By Rachel Malone
Did you see the news about a recent home invasion and shooting in Austin? Here’s the style in which it was reported:
There was a shooting at a local apartment. Two people died, still looking for a motive. Unfortunately, because a bill that just passed, we may not be able to punish the shooter.
Here’s what KXAN actually wrote:
Lawmakers passed nine gun-related laws during the 2019 Legislature. One law — House Bill 302 — prevents landlords at apartment complexes from being able to keep tenants or their guests from carrying a firearm.
This means that as long as the renters in this case possessed the guns legally, they cannot face consequences from their apartment complex for having the guns within their apartment.
That’s because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people in that apartment to defend themselves.
Here’s what actually happened if you read through the lines:
Random strangers violently broke into an apartment. The people who lived there defended themselves and stopped the threat. They used guns to save their lives.
Thank God it’s not against the law to use your guns to defend yourself, your family and the place where you live.
Our fight is against the narrative. Our fight for gun rights is not just staying alive and protecting our domains despite evil people who want to take our things and hurt us. It’s combating the mistruths and false narratives the other side constantly peddles.
The goal of the gun controllers and prohibitionists is definitely not to keep you safe, as claim when they use their bogus “gun safety” euphemism.
Their goal is to get rid of civilian-owned firearms.
Let me re-phrase that; their goal is to get rid of your firearms. They want to do that even if it means you are hurt or die because you can’t defend yourself or your family if you find yourself in a life-threatening situation.
They use narratives like the one above to further the idea that guns are bad because they hurt people.
Look! Two people were killed by a gun! How tragic!
When they talk about “gun violence” they often include examples like this one — stories where the bad guys got shot because they broke into someone’s residence. I’m pretty sure that’s really a story of gun safety in the face of violence.
Fight back with the truth. Tell people . . .
“I carry a gun because I care about life.”
“I have guns because I value my family’s safety and security.”
“My guns make your world safer.”
What’s your truth? How are you using it to combat the anti-gunners’ false narrative?
Rachel Malone is the Texas director of Gun Owners of America.
Glad the legislature passed that bill. Even if they hadn’t, it wouldn’t have stopped me from being armed in my own apartment. Is that landlord going to be there to protect me during a home invasion? Same reason I don’t take 30.06 signs seriously.
Nothing wrong with 30-06 🙂
The caliber or the Texas State Statute?
Implying that the harm in this story was that the landlord wasn’t able to force the tenant to submit to being butchered in their home by human vermin. Gross.
Remember that they’d rather see you helpless and dead than armed and alive.
One of my friends here in SoCal has an AR and a Glock for home defense, and installed not only the typical video camera on the porch, but another one in his living room strategically positioned so that the front door is in the center of frame. This way, if anyone tries to violently force their way in and he has to respond with deadly force to protect his family, all the action will be caught on video as evidence.
And in CA, it will be used as evidence against him. You can see right there, it has the wrong pistol grip, we have to hang him!
No…believe it or not, he willingly registered his AR with CADOJ as an AW, so he’s kosher with our overlords in Sacramento. The indoor vid cam was a brilliant idea. The registration, not so much.
Plus the subthread that the landlord cannot “punish” the renter by evicting him after shooting someone breaking into his/her apartment, which is the result the “reporter” wanted. Shoot someone, hit the street, you ain’t welcome round here no mo. Pathetic.
Mini-mike will not have to spend his money to buy elections in Austin.
They are often stupid enough to just go along with his disarmament plan.
I beleave the family who protected themself now need to sue the publication on ground of the publications naritive is a continued attemp to harm their family as co conspirators ny trying to further harm them. Get a petition signed by as many in the state as they can to back up this belief or reenfoce it a use it in the lawsuit and bring it to state legislators. I think their are enough people in the state to that would participate in getting it out there and many many more who would sign it. That would help put a stop to this kind of publicised attemps of harm. It might even start a nation wide trend and put a help curb this crap without hurting freedom of the press, of which I absolutely beleave in and support.
Two dead thugs shouldn’t bother anyone. Crucifying the home owner is the wrong way to go… any real American home owner with the means would do the same. Climate change activists should be happy, two less dirt bags polluting the atmosphere.😎
Since this happened in Austin and Travis County, expect the couple who defended themselves to, at the very least, be punished by the process.
Well, they should be punished, shouldn’t they? We should all be responsible enough that we won’t run out of ammo in the middle of a cleanup on aisle 4. Now we’re going to have to have a trial and everything, just because they couldn’t be bothered to buy a few more bullets.
The best part about the apartment as a crime scene, is the biohazard cleaning is not paid by the homeowner.
“…the biohazard cleaning is not paid by the homeowner.”
A bonus, indeed.
Saw a PBS program years and years ago. Think it was called “Five Guns”. Followed five incidents of gun use, and the aftermath. The program was provocative. Not anti-gun, but caused the viewers to think about things differently. Differently from the sanitized versions of shootings depicted on TV and in the movies. The one segment that stuck with me was the homeowner and family having to clean up the gore after a DGU in their home. “Like it never even happened” wasn’t a thing back then.
IIRC, the family had to figure a way (in the middle of the night) to secure their home (front door almost completely destroyed by the break-in), find a shelter (no ready cash for a hotel/motel), which ended up being a homeless shelter, deal with school and jobs, find money to get the mess cleaned up, and flooring replaced. It was an expensive and time-consuming mess. Not something one really imagines as part of a DGU.
Oh, believe me, some of us imagine it. It’s all part of the mindset of trying to avoid pulling that trigger unless absolutely necessary. That famous joke about making sure the perp has stepped inside your door’s threshold before sending him to the Hereafter also comes with the caveat that you now have to deal with the blood/gore on your carpeting, hallway, furniture, et al, as the intruder struggled and limped his last steps all over your living room before expiring.
That, and now you’ll likely be required to disclose – to any potential future buyers of your home – that a violent death occurred there.
“That, and now you’ll likely be required to disclose – to any potential future buyers of your home – that a violent death occurred there.”
Yep. Knew about that (formerly held a real estate license).
The media has to spin it. They can’t help themselves.
Because, unfortunately, there are those who truly believe if criminals are treated with kindness they will see the error of their ways and be good upstanding members of society. They also believe the criminals are the true victims of a society that has treated the criminals cruelly and unjustly, and we as members of society need to be punished.
They are ones who say if we give the criminals what they want they will leave us alone. It’s only money and possessions. Note it is not THEIR money and possessions. And the assume criminals have a conscience, which they usually don’t, otherwise they wouldn’t make it as criminals. I wonder if they still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny?
” I wonder if they still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny?”
They probably do, but I’m big on Tinker Bell. She is real. That I know.
@Southern Cross “They will be treated with kindness”
You just named my shotgun. Now, f you kick in my door you will be treated with kindness.
Remember everyone, the only people permitted to be armed against the miscreants are the celebs and the well heeled! They’re not even pretending anymore.
I don’t want to hurt anyone. I certainly don’t want to kill anyone. However, if someone come for me or mine, the threat is imminent, and I’m sure of my target, I will do whatever it takes. Guns are no different than smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, seat belts, air bags, or insurance policies. If you need one, I hope it’s a good one, and it works properly. Make it past my lights, locks, and alarms and I have another option to go along with my 911 call. When seconds count, police are only minutes away. You are your own first responder. Insert more self defense quotes here…
“Guns are no different than smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, seat belts, air bags, or insurance policies.”
Oh, but they are: guns are in a different class altogether.
When was the last reported injury or death caused by misuse of a: smoke alarm; fire extinguisher; seat belt; air bag; insurance policy?
Why does a right to own a gun subjugate the right of innocent bystanders in high-density dwellings to peace and safety? Do bystanders have no right to be secure in their homes? Secure from irresponsible use of firearms? High-density dwellings are quite different from the standard housing development in a suburb. The right to self-defense, and a right to a gun are not one and the same. Self-defense can be accomplished in many ways. Use of a firearm is only one of them. Life and liberty are rights equal to self-defense.
Even as a 2A absolutist, guns in high-density dwellings give me pause. The idea of compressed living units, and total strangers with guns is very uncomfortable to contemplate. On the other hand, we have yet to see rampant NDs harming apartment dwellers.
You have the right to eat a bag of horsecocks.
“You have the right to eat a bag of horsecocks.”
Oh, please try to act like an adult. If serious discussion is too difficult, just stay away (hit delete). Do something more interesting.
But the situation would never have developed if the criminals had not broken in. This is where any and all blame should land. No break in, no shots fired, no possible stray rounds.
“But the situation would never have developed if the criminals had not broken in. This is where any and all blame should land. No break in, no shots fired, no possible stray rounds.”
Regarding the incident itself, no disagreement here.
Frangible bullets.
“Frangible bullets.”
Often thought about that. But do they provide sufficient penetration an wound when intended?
The frangibles my P90 Ruger (45 ACP) spits out definitely provide adequate penetration and life altering (ending) internal trauma…
“The frangibles my P90 Ruger (45 ACP) definitely provide adequate penetration and life altering (ending) internal trauma…”
Good to know. I’m probably limited in vision because my only plinker is .22.
I keep Federal 205 grain Syntech Defense SJHP loaded in my bedside PPQ 45acp firearm, 2 backup mags loaded too.
Great stuff, separates into 3 pedals and a single core on contact.
Sam, I hate to break it to you, but you aren’t a 2nd amendment absolutist. Not by a long shot.
“Sam, I hate to break it to you, but you aren’t a 2nd amendment absolutist. Not by a long shot.”
Oh, but I am. Words mean what they say. Shall Not Be Infringed. Reality is very different. In a world that cannot comprehend absolutes, I must accommodate.
An absolutist is not required to mindlessly blunder about, refusing to recognize the how absolutism in one realm affects a different realm. An absolutist is always confronted with absolute rights in conflict with each other. It is not a thicket the unaware should enter unprepared.
“Why does a right to own a gun subjugate the right of innocent bystanders in high-density dwellings to peace and safety? ”
In fact there is no conflict between these two. My ownership of a gun causes no danger to my neighbors.
Judging by thr frequency with which we’re evacuated to the fire alarm their cooking is far more dangerous.
“Judging by thr frequency with which we’re evacuated to the fire alarm their cooking is far more dangerous.”
Have not read every news report from everywhere, but am not remembering deaths resulting from those type evacuations. Given the dearth of data to the contrary, I would evaluate the risk from evacuations to be so near zero as to be non-existent. NDs, however, do have a history that is recorded, and the risk to others is not zero, nor near zero.
As a landlord, I would want to eliminate the risk of NDs to my tenants. As a tenant, I would want my risk of being victim of an ND to be zero. This places my right as a property owner, and my right to be left alone, my right to life in conflict with the right of people to own firearms.
If a situation arose where the availability of rental space was zero (because of restrictions on gun possession in a rental unit), and there was a government mandate that a person must live in a certain town/city, the argument might be made that safety of other tenants must be risked.
My whole point is that we love ourselves some rights when we benefit, but hate other people’s rights when we are inconvenienced (i.e. forced to do business with people we disapprove; forced to use certain pronouns because failure makes the other person feel bad about themselves, etc.) Rights in conflict is a messy business. Someone will always claim their rights are superior to another.
Make sure you protect yourself from the state, and make sure the 911 call is after the fact. My lawyer told me to ask for fire or emt to come to the scene, and not a cop. It made sense as I don’t want to be murdered by a adrenline dumping cop, who is not functioning with all the information. A victim not acclimated to violence could have their fight or flight causing auditory exclusions or the gunshot in an enclosed area could have ruptured their eardrums, and they may not be able to respond quick enough to the cops command and get murdered. A nam vet near me had that happen to him, after he dropped the home invader a cop murdered the homeowner
When the cop gets on scene you invoke your Miranda rights and shut up. If the cops are hassling you then say you are in shock and need medical attention. Do not be dumb and think like the older folks, who would say not cooperating will look bad, that is something ignorant folks with nothing to lose believe in, and not how our criminal justice system is anymore.
The instant the trigger is pulled a homicide investigation is opened up, and the homeowner is the primary suspect. Nobody in my house has drugs so a junkie will have no purpose in my home, and their corpse would be dragged outside, as to not damage my wife’s oak floors.
“Do not be dumb and think like the older folks, who would say not cooperating will look bad, that is something ignorant folks with nothing to lose believe in, and not how our criminal justice system is anymore.”
Perhaps where you live? Here, the Po-Po and the DA are pretty open about considering a person hostile and providing probably cause if they refuse to “cooperate” with the arriving officers/detectives. They are all quite happy to let a gun owner sort it out at trial.
Arrest them all. Let the courts sort it out.
“Arrest them all. Let the courts sort it out.”
I think our law enforcement officials would be happy with that.
So…
…it’s still illegal to murder people, including using guns to do it, *and* still illegal to stupidly shoot people who violently invade your home, unless you’re at risk.
Yr just allowed to have guns in your home, leaving the option to “If someone’s trying to kill you, you try to kill them right back.” … with something other than your bare hands.
Actually, yr *landlord* can’t summarily take away your option to use a gun to save your own life in a place they just happen to rent you.
That about right?
It doesn’t say that landlords are preventing thugs from using guns when they accost tenants in their own (rented) homes.
Well, apparantly, when you rent a place you become the land lord’s vassal, with only the rights your overlord leaves you. And you pay for the privelege.
Good to know.
Now, now, now. Remember there are folks right here commenting on TTAG that come down hard on the side of the property owner and his rights. Their house, their rules. If you don’t like it you can move.
Do I need a sarcasm tag?
That about right?
Actually no, that is not about right.. In Fl. if you forcibly enter my home I am not required to ask your intentions before I “murder” you, it is understood that once you cross that threshold (or window sill) without an invitation your “murder” becomes justifiable homicide/self defence under the castle doctrine/stand you ground laws… I’m pretty sure Texas has similar laws to protect its citizens from prosecution in similar cases… It is sad that a state law is required to keep some dickhead landlord from trampling on a Constitutionally protected right to self defence….
It’s called The Castle Doctrine, and you’re damn right we Texans have it.
In Texas, you can use deadly force if you are in danger of bodily harm. Doubtful if these criminals broke in to wash their dishes.
In Texas, you can use deadly force over property and on fleeing threats. It should be nationwide.
Double homicide?
How do we bring BoR culture to Austin?
1. Go to the ballot box and vote for Bernie. Help him get the nomination.
2. Watch with glee as November rolls around, and Texas Democrats refuse to go to the ballot box to vote for a genuine Socialist. Which means the down-ballot races will suffer, and Republicans take large majorities in the house and senate.
3. Watch with delight as Trump destroys Bernie in a 40- to 49-state wipeout. Bernie will win California, and maybe New York, and that’s about it. The socialist agenda will be as thoroughly repudiated as it was back when they ran McGovern.
4. The new Texas house majority elects a REAL Texas Republican as House speaker, instead of RINOs like Strauss and Bonnen. With a real majority, they won’t need Democrat votes, so they won’t have to pander to the Democrats with RINOs.
5. Constitutional Carry passes in Texas. Nationwide reciprocity passes at the Federal level. And the socialists will be so thoroughly repudiated that nobody in the Democrat party will give them the time of day. The “squad” evaporates as the press realizes just how toxic their ideology is. And there won’t be a damn thing Austin can say about it.
This can all happen with Bernie at the top of the ticket. None of this happens if it’s Bloomberg or anyone else. Bernie is so toxic to real Texas democrats, and democrats in the heartland and swing states, that if he tops the ticket, Democrats won’t bother to go to the polls.
after last night i’d say “little mikey” might be in trouble…the guy that can go toe-to-toe with trump [on a debate stage]?….yeah,..right!….
Mike can go toe to toe with Trump on a debate stage. He just can’t go nose to nose.
What is BoR culture?
“BoR” = Bill of Rights, and “BoR culture” loosely refers to that population of people who understand their rights and expect others to respect the free expression of those rights.
I don’t know about the rest of the country but around here in an apartment complex is the 2nd most important place to be armed, right after ‘the hood’. Those places are VERY popular with the drug dealers, thieves and low-life opportunists.
Liberals with guns??? Or now just converted to conservative after attempted robbery at gunpoint in their own home.
Now just stop voting Liberal. Or find a democrat who supports gun civil rights. Good luck with that in 2020!
Never underestimate the ability of liberals to believe two inconstant things at the same time.
E.G.: “Guns should be strictly controlled… except for mine, because I’m not one of those horrible gun persons!”
Remember, DiFi had a concealed carry license and Mike Bloomberg has his own armed security force.
If you go to the original story, you will note that there is no comment section.
The agenda driven “Press” is increasingly frustrated by alternative views and discussions of their carefully scripted stories. They’ve taken to removing comments sections.
The comment section often included Links to backup the statements people made. That is just too much information for most Liberal news sites to handle.
That about right?
Actually no, that is not about right.. In Fl. if you forcibly enter my home I am not required to ask your intentions before I “murder” you, it is understood that once you cross that threshold (or window sill) without an invitation your “murder” becomes justifiable homicide/self defence under the castle doctrine/stand you ground laws… I’m pretty sure Texas has similar laws to protect its citizens from prosecution in similar cases… It is sad that a state law is required to keep some dickhead landlord from trampling on a Constitutionally protected right to self defence….
Apparently, the one thing both sides in this debate agree on, is that society would be better off with certain people dead.
Our side thinks that society is better off when violent criminals are killed.
Their side thinks that society is better off when innocent victims are killed. And babies in the womb.
I seriously don’t get this — how can ANYONE with a brain, be on the left?
how can ANYONE with a brain, be on the left?
They cannot, one of the Prime Requisites for the liberal party is diminished capacity for self direction.. You must possess no more brain power than is required to keep involuntary bodily functions operating and the speech center to form simple phrases like yes sir/maam, right away sir/maam, please sir/maam and of course thank you sir/maam may I have another.. Anyone found to be capable of complex thought (formulating ideas) is drugged, lobotomized and sent to a re-education camp immediately…. After which they are relegated to their mommas basement to troll with liberal/socialist/commie talking points disguised as facts, fed to them daily to cut and paste as appropriate which is`determined by their master
Yeah, sums up the TTAG troll crew.
Exactly
UTB.
The answer to a question nobody asked. Coming straight from mommies basement.
The author of this article asks, “What’s your truth? How are you using it to combat the anti-gunners’ false narrative?”
In just the last couple of days, I stated on this website that I am rapidly converging on a new and vastly more simple strategy:
(1) I will no longer present nor debate any facts.
Instead I will simply say:
(2) I have an inalienable right to effective self-defense.
(3) No one has any righteous, legitimate authority to hinder effective self-defense.
(4) Anyone who insists on undermining effective self-defense is my enemy.
Here’s the full story, and yes it was a full-fledged home invasion:
https://q13fox.com/2020/02/19/police-couple-shoots-3-kills-2-in-attempted-home-invasion-tmw/
Oh boy. Where to start?
Well, how ’bout this….”That’s because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people in that apartment to defend themselves.” The Second Amendment curtails government actions. It does not provide blanket protection for anyone, anywhere, anytime. It does not restrict private transactions by private individuals. You have a right to a gun. You do not have a right to make me give/sell you one. It is settled law that private property owners may restrict the right of individuals to possess firearms on the property of others (you do not have a right to visit my home while possessing a firearm, if I say you don’t)
No. It. Does. Not. The “right” claimed here took legislation to define. Legislation does not establish “rights”. Indeed, the legislation did not address government infringement. The legislation created a carve-out, removing a “right” of certain property owners; rank discrimination.
Private businesses are not inherently government agents. It is fairly established that property owners can control the use and safety of their property. If it were not so, Texas would have no need for legislation creating 30.06/30.07 warnings to customers wishing to do business with certain property owners. The signs warn customers that the business owner prohibits possession of firearms on the premises. Recent legislation in Texas declared that certain business owners (apartment owners) may not exercise their full power of property ownership. This is a case of rights in conflict. Where does the government gain the constitutional, or moral, right to tell the property owner that the owner must permit firearm possession on their property? (public conveyence?….slippery slope, that)
Now, let’s turn it around. If government can force property owners to give up the right to effect safety on their property, where does it end? Under existing theory, your neighbor can be given, by government mandate, legal authority to bring any object or substance onto and into your home. Just because government overreach satisfies you in a particular instance, that overreach can legally and morally be used to make you endure something you believe is your right to avoid.
Life is not so simple as we pretend.
The problem with your exposition is that a renter has possession and control of the property during the lease term to the exclusion of the landlord, except in the case of emergencies and needed repairs that are the landlord’s responsibilities. All other entries into the leased premises mus be by the permission of the tenant. As they put it way back in law school, ownership is like a bundle of sticks that gives the owner a number of distinct rights. But when the owner leases, he gives up 9 of those 10 sticks in exchange for rent, and then the tenant has the exclusive right to use those 9 sticks. So there is no conflict, but instead a transfer of rights during the lease period.
“So there is no conflict, but instead a transfer of rights during the lease period.”
All the leases I ever had gave the owner/representative the right to enter at will for safety inspections. Otherwise, the owner could not prevent me running a drug ring, or brothel. Under renter’s law, I had no right to do either. Nor did I have a right to bring illegal objects/material onto the property. But, as I mentioned, if the right to a firearm in an apartment was actually a right, there is no reason for legislation to state such. The mere fact that a “law” had to be passed to prevent landlords from protecting the safety of other tenants from the risk of ND/AD, or a renter from creating an ammo dump.
The rulings on firearm possession in the home relate to government infringing, not individuals. Thus, a government overreaches if a law is passed preventing firearm possession in the renter’s “home”.
The matter is complex in theory and implementation. Not condusive to sloganeering (which you aren’t doing).
You are a vile horsecock-gobbling scumbag. Die in a (single-family-dwelling) fire and soon.
Landlords cannot enter “at will,” Sam. To do so without the legally required notification is addressed by law as “abuse of access.” Nevermind the risk of getting the home-invader treatment.
“Landlords cannot enter “at will,” Sam. To do so without the legally required notification is addressed by law as “abuse of access.” ”
Is that black letter law in the UCC? In all states? Once rented the upstairs of a duplex to a lawyer (well, tried to rent it to the lawyer). I had a lease purchased at a stationary store. One of the clauses declared the right to enter at will. The lawyer refused to rent unless I took out the clause (because signing such a permission in a contract was enforceable). Finally, I had him sign a clause, written in his hand, that he waived all rights to health and welfare and mechanical sufficiency regarding occupying the apartment. I scratched through the unlimited entry clause and signed that. We had no problems, and I had no real expenses maintaining his apartment.
A lease from a stationary store? You can hardly consider everything in those to be legally binding. Especially moreso those things which might disagree with codified law.
“A lease from a stationary store? You can hardly consider everything in those to be legally binding. Especially moreso those things which might disagree with codified law.”
The potential renter, the lawyer was sufficiently convinced the clause was enforceable that he objected. Keep in mind that this was years ago, and the laws regarding renting/leasing were not always as they are today.
I never consulted an attorney about the lease before using it. The local apartment owners committed (and my real estate agent) advertised that the lease forms in office supply and stationary stores were all IAW state and federal law at the time.
“You are a vile horsecock-gobbling scumbag.”
Oh, goodness…
Surly Old Cop, it’s obvious you’re new here in TTAG.
Not a thing wrong with that. In fact, we love new contributors in the comment section, it makes the comment section the best part of TTAG, in my opinion.
TTAG has a distinct ‘style’ in the comments, and you haven’t picked up on that yet. It takes a bit of time before you see how the flow of the debate goes in here.
Example – Sam I Am is one of the brightest folks in here, and he uses a style that demands you ‘read between the lines’ of his written comments. He forces you to think, and that’s a very good thing to do when it involves gun rights.
Kick back for a while, and just read the comments. Sam is actually one of about the furthest thing someone could be to a “…vile horsecock-gobbling scumbag.”, in my opinion. Please chill a bit before spewing hate, OK? Your patience will eventually be rewarded, and you will discover TTAG is a valuable read…
Undeserved, but thank you for the compliments.
The only good thing about Austin is it’s a 10 minute drive from Texas.
“How do we bring BoR culture to Austin?”
The BoR constrains government, not individuals. I can refuse you entry to my car, my house, my property until you prove you are unarmed. My right as a property owner. You would have no standing under the BoR to sue for infringement.
Sam I Am,
Your previous detailed comment and this comment illustrate how everything eventually breaks down without an ultimate authority to declare what is actually right and wrong. Otherwise, we could go round-and-round forever in what is essentially nothing more than a shouting match — or “might makes right” as many of us have heard.
I support such an ultimate authority on such matters — and that would be our Creator God Almighty as revealed in quality translations of the original Old Testament and New Testament languages.
And what does the Bible say about such things? The Bible is emphatic that human life is sacred — so sacred that God is incredibly upset when someone accidentally kills another person even in freak accidents, that no one could have foreseen, through no particular fault of anyone. (The Biblical example is when someone is chopping wood, their ax head flies off unexpectedly, and the ax head kills a bystander. Clearly this is a freak accident that no one would ever expect to happen.) Thus, the Bible goes on to say that we should take all reasonable measures to prevent loss of life. (The Biblical example is that we MUST install railings on balconies.)
So, God’s standard (revealed in the Bible) is crystal clear to me: no one ever has any righteous, legitimate authority to impose any condition upon me which will endanger my life. Thus private property owners have no legitimate authority to insist that you be unarmed and defenseless on their property.
Of course many people reject God and God’s standards because such people insist on being their own little gods. Those are the people who put ego and/or emotion ahead of what is right and go on to wrongly claim unlimited property rights — including the non-existent right to nullify self-defense and hence life on their property.
The net result: our federal and state governments started out with standards that aligned nicely with God’s standards. Over time, however, Godless people have perverted those standards until we arrive at the mess that we have today — the very mess and inconsistencies which you highlighted.
this type of law automatically assumes if you have a gun(s) in your residence you must have evil intent…that sort of thinking is unsustainable…
“this type of law automatically assumes if you have a gun(s) in your residence you must have evil intent”
Seems more like a conviction gun owners are likely to end up accidentally shooting through several walls, and unintentionally damaging innocent bystanders.
“Otherwise, we could go round-and-round forever in what is essentially nothing more than a shouting match — or “might makes right” as many of us have heard.”
Precisely the point. Two “rights” in conflict. Can both be equally enjoyed?
In the case of property rights, there is no natural, or human right to force another to accommodate our desires (to live in a particular place/dwelling). In the case of self-defense rights, they are non-negotiable. Does your higher authority declare that you may impose your self-defense rights on another? On another who fears catastrophe should you be irresponsible?
The dialog is missing, but suppose the innkeeper stated, “We have no room for a couple caring for an infant.” In the event, the couple did not assert their natural and human right to shelter where needed. Rights in conflict? Seems the answer was for the couple to go elsewhere. If an apartment owner declares, “We have no room for persons possessing firearms.”, is the proper answer, “You must accommodate my rights, regardless”?
Personally, rather than impose my beliefs on another, I would find a different apartment complex, or find a way to be armed when not in the apartment, recognizing that the trade of a tool in return for shelter is a manageable solution. I would not support any political action to force the apartment owner to subjugate property rights to my right to choose the tool I desire for self-defense.
Therein lies the rub, Sam. As explained somewhere above – once payment is taken in exchange for occupancy of a dwelling, the space belongs more to the tenant.
A landlord has no more right to violate one’s rights under the 2nd than the 1st or 3rd or 4th unless they want a nasty civil rights suit on their hands.
Thems the breaks. Don’t like it? Don’t landlord.
“A landlord has no more right to violate one’s rights under the 2nd than the 1st or 3rd or 4th”
As noted earlier, what you are posing is law, not rights. The law infringes on the landlord’s property rights. As with laws that infringe on 2A, your right to keep and bear arms cannot be eliminated. We have become so accustomed to laws rendering the individual helpless, that we often cannot see that more than our enumerated rights are infringed.
Under the constitution, a person cannot be deprived of life, or liberty without due process of law. The term “due process” is whatever the government says it is. Thus, depriving a property owner of control over owned property is an infringement under color of law. If that is not acceptable regarding the right to own guns, how is it acceptable as a means of infringing on other rights?
I can infringe on your constitutionally protected rights all day long. I am not government. The 1st, 2d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments do not apply on my property, or in my home. You either abide by my exertion of property rights, or you stay away. If you are turned away from my property because you refuse to abide by my rules, you have no standing to sue to enforce those amendments on my private property. Business owners are permitted to legally declare themselves gun free zones, but rental business owners are not. This is rank discrimination based purely on political power alone.
There MAY be a way around tenants rights but I doubt many landlords would do it: Don’t charge rent. Then the resident is simply a guest who can be uninvited for any or no reason.
“Don’t charge rent. Then the resident is simply a guest who can be uninvited for any or no reason.”
Now, that’s a novel idea. Wonder if one could charge large fees for parking permission, with an apartment thrown-in for free?
“Don’t charge rent. Then the resident is simply a guest who can be uninvited for any or no reason.”
Not *always*. In some places, squatters have more rights than property owners, and they can make eviction of them nearly impossible…
“Not *always*. In some places, squatters have more rights than property owners,…”
Perhaps the difference would be inviting occupants, rather than just letting someone move in? Might be prudent to issue a written invitation, and file it with public records at the courthouse. Establish the fact the occupant was a guest?
Sam I Am,
And that is the mindset of a mini-god. You have put yourself in the untenable position of defending your alleged unlimited property right to burst into your guest’s room unannounced at any time or to require them to undress on demand — because they could be doing something or possessing something that you don’t like or is dangerous.
All rights are about the sanctity of life and human dignity. You suffer ZERO hit to your human dignity when you cannot burst into your house guest’s room unannounced at any time. But your house guest’s human dignity suffers tremendously if you burst into their room while they are naked and in the process of dressing. You suffer ZERO hit to your human dignity if your house guest has a self-defense firearm and uses it to save his his/her life. But your house guest’s human dignity suffers tremendously if you forbid them from having a self-defense firearm and someone rapes them, maims them, or murders them.
Could a guest misuse a firearm and harm someone in your home? Of course. And that guest is responsible for his/her actions, including restitution as well as potential civil and criminal penalties. Note that any guest could also do myriad other things accidentally that are totally unrelated to firearms and cause harm to someone in your home. Again, those guests are responsible for their actions, including restitution and potential civil and criminal penalties.
And now to emphasize the point that human dignity and human life are superior to your faulty claim of limitless property rights. Can you forbid medical intervention for guests on your property? Even if your guest signs a contract to that effect? Can you forbid police investigation when someone attacks a guest in your home? Even if your guest signs a contract to that effect? Can you forbid the coroner from removing the dead body of your guests from your home? Even if your guest signed a contract to that effect? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding, “NO!”
Why was the answer to all of those questions, “NO!”? Simple. Because refusing medical intervention could cause your guest to die which violates the sanctity of human life. Refusing police investigation allows the attacker to violate the sanctity of human life as well as human dignity in the future. And refusing to let the coroner recover the dead body of your guest violates the sanctity of human life (in death) as well as the human dignity of their loved ones who need closure.
As you can plainly see, while private property rights certainly entail extremely wide latitude, private property rights do not imbue the property owner with any righteous, legitimate authority to violate the sanctity of human life nor their human dignity.
And to bring the discussion full circle: why do we have private property rights? That is also simple. A guest that does not honor the righteous requests of the private property owner violates the human dignity of the property owner.
Any other mindset is a simple elevation of ego or emotion above God’s standards.
I think you missed the point, entirely. It is one thing to have a right, and another to abuse it. Having unrestricted entry into a rented unit is not the same as barging-in at anytime.
As a landlord, the law prevents me from ensuring the safety of ALL the renters. The idea that a renter has superior rights is an invitation to disaster.
If, as landlord I cannot take steps to ensure safety and condition of the rented units, then I should also be exempt from liability for whatever happens. That is, if some renter cooking cannabis oil blows out an entire floor, I, the landlord, should be immune from legal action based on negligence, or failure to ensure reasonable safety. Same for fires caused by an occupant. Same for injury or death caused by misuse of a firearm. Such immunity would lower my liability insurance expense significantly. To my understanding, that is not how it works.
If we as gun owners are happy that landlords cannot prevent guns on the property, we must also accept other restrictions to our property rights that please whichever constituency backed and successfully implemented that intrusion on our property rights.
As to the rights I have regarding my home, barn, garage and yard. Call it what you will, but having superior rights over visitors does not violate the constitution. It is simply a matter of being the master of my castle, a long-established principle of law. At least until some law is passed that denies me absolute control over guests. (no, lawful investigators, or first-responders, are not inhibited by my mastery of my castle..also long settled law; false premise in argument)
So, yes, I can deny any private citizen who is invited onto my property freedom of speech, possession of a firearm, warrantless search of property, unlimited questioning of purpose, length of stay, inspection of containers, etc. The remedy is that an invited person may refuse an invitation, or refuse to step inside my home; my bar, my rules.
Sam I Am,
First of all, I am stating what is good and righteous, which our laws may or may not reflect.
Second of all, I agree 1000% that a landlord should be immune from the actions of tenants. If a tenant is having a fondue dinner or constructs a meth lab and sets the building on fire, that is the sole responsibility and liability of that tenant. Of course our broken law system may say otherwise. Again, I am stating what is good and righteous.
Finally, while our laws and your ego may support you making any and every imaginable condition to enter or be a guest on your property or in your home, some conditions are wrong — they are NOT righteous — because they endanger your guests and/or violate their human dignity. Imposing a condition that guests cannot have effective self-defense is one such example. A property owner who requires that guests surrender their right to life violates their human dignity and the sanctity of human life. There is never any situation where that is good and righteous. It is flat-out wrong in God’s eyes. It doesn’t matter if the guests have other options or not.
This is an exceedingly simple matter. And yet, because people reject God’s simple standards, they keep chipping away, incessantly attacking the basic principle from different directions. Hence my original statement that these simple standards become shouting matches and devolve into “might makes right”. Thus your statement, it is YOUR castle, which makes you “mighty”, which imbues you with the authority and power to impose anything and everything. Even though I listed examples where even our broken law system draws the line and limits your power on your property.
What I have a right to do in my castle isn’t necessarily what I do in my castle. The question is not about humility, humbleness, service, “righteousness”. The question is about the right of a property owner to control the activities of non-owners. Nothing in your basis of “righteousness” endorses or commands that people allow those under care and protection of their home to do whatever that sojourner desires, even evil.
To have and exercise power is not the same as abusing power. To have and exercise rights is not the same as abusing rights. But….demanding that I give up my right to maintain safety in my abode is abusive.
Sam I Am,
God certainly does not demand that you give up your right to manage the safety of your home to guests. Quite the contrary God expects you to manage the safety of your home whether or not you have guests. And if a guest insists on doing something that clearly endangers you or your family, you absolutely have righteous authority to kick them out. Furthermore, God most certainly does NOT require that you keep guests who are doing something evil.
God expects all people to be responsible at all times, whether or not they are property owners or guests.
The problem here is when someone tries to claim that guests who possess self-defense firearms in a responsible manner somehow endanger the property owner’s property or family. That is a flat-out lie. Thus, a property owner who claims that empowers him/her to prohibit such guests is in the wrong. Would our laws support that property owner? Probably. Are the laws wrong when they do that? Definitely.
“The problem here is when someone tries to claim that guests who possess self-defense firearms in a responsible manner somehow endanger the property owner’s property or family. That is a flat-out lie.”
Here you have set yourself a bar too high to reach. When you claim a position/statement/position is a lie, you bear the burden to prove it. If just one responsible gun owner acts irresponsibly, just for one moment, and negligently discharges a firearm, your case fails. If even one responsible gun owner in the past negligently discharged a firearm, you case failed before you stated it. Therefore….
In running the risk assessment matrix (as a landlord), I rate likelihood of ND to be “Seldom” (4). I rate impact to be “Catastrophic” (5). In many uses of the risk matrix, the result would be “Medium” risk. The next step would be to identify methods of mitigating the risk, either to eliminate, or make the possible catastrophic event acceptable. However, this is risk assessment as a landlord. When I consider the assessment matrix as an individual renter, things change.
As a renter, I want near zero probability (likelihood) of the event. The impact of an ND can be irreversible for me. “Near Zero” means an almost undetectable likelihood. There lies the problem. As a landlord, I want to do everything possible to reduce the risk to the renters (which, in turn, lowers my landlord/owner risk). This is where two natural, human and civil rights collide. Society (via legislation/law) takes away my ability to lower risk to near zero for the renters.
Thus, if Society can infringe on my property right to impose a risk of an ND, any other natural, human and civil right can be sacrificed for whatever purpose seems convenient. And that is the issue at hand. We like infringing on others when we benefit, but rebel at the idea of being infringed by others so they can benefit at our expense. As gun owners, we demand other apartment dwellers accept increased risk of life and safety so we can exercise our “rights”. And then, we object when others demand they not be so infringed.
Whether the right to property and the right to own a firearm are first, or second, class “rights”, the collision exists. But things get tricky when we decide to rank order natural, human and civil rights.
“Ah gots muh gun rots, and yawl can just stuff it.” is not a formula for winning political battles.
I think the answer lies more in the “bundle of rights” concept noted by Mark N. than has been acknowledged. Of course rights can be conflicting. My right to swing my fist around in the air stops short of where your nose begins, because you have the right to be free from being accosted in your person. As Mark N. noted, we negotiate the transfer of those rights, and to keep it civil, we do it in a manner controlled by law, whether common or legislated. Every transaction, from a bar fight to the purchase of a candy bar or shopping mall to the marriage of a man and woman to a war between countries, involves a negotiation of the acknowledgement, and often transfer, of rights that are in conflict.
So, of course the rights of the tenant and landlord are in conflict, and like two porcupines that find they must snuggle together to survive the cold night, they must negotiate the terms or there will be some suffering. Each has his own bundle, and the purpose of the law is to attempt to keep the negotiation civil and, to a greater or lesser extent and according to the “reasonable man” concept, build in some safeguards to protect those parties to the negotiation who may be at a disadvantage.
“Each has his own bundle, and the purpose of the law is to attempt to keep the negotiation civil and, to a greater or lesser extent and according to the “reasonable man” concept, build in some safeguards to protect those parties to the negotiation who may be at a disadvantage.”
This is the rub. “Negotiation”. As an absolutist, I maintain my rights cannot be negotiated away. As a realist, rights will be in conflict. The problem is that the “negotiation” is a political activity (not a commercial transaction). Political activities are decided by whichever party has power to assert over the other party.
As a gun owner, I am happy I cannot be prevented from legally possessing my .22cal howitzer in an apartment. As a landlord, I am forced to accept an unwanted and unnecessary risk. You, as the potential renter, have power of law to force onto me risk. I as the landlord objecting place no added risk on you, the renter, by refusing to accept firearms. You still have your firearm, you can take it with you, and you can live where the landlord is willing to accept the risk.
As gun owners, we may feel righteously justified in forcing risk upon the landlord and other tenants. As gun owners we also often take the position that government should not be allowed to force a business to accommodate customers who violate our individual religious beliefs. There is no difference between forcing landlords to accept guns, and forcing businesses to serve customers who demand violation of the business owner’s right of freedom of religion.
We gun owners can be a two-faced lot, while asserting we are the most principled people in society.
Sam I Am,
I can prove that someone who possesses a firearm in a responsible manner poses zero risk to a property owner.
Example:
I own a modern handgun. I maintain it. I use best practices when I maintain it. And I keep that modern handgun in a holster either in a safe or on my hip. That handgun will NEVER discharge. Yes, I said “NEVER”. Handguns do not discharge by themselves. And humans do not unintentionally discharge firearms when they handle/maintain them with best practices.
And we have concrete evidence that the probability of anyone — including incredibly irresponsible people handling firearms in an incredibly responsible manner — mishandling a firearm and causing death is statistically zero. I believe it is the Centers for Disease Control which lists causes of death. They list about 500 deaths annually from negligent firearm use. Given that something like 100 million households have firearms, that is an error rate of 0.0005% == 500 / 100,000,000.
Mind you that fatality rate of 0.0005% includes everyone — even criminals and idiots — who are totally irresponsible with firearms. If we stick to the fatality rate of responsible people, that number gets even smaller, if not literally zero.
Now, contrast that vanishingly small error rate of 500 annual deaths from irresponsible firearm ownership with approximately 13,000 annual murders. Banning firearms could absolutely condemn someone to death, since we have hard data that attackers murder about 13,000 people annually. Thus, banning firearms has a definite risk or injury as well.
At any rate, your position of requiring ZERO risk of any injury from tenants with firearms is simple not right because you are perfectly happy allowing tenants to introduce other significant risks. Tenants could use candles or a defective toaster which start a fire and injure/kill other tenants. Tenants could spread a virus to other tenants which kills them. A tenant could make a loud noise that disrupts another tenant’s sleep, causing that tenant to be drowsy and crash their car the next day or injure someone at a factory. Why is it okay to require ZERO risk of injury from firearms but allow non-zero risk of injury from candles, toasters, and countless other possibilities.
And even in my example of the perfectly responsible firearm owner, it is conceivable (however vanishingly remote the possibility) that even he/she could screw-up and harm someone. Thus, quite literally everything in life has some risk, even if that risk is minuscule. And when I say everything, I mean everything. Every possible action and inaction has risk. Our task in life is to manage risk, not ignore it or attempt to achieve zero risk (an impossibility).
You and Sam have spent WAY too much time and effort on this.. Make it simple, whether or not the law permits a landlord to tell someone they can or cannot have a firearm on the premesis is irrelevant, if I want to keep a gun in my residence (or any other non government public building) I will and no one needs to know, If the law permits me to do something a landlord, store or restaurant should not be able to control my legal rights… As a HOMEOWNER if I don’t want you to bring a firearm into my residence that is my prerogative and if that makes someone uncomfortable then don’t come into my home (although I am more likely to reqire you to carry a gun in my home)…. And that is ALL I have to say about that so you two crazy kids just knock yourselves out, but you really should at least try to find new ways to say the same thing over and over…..
The DELETE button is always available. Saves time.
“I can prove that someone who possesses a firearm in a responsible manner poses zero risk to a property owner.”
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are two types of gun owners: those who have committed a negligent discharge; those who haven’t, yet (yes, the clock will run out on most, before they get to their ND).
Every legal gun owner who caused an ND was a reasonable, safe, diligent, responsible gun owner, until the ND. That, my friend is “risk”. Let’s suppose we can see into the future, and discover that to the end of your days, you never misuse a firearm. Now, let’s suppose we can look, simultaneously, into the future lives of every legal gun owner in the nation. Can you guarantee that none of those will commit an ND? If not, risk exists.
QED, it is impossible to guarantee (prove) that a legal gun owner, or a group of gun owners will pose absolutely zero risk of an ND in an apartment unit.
If gun owners have a right to a firearm regardless of “need”, then as an apartment complex owner, I have a right to reduce risks regardless of “need” (i.e. likelihood).
If the people defending their home were running an illegal abortion clinic they would be hailed as heroes by the left. But, since they were only protecting their own lives with firearms they are demonized. The media sucks, and it’s lies are exposed every day. The internet broke the leftist media.
No, they were dealing drugs and their competition came to rob them. If you read the entire story with the article failed to mention, you’ll see the truth:
“Police said they responded to a shots fired call at about 10:45 p.m. Tuesday at the Creekside on Parmer Lane apartment complex.
A detective said three people went to the apartment to rob a couple of residents of drugs and money. Police said people inside the apartment fired the shots.”
I get that “journalists” are true to their creed: if it bleeds, it leads. But who would be so stupid as to rend their garments or shed a tear over three burglars staging a home invasion?
The world is better off without those criminals, and without the journalists as well.
1911…… THEN 911….
Looks like the KAXN story has been updated and now shows home invasion
This is why we need to blame the actual people responsible…the democrat party politicians, judges and prosecutors who keep releasing gun criminals on bond and out of prison on short sentences. These individuals are the ones using guns illegally over and over again and driving our gun crime and gun murder rates in democrat party controlled cities…….we need to take the fight back to them by doing stories on this link. I have story after story from these cities that show a revolving door….because of the democrat party policies…..we need to blunt their attacks by throwing the fight back at them…
Oh yeah, it’s the Democrats letting everybody out of prison. Wait a minute, didn’t trump just pardon a bunch of people who had been convicted of crimes by a jury of their peers?
OK, maybe you’re talking about and state governments. So let’s see, oh look!
A Republican governor pardons almost 600 violent criminals just a couple months ago:
“Bevin, a Republican who narrowly lost a bid for a second term last month, issued pardons to hundreds of people, including convicted rapists, murderers and drug offenders.
In one case, Bevin pardoned a man convicted of homicide. That man’s family raised more than $20,000 at a political fundraiser to help Bevin pay off a debt owed from his 2015 gubernatorial campaign.
In all, the former governor signed off on 428 pardons and commutations since his loss to Democrat Andy Beshear, according to The Courier-Journal. The paper notes, “The beneficiaries include one offender convicted of raping a child, another who hired a hit man to kill his business partner and a third who killed his parents.”
Wow, the truth really has a negative impact on the anti-Democrat narrative. But that’s OK, most Republicans ignore the truth and are more comfortable living in their fantasy land propagated by Fox entertainment service.
Thank you for writing this.
It is truly the issue at hand. It’s what we should be fighting each and every day.
But, but, BBQ and live music, and “Austin vibe.”
Well worth disarmament and homeless junkies puking in the streets.
Part and parcel mate.
Yes, if you were known in the neighborhood to have drugs at your home, you certainly do need a gun to protect your ‘bidness’.
It is deceptive for the TTAG writer to leave out the critical details from the very article they cite:
“Police said they responded to a shots fired call at about 10:45 p.m. Tuesday at the Creekside on Parmer Lane apartment complex.
A detective said three people went to the apartment to rob a couple of residents of drugs and money. Police said people inside the apartment fired the shots.”
I prefer the line…Criminals make the world dangerous. Guns make the world safe.
We could line the streets with guns and nothing bad would happen UNTIL an arse-hat grabs a gun and uses it with bad intent.
For a gun to make the world a dangerous place a person must decide to use it maliciously. No chicken or egg in the argument. As we know if the gun was not the tool something else would be.
2A FOREVER
Comments are closed.