Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Community Suggests Gun Possession Is Illegal For Residents
newschannel5.com ^ | 3/21/2014 | Unknown

Posted on 03/22/2014 10:06:46 AM PDT by rktman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last
To: Atlas Sneezed
Um, you signed the check to buy there. You bought into the restrictions, whether or not you read them

Sorry but you are wrong. My HOA is a Johnny come lately. They have no control over me. I was here before they were. I have a pontoon, sailboat and bass boat sitting directly in front of my house. I have a burn barrel in back. Maybe the newbies are restricted but I don't even pay HOA dues.

81 posted on 03/22/2014 4:45:43 PM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

according to the article the HOA said
“Two weeks ago, the property management company at Nashboro Village told its residents no more guns on the property.”

i read that as any gun prior to 2 weks ago are fine. just no more. of course i would ignore it anyway.


82 posted on 03/22/2014 6:32:19 PM PDT by bravo whiskey (We should not fear our government. Our government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed
"You don’t believe in private property rights, and the right of an owner to put restrictions on his OWN property in order to make it attractive to (some) buyers?"

Umm, you can have whatever restrictions you want on property that you own but after you sell it guess what?, you don't own it anymore do ya. The problem with HOAs is they DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY.

Mandatory HOAs are a direct violation of private property rights. There is simply no conceivable way mandatory HOAs could be determined to be constitutional. In fact if you believe in mandatory HOAs then it is you that does not subscribe to private property rights.

83 posted on 03/22/2014 7:07:10 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Terry L Smith

Their response was, “Oh, we are all pacifists, here.”

Strange and stupid; our GIs insure that so-called “pacifists” can sit around stroking themselves about being “pacifists.”

When Putin’s troops show up at the swanky housing development, the residents will be standing around with their d*cks in their hands and they’ll ALL be screaming for weapons.

A “pacifist” is nothing but a spoiled *asshole who’s always had someone else to do his fighting for him.


84 posted on 03/23/2014 12:24:33 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

You overlook that many states have laws that cover various areas, guns for instance. Here in Georgia State law prohibits cities from regulating the carrying of firearms “in any manner.” Since this involves an even more basic right, owning, one could argue (successfully I’d add) that HOA contracts violate this law and are therefore unconstitutional in Georgia.

Similarly, you might have heard that no HOA anywhere in this country can ban a satellite dish less than 1 meter in diameter. This is because Federal Law prohibits HOAs’ control.

The point is that the ‘home’ is not property of the HOA and they cannot control what is in it, etc. They may be able to enforce how it looks with respect to outside condition, yard appearance, parking of vehicles, etc. because it is an agreement based on perceived value of surrounding property, but inside is OFF LIMITS.


85 posted on 03/23/2014 4:21:54 AM PDT by Gaffer (Comprehensive Immigration Reform is just another name for Comprehensive Capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Sorry but you are wrong. My HOA is a Johnny come lately. They have no control over me. I was here before they were. I have a pontoon, sailboat and bass boat sitting directly in front of my house. I have a burn barrel in back. Maybe the newbies are restricted but I don’t even pay HOA dues.


We don’t disagree. We’re talking about the HOAs that are formed an who they effect. You’re not in an HOA.


86 posted on 03/23/2014 4:40:12 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

There is simply no conceivable way mandatory HOAs could be determined to be constitutional. In fact if you believe in mandatory HOAs then it is you that does not subscribe to private property rights.


You are quite wrong. A private property owner can put restrictions on his own property to increase its value (no houses with bright green roofs, no pig farms, on property that will be family homes). Restricting ones own property with restrictions that apply to those you sell to are perfectly constitutional, unless they are illegal race or religion restrictions.


87 posted on 03/23/2014 4:42:42 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed

Do you realize how rediculous you sound? How in the world would the previous owners property rights trump the new owners property rights? Do you think the developer or who ever you bought the property from is the first owner of that land? You must have never seen a title plant or chain of title to a piece of real estate. Title can often be traced back hundreds of years with dozens of owners.


88 posted on 03/23/2014 11:00:20 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed
Last to clarify. I'm not arguing HOAs on property rights, although in most all cases they violate. They are unconstitutional because they are private contracts which are forced upon the purchaser. Most HOAs are nonprofits in which you are forced to become members. The only way an HOA could be legal is if membership were voluntary.

take away the mandatory membership and see how many HOAs still exist!

89 posted on 03/23/2014 12:16:03 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

They are unconstitutional because they are private contracts which are forced upon the purchaser.


The HOA is simply part of the bundle of property rights that the buyer has the choice whether or not to buy.

You may be certain, but you’re legally wrong, and thousands of HOAs in every state prove you wrong.


90 posted on 03/23/2014 12:55:35 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed
I don't think so. Being a mandatory member of a nonprofit organization is not among the bundle of rights that comes with ownership in Real Estate.

Do you think a resrictive covenant would hold up if it stated you must be a life member of the NRA?

91 posted on 03/23/2014 2:48:24 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

Do you think a resrictive covenant would hold up if it stated you must be a life member of the NRA?


Yes.


92 posted on 03/24/2014 5:04:54 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Reason 1124 why I avoid HOA’s.


93 posted on 03/24/2014 5:24:17 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Abortion - legalized murder for convenience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
This is a perfect illustration of why it is important to read the contract before you sign and go to the meetings when the association council is meeting to make rules.

Yes and that is why they do not allow you to see the rules until you are at the closing and it is pretty much too late to back out at that point.

94 posted on 03/24/2014 5:46:30 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Dear Jack Hammer,

“d’ey’s gonna be dah ones d’at be at dah bottom of dah list d’at started by some preacher, sayin’ ‘when’s d’ey came for da Jews, I shut up’ ....”


95 posted on 03/24/2014 12:46:57 PM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson