• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Bailenforcer

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
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.




choover said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bailenforcer

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
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?


lockman said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.com/store-security-and-your-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:
B

Bikenut

Guest
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 a moderator:
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Bailenforcer said:
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?
Click to expand...

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)
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Bikenut said:
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?
Click to expand...

If the streets are someone else's property you would have an "easement"; they also could be owned by an association to which you belong like an HOA or resort association and would usually be referred to as "common" areas, either of these would have the rules of use spelled out in your agreement.

If the roads you use to access the nearby public street, are actually public (yes, this does happen in some developments) this use would be covered under the controlling unit of Gov't ordinances and state law.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
DrTodd said:
If the streets are someone else's property you would have an "easement"; they also could be owned by an association to which you belong like an HOA or resort association and would usually be referred to as "common" areas, either of these would have the rules of use spelled out in your agreement.

If the roads you use to access the nearby public street, are actually public (yes, this does happen in some developments) this use would be covered under the controlling unit of Gov't ordinances and state law.
Click to expand...

Could that mean that if under those "rules of use" firearms are not mentioned then say.. because they are not mentioned then walking a dog while OC'ing in or upon an "easement" would be allowed? Or do easements work upon the basis of only those things mentioned are allowed?

And I do appreciate the education... free by the way... that I'm getting...:D
 
C

choover

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
287
Location
Belleville , michigan, ,
Bikenut said:
Could that mean that if under those "rules of use" firearms are not mentioned then say.. because they are not mentioned then walking a dog while OC'ing in or upon an "easement" would be allowed? Or do easements work upon the basis of only those things mentioned are allowed?

And I do appreciate the education... free by the way... that I'm getting...:D
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet they are mentioned. my first couple places of my own before I got established were trailer parks and it was in the lease, after them was 2 apartment complexes which also spelled it out. I will say they have a clause in his lease against it.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Bikenut said:
Could that mean that if under those "rules of use" firearms are not mentioned then say.. because they are not mentioned then walking a dog while OC'ing in or upon an "easement" would be allowed? Or do easements work upon the basis of only those things mentioned are allowed?

And I do appreciate the education... free by the way... that I'm getting...:D
Click to expand...

Depends how it is worded BUT usually it is written in the positive, not the negative.
 
lockman

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
protected class

DrTodd said:
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"?
Click to expand...

Then why is sexual orientation a protected class? Or certain religious practices? A person may change or disregard these practices also. Heck you can change you sex too! so much for that. "Immutable" seems awfully flexible.
 
C

choover

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
287
Location
Belleville , michigan, ,
lockman said:
Then why is sexual orientation a protected class? Or certain religious practices? A person may change or disregard these practices also. Heck you can change you sex too! so much for that. "Immutable" seems awfully flexible.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Have you changed your sexual orientation recently? I am willing to say I am 100% certain that it is not possible for me to change mine, women all the way.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
lockman said:
Then why is sexual orientation a protected class? Or certain religious practices? A person may change or disregard these practices also. Heck you can change you sex too! so much for that. "Immutable" seems awfully flexible.
Click to expand...

Acknowledging this is "off-topic" and hoping that this answer allows the the side-issues to drop off and hopefully go back to the OP's issue of "gun ownership" being prohibited by this Mobile Home park..

Because sexual orientation has as it's basis the"gender" of those involved, and discrimination is usually based on the gender of one of the individuals, it has been deemed a "protected class". Most people would agree that the sexual orientation that they have is intrinsically bound in the gender of the other...
 
Last edited:
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Bailenforcer and WARCHILD were going back and forth a bit, but I think they both had valid points. A trailer park is private property and they can indeed regulate activity or individuals. The park has limits though, thanks to those constitutional rights. this is why I can OC on my own property even though the management absolutely despises me for it, and they can do nothing about it. I cannot however, go to the pool, or walk around the park OC, because the private property thing shifts to their favor. Similarly to a forum or club, living in the park is voluntary, (sorta) so they can make rules like this. Living in a neighborhood is different, the land overall, is Michigan, or whatever state you live in, and thus the state laws apply. Preemption for instance.

What we, as voting gunowners need to do, it is our duty in fact, to protect our inalienable rights by electing those who will change the laws in such a way so that these malls and trailer parks can no longer prevent the use of those God given rights.
 
Agent1

Agent1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
119
Location
The Thumb MI
Other than knowing what is written in the lease agreement, we can only speculate as to the legality of the park's actions.
"easement" is a tricky word in our legal system. I am not sure of the exact definition, but I was told by my Lawyer that the easement that I grant to my neighbors is for direct access to their property. They can travel directly in and out but can not use it for other purposes without my permission. Take it for what it is worth I guess.
 
K

kootsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
63
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
Bailenforcer said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct.. No lease can take away constitutional rights. Plain and Simple. Even if it is in the lease, it is unenforceable and would never hold up at the eviction hearing which is required for all evictions.
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
That may be true, but if they failed to evict you because of that, they would look bad in court, and then want to get back at you. I could see that person getting written up for everything in the book, right down to a blade of grass growing out of the driveway seems. And then being evicted for multiple rule violations,.
 
Agent1

Agent1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
119
Location
The Thumb MI
stainless1911 said:
That may be true, but if they failed to evict you because of that, they would look bad in court, and then want to get back at you. I could see that person getting written up for everything in the book, right down to a blade of grass growing out of the driveway seems. And then being evicted for multiple rule violations,.
Click to expand...

Can you say...HARASSMENT! And with litigation to back you up.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
kootsoup said:
You are absolutely correct.. No lease can take away constitutional rights. Plain and Simple. Even if it is in the lease, it is unenforceable and would never hold up at the eviction hearing which is required for all evictions.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing your belief of what should be the case or are you arguing the way that it currently is considered by the courts? If the latter, please provide a citation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top