Maine landlord asks judge to dismiss tenant's gun rights lawsuit

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/26/maine-landlord-asks-judge-to-dismiss-tenants-gun-rights-lawsuit.html?intcmp=latestnews

Enjoy!

Yeah
The landlord wins the dick of the year award.

Yeah
The landlord wins the dick of the year award.

Since the tenant is wheelchair-bound, he also has the option to sue for discrimination as part of a protected class.  Landlord is refusing this man who is dependent on a firearm for protection his right to own one.

Interesting case, whether a landlord can control everything that goes on within their property or not (beyond rights guaranteed by landlord tenant code)

unfortunate that Harvey had to shoot some one, but awesome that finally he decided to protect himself.I hope he gets a huge settlement so he can get out that place.and into a better environment.

Two things make the case interesting:

(1)  The tenant is subsidized, meaning there are implications of government interference with 2A rights.  With few places that accept subsidies in his area, it can be argued accepting subsidies require surrender of Constitutional right.

(2)  One law professor said the outcome may hinge on the justification for the landlord's ban on firearms.  In a place that was burglarized 6 times in 5 years, it sounds like the landlord isn't doing enough to protect his tenants, so he should allow them the freedom to defend themselves.

Didn't Maine just do away with permits for CCW??
A bastion of freedom in the very Blue Northeast?
Sounds like a no brainer to me.

I guess the simple question for everyone here is whether or not the landlord gets to control what goes on in his own property

I guess the simple question for everyone here is whether or not the landlord gets to control what goes on in his own property

To a point..  If the guy get robbed 6 times, is the landlord liable for that?

To a point..  If the guy get robbed 6 times, is the landlord liable for that?

Since this is tax payer (Not Government) subsidized housing I am not sure about their lease contract. But as a landlord there are requirements that I take care of the rental unit doing certain things to help keep my tenants safe. For instance things must be common sense. So I went to the police and they had a brochure with common sense things to do around your house to help deter burglaries. Things like keeping the bushes in front of windows cut down below the bottom window line. I had let the bushes grow a little higher than the botton of the window line even though they were nicely trimmed. I installed motion sensitive lighting around the house. ANd a few other things. If after that there were still burglaries I don't see that the landlord would have any leg to stand on. And if he had not done these common sense things then he might be able to be held liable to a certain extent. I am not saying I agree with all this, I am just saying what I do and what I have seen our courts do.

Since this is tax payer (Not Government) subsidized housing...

Was that a typo?  Doesn't taxpayer subsidized=government subsidized?

To a point..  If the guy get robbed 6 times, is the landlord liable for that?

Apparently, landlords can't be held liable for anything a third party residing outside of the property does on his property.  If the robbers are tenants, and the landlord knows who they are, he can evict or have arrested.

Having said that, if there are repeated break-ins, and the landlord fails to replace broken locks or door jambs, the tenant can have that work done and withhold rent to pay for it.

From reading about this case, I read the landlord installed a lock on the window the burglar climbed in, but the tenant didn't have it locked.  Was it too warm to have the window closed?  I don't know.

As far as moving to a better place, better places don't accept subsidy tenants.  If all subsidy-accepting places have a "No Guns" rule, I wounder if that can be associated back to the state or federal government?  Since Constitutional Rights are limits placed on government, and the government is limiting his choices of where to live to only gun free zones, are they not unintentionally violating his 2A right?

Fun fact: federal law protects a renter's right to install a satellite dish (I kid you not: https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule), but whether or not they can exercise their right to keep and bear arms is left up to the state.  http://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/2013/05/21/can-landlords-limit-their-tenants-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

 

Was that a typo?  Doesn't taxpayer subsidized=government subsidized?

Nope, not a typo. And I don't agree with the premise of "taxpayer subsidized=government subsidized". I believe that saying that something is Government Subsidized is the PC way of not stating the obvious which is that it is Taxpayer Subsidized. Just another way the left has us thinking their way and not stating the obvious. So from now on I prefer to state the obvious so people on the left understand it may be the government who is writing the checks but it is the tax payer who is footing the bill. JMHO

Nope, not a typo. And I don't agree with the premise of "taxpayer subsidized=government subsidized". I believe that saying that something is Government Subsidized is the PC way of not stating the obvious which is that it is Taxpayer Subsidized. Just another way the left has us thinking their way and not stating the obvious. So from now on I prefer to state the obvious so people on the left understand it may be the government who is writing the checks but it is the tax payer who is footing the bill. JMHO

I apologize, I think I misunderstood your post.  I think we're on the same side of this argument...  It may have been more clear if I had said "government subsidized=taxpayer subsidized" instead of the other way around.  I think the point we are both trying to make is that if the government is financially backing something, they're doing it with taxpayer money (yours and mine).   

I apologize, I think I misunderstood your post.  I think we're on the same side of this argument...  It may have been more clear if I had said "government subsidized=taxpayer subsidized" instead of the other way around.  I think the point we are both trying to make is that if the government is financially backing something, they're doing it with taxpayer money (yours and mine).   

No need apologize. It is so easy to misunderstand anything posted in a forum. I appreciate your honesty.

Yes, we are both on the same side on this. What I am trying to do is to point out things that I think we are brainwashed by the PC Progressive crowd. The term "Government Subsidized" is one of those terms I feel doesn't really tell the truth. As long as we, as a community of 2A supporters continue to use these terms we fall into line just like they want us to. I would like to change this if I can. JMHO

My issue is this. There are so many things that a landlord can regulate inside the unit he owns. For example smoking, cats, business, waterbeds, modifications, subleasing, how many people can live there, etc. If the decision is entirely up to the landlord and is not a government and forced choice I tend to lean on the side that the landlord can set up these rules. To guarantee tenants the right to own a firearm in the home.