuit court makes me wonder if you are in fact a constitutionalist or just another person who is willing to give up your freedoms and liberties for security...


    As far as your "back off" comment I suppose you think you are all knowing and omniscient? Or are you a human being who can be wrong? It would be quite arrogant to think you know it all and I will assume your attitude wasn't an indication of such. I have spent most of my life in these matters and I will tell you without fear of contradiction by proof, that 99% of Lawyers have been taught a lie about the Constitution, and when faced with the truth choose to still believe a lie. I have been face to face with these morons in court and my self just a layman have won cases against so called knowledgeable legal experts.

    A simple man can learn much faster than one who thinks he knows it all......


    Remember that person you asked to leave was trespassing and the renter or leaseholder is NOT a trespasser there is the difference. Understand now?




    Quote Originally Posted by WARCHILD View Post
    Back off a little: I did state it was my opinion, given the facts he cited. I know he can and did state he can carry on his lot. I worked for a trailer park and YES it is considered private property. If I seen a car I know didn't live there or visiting someone who did, I had the right to ask them to leave. Same as a gated community.
    I have seen similar violations in the Genessee county circuit courts; and YES, the trailer park has the right to set rules for the park as a whole, as private property.
    So YES, in that regard; I do know what I am talking about.
    And yes, in my opinion, there is more to it that stated for such a severe reaction by the manager. Hence I only give opinions on second hand facts.

    Just another reinforcement on why I have about quit posting on here. Thanks for showing me it hasn't changed much.
    Have a nice day.... I'm back in the bushes
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 07-31-2010 at 12:57 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  15. #15
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Gun owners a protected class?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    WRONG!

    I have a rental property with a number of rentals on this property and I can NOT abrogate, prevent nor stop someone from following his constitutional rights. You are dead wrong.

    Even if it is in the lease it is illegal. I can't write a lease that again prevents you from having, exercising or enjoying your rights PERIOD! The community he lives in or the trailer park as a WHOLE is part of his lease, unless you can argue he has no right to leave his lot? Come on think use your common sense here folks. So what if I live in an apartment I have no right to leave it and enter it via the hallways? WTF!?

    If we are to win this war on ideals we better start using that gray matter between our ears.

    One might check his facts before promoting things that are untrue.
    McDonald vs. Chicago has incorporated the right to keep and bear arms through the 14th amendment. I would consider it a protected class such as being a minority or handicapped and should trump private property rights in all locations that allow public access for trade or commerce. Such locations should be compelled to comply with standards set aside for those sensitive locations. My "bearing arms" for my defense is much less burdensome on others than a mandate to install elevators, hand rails, special parking, special signage, ramps, automatic doors, curb cuts and special bathroom stalls.

    The exercise of your right to bear arms costs the business nothing, zero! Other "accommodations" for a protected class can be a major burden if not bankrupt the business completely.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belleville , michigan, ,
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    WRONG!

    I have a rental property with a number of rentals on this property and I can NOT abrogate, prevent nor stop someone from following his constitutional rights. You are dead wrong.

    Even if it is in the lease it is illegal. I can't write a lease that again prevents you from having, exercising or enjoying your rights PERIOD! The community he lives in or the trailer park as a WHOLE is part of his lease, unless you can argue he has no right to leave his lot? Come on think use your common sense here folks. So what if I live in an apartment I have no right to leave it and enter it via the hallways? WTF!?

    If we are to win this war on ideals we better start using that gray matter between our ears.

    One might check his facts before promoting things that are untrue.

    He was walking his dog, he is on their property and IMO they have private property rights and he is screwed. He signed a lease agreeing to community rules when on their property.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    Back off?!? quit being a overly sensitive metro man.

    The Genesse Circuit court is DEAD wrong! It wouldn't hold water in the Supreme court. By laws are fine and this car you speak of is on private property and trespassing as they did NOT live there. My living there brings my rights "intact" and I can never surrender them to you or anyone else and the trailer park can NOT under a condition of an agreement IE lease steal, or prevent your exercise thereof. A corporation is not a person thus does not have constitutional rights. A corporation is a Government created "entity created in FICTION" as defined. So no fiction or straw man can claim rights. Once again when you enter into an agreement you can NOT sell or surrender your UNALIENABLE rights, as they are not your property they are the sole property of GOD as defined in the constitution. You are entitled to not exercise them yes, but you can't sell what you do not own. Unalienable means you can't do as you wish with them.

    The problem at hand is we have been sold a lie for many decades that we can surrender our rights and the facts say otherwise. The mere fact you support the Gennesse Circuit court makes me wonder if you are in fact a constitutionalist or just another person who is willing to give up your freedoms and liberties for security...


    As far as your "back off" comment I suppose you think you are all knowing and omniscient? Or are you a human being who can be wrong? It would be quite arrogant to think you know it all and I will assume your attitude wasn't an indication of such. I have spent most of my life in these matters and I will tell you without fear of contradiction by proof, that 99% of Lawyers have been taught a lie about the Constitution, and when faced with the truth choose to still believe a lie. I have been face to face with these morons in court and my self just a layman have won cases against so called knowledgeable legal experts.

    A simple man can learn much faster than one who thinks he knows it all......


    Remember that person you asked to leave was trespassing and the renter or leaseholder is NOT a trespasser there is the difference. Understand now?

    Bailenforcer,

    Private parties are generally not required to afford individuals their constitutional rights. In almost all U.S. states, shopping center owners can prohibit "free speech", and private associations can eject members or deny admission to applicants, with no warning and for no reason.

    However, this is changing, most notably in California, where state constitutional protections and certain common law rights have been extended to limit private actors.
    However, Michigan has very few "constitutional" protections that are applied towards private parties.

    Please take a look at this: http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-app...rk-law-journal
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Interesting point and let me add to this.

    I agree that the right to defend ones own life trumps all other rights as lacking this right is lacking life itself if one can not prevent his or her own death. If I am dead as a result of an attack by another then what good are my rights?

    The fact is back during the civil war era this corporation argument was made that a corporation has the right to a vote. I t does NOT. A corporation is not a person, or persons thus it has no unalienable rights. So to argue some private property right to en entity in fiction or straw man is lunacy at best and dangerous to the notion and liberties of the individual. Most people have no idea a corporation is owned and created by Government. They assume the lie that an individual incorporates thus becomes it's own corporation and maintains rights as an individual. WRONG!

    The individual who files for the Corporation stall is an individual and still maintains his/her own rights as unalienable. The corporation which is merely a fictional entity has NO rights as a "person".

    Once a corporation is formed the individual has surrender their business or entity to the will and control of the Federal Government. Thus the Government can NOT supersede the unalienable rights of any individual. The Constitution supersedes Government control. So the Corporation of the trailer park has no supreme right to over ride or take your rights. The error warchild made and it's very common and reflects nothing on him, is that the stranger can be asked to leave, and therefore the renter must loose all rights is a grave error in reading law. If you rent you rent with all rights INTACT, as the rights are once again UNALIENABLE! which means those rights are NOT yours to trade, sell nor give away, they are granted by the almighty GOD! Now many will scream this is religion and they are half right, but in all the wrong context. The founding fathers were brilliant, they worded this way as unalienable and owned by the almighty to show that NO ONE can lay claim to those granted rights and therefore not remove them by any laws, edicts, or claims that they can not provide proof of. So even a hard core Atheist is now covered by the same rights as he/she can not prove or disprove who GOD is and therefore never provide an owner to lay claim of said ownership of the "granted" unalienable rights.

    Does this yet make sense?



    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    McDonald vs. Chicago has incorporated the right to keep and bear arms through the 14th amendment. I would consider it a protected class such as being a minority or handicapped and should trump private property rights in all locations that allow public access for trade or commerce. Such locations should be compelled to comply with standards set aside for those sensitive locations. My "bearing arms" for my defense is much less burdensome on others than a mandate to install elevators, hand rails, special parking, special signage, ramps, automatic doors, curb cuts and special bathroom stalls.

    The exercise of your right to bear arms costs the business nothing, zero! Other "accommodations" for a protected class can be a major burden if not bankrupt the business completely.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    But what you say here proves my point.

    We have it all wrong!

    No mall can lay claim to your rights, no more than they can prevent them.

    To say I loose my freedom off assembly in a public market is insanity. The courts also ruled unless said freedoms of speech were designed to disrupt the rights of the Mall and merchants to carry on their businesses, they can not restrict such a right. This was decided in a protest case where students and other radicals tried to claim free speech to disrupt the right to commerce.

    So again one always retains their UNALIENABLE rights.

    To quote the court system when they repeatedly get it wrong is dangerous as the Supreme court is not a King nor has it the final word, the people have the final word.


    Private parties can NOT remove unalienable rights either. The myth the Constitution only applies to Government is and was made or or created by Lawyers and any one who studies the founders knows that not even an individual can remove, strip, seize or by any means revoke another's rights. Unalienable means the private individual has no ownership nor authority over said rights. But again NO mall is private property, this is a specious argument based on assumptions that a business is private property when it is stated as Quasi Public. Meaning if you the business owner "invite" private individuals you "invite" them with rights INTACT! if I the customer creates a situation that prevents your the business from making money or doing business then I become the problem. Oh and carry is not preventing your lawful exercise of your rights to do such.

    We must wake up to realize we have rights and damn well better protect them by using them.



    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Bailenforcer,

    Private parties are generally not required to afford individuals their constitutional rights. In almost all U.S. states, shopping center owners can prohibit "free speech", and private associations can eject members or deny admission to applicants, with no warning and for no reason.

    However, this is changing, most notably in California, where state constitutional protections and certain common law rights have been extended to limit private actors.
    However, Michigan has very few "constitutional" protections that are applied towards private parties.

    Please take a look at this: http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-app...rk-law-journal
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 07-31-2010 at 02:54 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  20. #20
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    McDonald vs. Chicago has incorporated the right to keep and bear arms through the 14th amendment. I would consider it a protected class such as being a minority or handicapped and should trump private property rights in all locations that allow public access for trade or commerce. Such locations should be compelled to comply with standards set aside for those sensitive locations. My "bearing arms" for my defense is much less burdensome on others than a mandate to install elevators, hand rails, special parking, special signage, ramps, automatic doors, curb cuts and special bathroom stalls.

    The exercise of your right to bear arms costs the business nothing, zero! Other "accommodations" for a protected class can be a major burden if not bankrupt the business completely.


    A protected class usually needs to have "immutable" characteristics upon which discrimination is based. An African-American can't change the color of his skin, but I as a gun owner, can sell my guns and cease to become a member of the group known as gun owners. So how is being a gun owner a "protected class"?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Dead wrong again..

    he can NOT sign away his rights what part of unalienable don't you understand? Nor can anyone require the surrender of said rights.

    being a renter gives him the right to legally pass as opposed to trespass.




    Quote Originally Posted by choover View Post
    He was walking his dog, he is on their property and IMO they have private property rights and he is screwed. He signed a lease agreeing to community rules when on their property.
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 07-31-2010 at 03:06 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    I like to address totally different arguments with a second post so here we go.

    Civil rights are a "gift" granted by a Government.

    Unalienable rights are granted by your creator and no one has ownership over said rights thus can not control them.

    Handicap laws are civil in nature. Thus not Unalienable.

    Is this making sense yet?


    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    McDonald vs. Chicago has incorporated the right to keep and bear arms through the 14th amendment. I would consider it a protected class such as being a minority or handicapped and should trump private property rights in all locations that allow public access for trade or commerce. Such locations should be compelled to comply with standards set aside for those sensitive locations. My "bearing arms" for my defense is much less burdensome on others than a mandate to install elevators, hand rails, special parking, special signage, ramps, automatic doors, curb cuts and special bathroom stalls.

    The exercise of your right to bear arms costs the business nothing, zero! Other "accommodations" for a protected class can be a major burden if not bankrupt the business completely.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  23. #23
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    I have a contract of sorts to use this forum to discuss firearms related issues. Using your argument, if I am banned, the people involved should be taken to court, as my 1st amendment right has been violated. Ummm--- wrong.

    State actors are the one's to whom a claim of violating the constitution can be made.

    If I am shopping and my I am forcibly searched by a security guard, he or she has not violated my 4th amendment rights.

    From a legal right's website:

    First, it is important to identify what is not at issue here: the Fourth Amendment. As I discussed in previous episodes, the Fourth Amendment generally allows people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, this protection only applies to conduct by the government and its agents. This is known in constitutional law as the “state action” doctrine, and generally means that, unless the government takes action, the protections afforded by the Constitution are not implicated. Police officers are agents of the government, and when they act, your Fourth Amendment rights kick in.


    http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.co...ur-rights.aspx
    I can sue for assault but there has been NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION

    Unless the owners of the mobile home park are acting under the direction or control of state actors such as the police, they are well within their rights found under the US constitution (cite: Contract Clause of the US Constitution) to evict him.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 07-31-2010 at 03:34 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Ok... I was gonna just sit back and enjoy the legalese being tossed around because I just love being given food for thought... but then this thought crossed my mind:

    If I am renting a lot in a trailer park and by the act of "renting" I gain a degree of private property rights (subject to any stipulations within any lease I signed) within the confines of that lot... do I also gain some degree of property rights along any access corridors that connect my rented property to public property? Ie... the streets/drives/sidewalks that go from my lot to a nearby public street?

    So if I can OC on/in my lot could I also OC upon those streets?
    Last edited by Bikenut; 07-31-2010 at 03:46 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  25. #25
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    I like to address totally different arguments with a second post so here we go.

    Civil rights are a "gift" granted by a Government.

    Unalienable rights are granted by your creator and no one has ownership over said rights thus can not control them.

    Handicap laws are civil in nature. Thus not Unalienable.

    Is this making sense yet?
    OK Bailenforcer, one very easy way for you to get us to "understand" because hey, we are not "getting it":

    Find ONE case where a violation of Constitutional (not civil as you eloquently stated) rights was found against a private party where there was not a considerable nexus found between that private party and a governmental actor (police, city, state, federal gov't)
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •