So my condo association took over 1 month ago....

[MKEgal]

private property means they can set their own rules.

Can you be trespassed from your own property?

Since the fees paid by the homeowners are used to maintain (& pay taxes on?) the common areas of the mini-town, everyone in the association is an owner of the common areas, so cannot be restricted from the peaceful exercise of any civil right on any land they own (or partially own).
It's private property, owned by the same people some of the other owners want to prohibit.

is it your contention that the Bill of Rights regulates private parties?

To some degree, yes, though it's usually done through other laws.
Someone else gave the example of the HOA (or for that matter, a grocery store) trying to tell people of a certain religious or ethnic group that, even though they pay their fees & own their home, they're not allowed to use the commonly-owned areas their fees maintain.
See how fast the gov't, or even a private civil rights lawyer, would get involved in that!

I haven't searched the WA statutes, but here in WI there's a law prohibiting employers from discriminating based on an employee's use or nonuse of lawful products off company time & property. I believe it was promoted & passed by the tobacco lobby, but doesn't say that... so it applies to ANY lawful product: firearms, alcohol, motorcycles, condoms.

Illegal drugs, firearms, and fireworks are prohibited.

As gogo said: your pistol is not illegal.
And as difdi said: The other way to read it would result in legal absurdities.

 

[carolina guy]

I think the idea that if they prohibit you from supplying your own security, then they must provide community security, and how do they think they are going to pay for a security company to provide that security?

I would think that the arguments will be on the legal liability side, and I would point out that they will be legally liable for your security if the motion passes. Liability is the argument that will prevail, whichever way the vote goes.

I agree...this is one reason I have/would never buy into a place that has a homeowners association.

I would "suggest" to them that the potential increase in liability insurance cost (of you being able defend yourself) is MUCH less than the cost of 24/7 armed security that they will need to provide to remain "safe".

 

[carolina guy]

I would go further and ask

It seems that at a minimum, you should be able to muddy the waters....and call for a legal review of the liability issue raised. If the COA is sued, (whether from an actual incident or simply a legal challenge to doing it by one of the COA members or group of them) and subsequently loses, who pays the bill?

EXACTLY what is the associations liability if they do NOT ban legal possession of firearms versus the legal liability of restricting the Constitional Right to self defense.

I think you will find that nobody has any real information on the costs v. benefits.

 

[LkWd_Don]

Show where someone has made a personal attack against you. Your assertion of an idea has been challenged, you have not been personally attacked. If you can show where you have been personally attacked I will send a notice to the administrator so that it stops.

Maybe I used a poor choice of words and should have used disrespect. But then as disrespect is also a form of a personal attack, maybe I did not.

 

[carolina guy]

(thumbs up!)

Since the fees paid by the homeowners are used to maintain (& pay taxes on?) the common areas of the mini-town, everyone in the association is an owner of the common areas, so cannot be restricted from the peaceful exercise of any civil right on any land they own (or partially own).
It's private property, owned by the same people some of the other owners want to prohibit.

<snip>

As gogo said: your pistol is not illegal.
And as difdi said: The other way to read it would result in legal absurdities.

Look into your deed and the bylaws...if you are in fact, a partial owner of the park, then I would argue that the limits that other owners want to put on their own lawful exercise of a CONSTITUTIONAL right does not apply to you and is null on its face when you are using your "part" of the park...which is whatever portion you are standing on at the moment.

If the HOA sends you a letter or fines you, I would take that as an "opportunity" to re-negotiate the terms of your relationship with them since they are wanting to limit your access to your property. $75 might be a good deal to get out of paying for the HOA.

Heck, if they don't like it, I would ask to get an anti 1st Amendment rule put in place.

 

[gogodawgs]

Maybe I used a poor choice of words and should have used disrespect. But then as disrespect is also a form of a personal attack, maybe I did not.

No the ideas you asserted are being challenged, not you. There is no disrespect, but on OCDO one of the rules is when you make a assertion to a law that you cite it. Again, while I am sympathetic to your argument I do not believe that the law would back it up. There are other points of fact in this thread that lead to more stimulating thoughts about how to challenge the HOA.

 

[LkWd_Don]

No the ideas you asserted are being challenged, not you. There is no disrespect, but on OCDO one of the rules is when you make a assertion to a law that you cite it. Again, while I am sympathetic to your argument I do not believe that the law would back it up. There are other points of fact in this thread that lead to more stimulating thoughts about how to challenge the HOA.

Since you are making assertions, I am going to challenge you to prove each and everyone of them. While you are doing so, I will disrespectfully try to poke holes in everything you are saying without providing my own source citations and see what your feelings then are on what an attack is and isn't.

You and DeanF have both been doing that as well as trying to put words in my mouth that I have not said (more disrespect). Seeing that you do not appear to be open to accepting responsibility for your own actions, maybe my using the ignore feature will be the best available option. But then I would not be able to defend myself against further acts of disrespect and twists of what I have said. See the conundrum?

EDIT: Besides, since when is may or might a definitive insistence or an assertion as you claim! Explain that to me.

 

[deanf]

Your going into an explanation of Taxing Districts without showing if they are an elected body possessing legislative ability (rule-making not just taxing authority) and if they possibly could be considered as being municipalities you again have completely avoided answering the question posed to you.

What was the question again?

 

[JoeSparky]

If a condo owner is trespassed by the COA from the park that is part of the complex, would it justify withholding that portion of the COA dues that go towards maintaining the park?



The way you'd have to read the rule is "Illegal drugs, illegal firearms and illegal fireworks are prohibited." The other way to read it would result in legal absurdities the COA would be hard pressed to enforce. Aspirin is a legal drug, after all. If all drugs are banned, so are aspirin, sun screen and anything your doctor prescribes. The same goes for fireworks; If it applied to all fireworks, not just illegal ones, it would ban matches.

Banning aspirin, legal firearms and matches would be absurd and unenforceable. Though I bet they'll try to slap fines on people for legal behavior anyway.

Remember also that per the Federal FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION and many States OXYGEN is defined as a drug requiring a physician's prescription to legally provide one with OXYGEN.... to go to the extreme would they be BANNING approximately 20% of OUR ATMOSPHERE?

 

[LkWd_Don]

[/COLOR]

What was the question again?

My point has been made very eloquently!

Thank you and good bye

 

[deanf]

Wait I thought you were "done with this thread."

 

[gogodawgs]

Wait I thought you were "done with this thread."

+1 :banana:

 

[deanf]

McDonald v Chicago

Where have you been the past couple years?

Oh yeah. I'm sure I took note of it when it happened, but as Incorporation doesn't affect me as a Washington resident, I guess I forgot . . .

 

[deanf]

Your going into an explanation of Taxing Districts without showing if they are an elected body possessing legislative ability (rule-making not just taxing authority) and if they possibly could be considered as being municipalities you again have completely avoided answering the question posed to you.

They're all municipal corporations. In order to prove that, I would need to post a copy of the incorporating documents for each junior taxing district in the state. Absurd, don't you think? Some have elected governing bodies, like a fire district; some have appointed governing bodies, like the Cascade Water Alliance. They are still municipal corporations AKA municipalities.

Your example of public money v private money holds weight, but that is a weak argument in general as that simply deals with a difference between taxation and membership dues/assessments, which can even include all non-profit and for profit membership based corporations.

The public monies collected/spent by a municipal corporation are not necessarily acquired through direct taxation. Take the Cascade Water Alliance, for example. Their members pay dues. They sell water. They don't tax anyone, but they still collect and spend public money.

Again, Please explain what the Legislature intends that other municipalities are!

I already did and you missed it? "other municipalities" means all municipal corporations other than cities, towns, and counties. You notice the word "other?" That encompasses EVERYTHING in the context of municipalities. It's the basic meaning of the word "other."

I know what the definition of municipality used to be and is why I stated that RCW 9.41.290 “MIGHT” be used. Till someone can show me definitively (without incessant sidesteps) that it no longer could apply,

But you never provided a source for your alternate definition of municipality. I took it as your opinion. What is your source for that definition?

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

Oh yeah. I'm sure I took note of it when it happened, but as Incorporation doesn't affect me as a Washington resident, I guess I forgot . . .[/COLOR]

I understand what youre saying there,,, but

When Will California and Illinoise be forced to abide by it..

 

[carolina guy]

Oh yeah. I'm sure I took note of it when it happened, but as Incorporation doesn't affect me as a Washington resident, I guess I forgot . . .[/COLOR]

Just out of curiosity...why wouldn't it affect a Washington State resident?

 

[deanf]

Just out of curiosity...why wouldn't it affect a Washington State resident?

Because we have a RKBA provision in our state constitution that is widely seen as even more iron-clad than the Second Amendment.

 

[Difdi]

Remember also that per the Federal FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION and many States OXYGEN is defined as a drug requiring a physician's prescription to legally provide one with OXYGEN.... to go to the extreme would they be BANNING approximately 20% of OUR ATMOSPHERE?

A good point. A prohibition on possessing an oxygen cylinder in the park would certainly trip over the ADA as well.

Because we have a RKBA provision in our state constitution that is widely seen as even more iron-clad than the Second Amendment.[/COLOR]

Nowhere in the relevant section of the constitution does it say that the legislature shall make no law infringing on the RKBA, it simply says the right shall not be infringed. Period, full stop. Which would seem to apply it to everybody, going by the plain language meaning of the words used.

 

[carolina guy]

A good point. A prohibition on possessing an oxygen cylinder in the park would certainly trip over the ADA as well.



Nowhere in the relevant section of the constitution does it say that the legislature shall make no law infringing on the RKBA, it simply says the right shall not be infringed. Period, full stop. Which would seem to apply it to everybody, going by the plain language meaning of the words used.

Does the Washington Constitution say it applies to individuals as well as the government?

Reading:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


Looks like he should just ignore the HOA.

 

[Difdi]

Does the Washington Constitution say it applies to individuals as well as the government?

Reading:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


Looks like he should just ignore the HOA.

Exactly. It doesn't specify it binds only the government. Absent such language, the COA's action would seem to be unenforceable.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx