If you sign a lease that says you will not vote and then change your mind. Your landlord can't go to court and prevent you from voting or evict you after you vote. It is not enforceable. Rights are not just for property owners. We got past that years ago
I would like to agree with you. I really would. The problem is I think your point of view is coming from the "What it SHOULD BE" camp, and not as much the "What it really is", camp.
Rights are more and more set up just for property owners, who by the view of the law are "more legitimate" than people who do not own property.
Cause under your definition then you couldn't ban smoking, or pets, or just about anything for a naturalized US citizen.
14'th Amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
See just under that there is no definition of what the "privileges" are. Under section 1 of the 14'th, a property owner cannot limit my privileges if I choose to rent his property and thus pay him fairly for the use of space.
Unless you are going to make a giant list saying what every American citizens privileges ARE, you have to assume that anything they want to do which is legal, is a privilege. SMoking it legal, pets are legal, working on cars is legal.
So you can't selectively infringe on their privileges unless the government has ruled that behavior illegal.
So in the perfect world under the constitution as a pure piece of guidance, you are correct. A landlord can't stop a legal gun owner from having a gun on the property.
But in the real world it has been common practice that the property owner can put restrictions on the renter because the property owner is the one with the investment to be maintained and not the renter. Thus in the eyes of the law making the property owner MORE legitimate than the renter because the property owner is potentially creating more benefit to the tax base.
BUT The civil rights act of 1968 explicitly covers housing and you might like to look at the types of discrimination listed under the 1968 expansion of the 1964 addendum.
4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.
So "interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons " could definitely cover those persons who legally own or want to legally own a firearm.
It could be just a flat out breach of the fair housing act to discriminate against someone for types of behavior that they feel are in the interests of their Life, and Liberty, and Privileges.
But I can't find any references to any case law dealing with it on those grounds.
I also cannot find any references to case law where a tenant was denied the right to bear arms by a landlord specifically.
BUT, public housing is considered ANY property where the OWNER DOES NOT LIVE THERE but it is regularly rented out as a residence to other people.
In other words private housing is literally the place where you live. Public housing is a living space where the owner is not present on the property.
The problem with this, is that if someone went to court and won that firearms can't be banned from public housing, it opens the door for court cases that disallow property owners to ban any behaviors that the renter may feel further their pursuit of life liberty and happiness.
Like smoking, animals, drugs, and so on. So if Landlords could no longer set rules for their property, would they just sell the property, or deal with the reality that they are no longer able to infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens to make a profit at all.
Like I said before....interesting.