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

[deanf]

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

Have you ever heard of a private party being sued for violations of our state constitution's DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? No? Why do you suppose that is?

 

[carolina guy]

Have you ever heard of a private party being sued for violations of our state constitution's DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? No? Why do you suppose that is?[/COLOR]

Not really familiar with the Washington Constitution...never even been to the state.

I would think this could very well fall under the "contrary to public policy" invalidating a private agreement.

No problem with this happening in the People's Republic of North Carolina, however.

 

[deanf]

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

This is basic common law. Constitutions establish the authorities of the state and the protections (rights) the People have from the state. It's got nothing to do with private parties.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

You Guys and Gal are killing me here

What the press, prosecutors etc sometimes call "civil rights" are sometimes constitutional rights, and sometimes not. In order to violate a "civil right" which is also a constitutional right requires that one be a state actor, and not a private citizen.

For example the HOA says no guns in the park they in no way have violated anyone's civil rights or for that matter the state or federal Constitution. If the HOA says no blacks allowed in the park they have not violated any black persons civil rights but they have broken a few laws both state and federal such as the Civil Rights act of 1964.

So called Civil Rights offenses by private parties are not a violation of one's consitutional rights but of statutory rights (laws) under one of the Civil Rights Acts, which were passed after the fourteenth Amendment was adopted. States often also have "LAWS" that a private person can be found guilty of breaking.

Because there is no state law prohibiting the HOA from banning guns in their park then they are free to ban firearms in their park or any thing else that is not codified.

 

[Tawnos]

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

Depends whether "impaired" or "infringed" is considered to allow more violation. One may infringe on your right to keep and bear arms without impairing it, but cannot impair without infringing.
Just a 2 cent though.

 

[gogodawgs]

What the press, prosecutors etc sometimes call "civil rights" are sometimes constitutional rights, and sometimes not. In order to violate a "civil right" which is also a constitutional right requires that one be a state actor, and not a private citizen.

For example the HOA says no guns in the park they in no way have violated anyone's civil rights or for that matter the state or federal Constitution. If the HOA says no blacks allowed in the park they have not violated any black persons civil rights but they have broken a few laws both state and federal such as the Civil Rights act of 1964.

So called Civil Rights offenses by private parties are not a violation of one's consitutional rights but of statutory rights (laws) under one of the Civil Rights Acts, which were passed after the fourteenth Amendment was adopted. States often also have "LAWS" that a private person can be found guilty of breaking.

Because there is no state law prohibiting the HOA from banning guns in their park then they are free to ban firearms in their park or any thing else that is not codified.

Agreed. Now can the HOA enforce their rule against a member? Can they trespass someone from the common area?
I am apt to believe they can have the rule and that a Home Owner in good standing (current dues) can break the rules and there is no enforcement mechanism.

 

[carolina guy]

This is basic common law. Constitutions establish the authorities of the state and the protections (rights) the People have from the state. It's got nothing to do with private parties.[/COLOR]

Not quite entirely true...it can (and most do) lay out basic responsibilities and penalties for private individuals with regard to their duty to the state and other citizens. (Militia service, jury duty, etc)

 

[carolina guy]

Depends whether "impaired" or "infringed" is considered to allow more violation. One may infringe on your right to keep and bear arms without impairing it, but cannot impair without infringing.
Just a 2 cent though.

Good point. Gotta love legalisms and wiggle room.

 

[massivedesign]

Agreed. Now can the HOA enforce their rule against a member? Can they trespass someone from the common area?
I am apt to believe they can have the rule and that a Home Owner in good standing (current dues) can break the rules and there is no enforcement mechanism.

Not that I have ever seen. Levy a large enough fine though and the Home Owner can't pay, and is no longer in good standing... Not in good standing means no access to controlled common areas.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Not that I have ever seen. Levy a large enough fine though and the Home Owner can't pay, and is no longer in good standing... Not in good standing means no access to controlled common areas.

I would think only if the courts agree with the HOA, they are not a government agency so they do not have the powers that a government agency does. They can create all the rules they want, but if a judge will not agree with them they are up a creek. I used to live in Fl Keys and a Marine Patrol officer and I were shrimping off a county owned bridge. A HOA official with a badge informed us we were violating the rules, imagine his surprise when the MP whipped out his badge and told him to mind his own business before he arrested him for impersonating a officer. I would believe that by most state laws a person can carry any manner they like on their own property, whether it is shared or not. Let the HOA take you to court.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Agreed. Now can the HOA enforce their rule against a member? Can they trespass someone from the common area?
I am apt to believe they can have the rule and that a Home Owner in good standing (current dues) can break the rules and there is no enforcement mechanism.

If you signed and agreed to abide by the HOA rules then yes, after all you agreed to it. If this is something new out of the blue then no. Most HOAs are organized before construction even starts by the owner/property developer then transferred to the new owners once enough or all of the properties are sold. In order to purchase from the developer you must sign the papers that is the only way the developer can protect himself from future law suits. Each time a home is sold the new owners must sign to abide by the HOA rules. My guess is that Sanchez signed papers agreeing to abide by the HOA rules when he purchased the home mixed in with all the other closing papers. Sanchez like most people never read what he was signing.

When I had to deal with a HOA I had done the same thing I did not read the contract I just signed it. During my fight with them, I won BTW, I did read the rules and discovered the BoD was not following the rules.

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you signed and agreed to abide by the HOA rules then yes, after all you agreed to it. If this is something new out of the blue then no. Most HOAs are organized before construction even starts by the owner/property developer then transferred to the new owners once enough or all of the properties are sold. In order to purchase from the developer you must sign the papers that is the only way the developer can protect himself from future law suits. Each time a home is sold the new owners must sign to abide by the HOA rules. My guess is that Sanchez signed papers agreeing to abide by the HOA rules when he purchased the home mixed in with all the other closing papers. Sanchez like most people never read what he was signing.

When I had to deal with a HOA I had done the same thing I did not read the contract I just signed it. During my fight with them, I won BTW, I did read the rules and discovered the BoD was not following the rules.

Here is the thing with contracts and rules. They do not mean squat unless they are willing to go to civil court to enforce them. Then no matter what the home owner signed the rules must be reasonable. That is where the judge comes in to decide if the rules are reasonable. The HOA could make a rule that every fourth Friday all home owners must melt down their gold and form a golden calf. I doubt a judge would find that reasonable.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Here is the thing with contracts and rules. They do not mean squat unless they are willing to go to civil court to enforce them. Then no matter what the home owner signed the rules must be reasonable. That is where the judge comes in to decide if the rules are reasonable. The HOA could make a rule that every fourth Friday all home owners must melt down their gold and form a golden calf. I doubt a judge would find that reasonable.

True but the question is would a Seattle judge find that a no firearms rule was reasonable. I am thinking more than likely they will.

HOAs will simply lien your property if a fine is not paid then you have to go to court to get it removed. If your mortgage company finds out about the lien they can call your home loan due and payable if they so choose. Funny how that works.

 

[WalkingWolf]

True but the question is would a Seattle judge find that a no firearms rule was reasonable. I am thinking more than likely they will.

HOAs will simply lien your property if a fine is not paid then you have to go to court to get it removed. If your mortgage company finds out about the lien they can call your home loan due and payable if they so choose. Funny how that works.

Awww but here is the tricky part, anybody can file a lien, that includes the home owner if he is engaged in a lawsuit against the members of the board. He could tie up not only real estate but every piece of property they own until the court case is cleared. I am not so sure the mortgage company can take any action in the middle of a law suit. Once a suit is filed usually all wheels stop turning.

 

[MKEgal]

Another question:
If they make up new rules after the contract is signed, do they automatically apply to previous signers?
I suppose yes, if the board followed the laws...
so dig up the laws, & the HOA rules (which are subservient to the laws), & see if (or how) they can do what they're wanting to do.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

so dig up the laws, & the HOA rules (which are subservient to the laws), & see if (or how) they can do what they're wanting to do.

+1

 

[LkWd_Don]

Since some folks make assertions without posting credible source citations to support their contentions.

Here is the only definition I have found for what a Municipality is and it is contained in a Public Works Title of the RCWs so it is understandable that it will contain language pertaining specifically to Public Works.

RCW 39.04.010

Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

(3) "Municipality" means every city, county, town, port district, district, or other public agency authorized by law to require the execution of public work, except drainage districts, diking districts, diking and drainage improvement districts, drainage improvement districts, diking improvement districts, consolidated diking and drainage improvement districts, consolidated drainage improvement districts, consolidated diking improvement districts, irrigation districts, or other districts authorized by law for the reclamation or development of waste or undeveloped lands.

So by this, we can see that the answer I was given was total crap! That Taxing Districts are not Municipalities unless they are a Public agency authorized to require the execution of public work. Then they can be considered as being a Municipality.

So if I was not the one making assertions oiginally and was only presenting possibilities, why should I have had to endure all the sidesteps, pure falicy without supportive cites and go out and find my own CORRECT answer?

This should impress upon many here how there are those who spew rationalizations, rhetoric and incorrect information as if it were fact, without posting anything that will substantiate their position.

 

[deanf]

Simmer down please.

Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

So your definition applies only to Public contracts and indebtedness, which is the title of "this chapter". I'm not sure how that's relevant to our current discussion.

I thought you were done with this thread.

 

[tombrewster421]

Depends whether "impaired" or "infringed" is considered to allow more violation. One may infringe on your right to keep and bear arms without impairing it, but cannot impair without infringing.
Just a 2 cent though.

I think the strength of the WA constitution is viewed as more iron clad not because the wording of "impaired vs. infringed" but rather that it specifically states that the right is of the individual citizen. The U. S. constitution doesn't specifically state that but mentions the need for militias instead. Of course we know that militias are made up of individuals, but the antis like to argue that the national guard is today's militia.

 

[carolina guy]

I think the strength of the WA constitution is viewed as more iron clad not because the wording of "impaired vs. infringed" but rather that it specifically states that the right is of the individual citizen. The U. S. constitution doesn't specifically state that but mentions the need for militias instead. Of course we know that militias are made up of individuals, but the antis like to argue that the national guard is today's militia.

True...but District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) made it clear that the 2A is an individual right and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) made it clear that the 2A applies to the states and the Fed.