Guns banned from Tennessee neighborhood

[Number 6]

Really?

I infer from the story that the HOA in question is run by a management company and that notice of such a change probably never went out prior to its implementation.

I question the validity of such an inference.

The HA is the governing body; the management company merely the tool by which it enforces its edicts. The HA does not pick up trash or mow lawns; it hires the MC to perform those functions per the HA's contract w/the MC.

The MC would have NO authority to create rules; only to enforce such rules as the HA enacted and the MC contractually agreed to implement.

In short, the far more plausible scenario is that the officious intermeddlers on the HA board enacted the anti-gun rule and the MC then sent out the notices.

Of course, you'll comply. It's all for the greater good and you wouldn't want to be found "unmutual." :barf:

 

[invention_45]

First, as I already posted, realtors are liars and if you make the mistake of trusting them you will be sitting at closing facing signing up for a homeowners' association, like I did, after being assured none existed.

Second, just try doing it your own way, against their rules. They will fix the problem and then put a lein on your property to pay for it.

 

[JR47]

If you google Nashboro Viilage, you'll find that it is a 400 acre, mixed-use development. It contains apartments (rental), mixed townhomes (privately owned and rental units) and single-family homes.

This is an unusual set-up for an HOA/Management Company. In the rental properties, the Management Company is responsible for the property. In the rental townhomes, the Management Company is also responsible for the properties. In the privaretly owned townhomes, and the single-family structures, there is an HOA. Obviously, the HOA isn't able to dictate anything to the dedicated rental properties, so this whole thing becomes a bit muddied. HOAs have officers and proceedures used to adopt new rules and regulations. I don't know of any that can implement changes without a public seminar about them. This whole thing is poorly explained.

 

[Samurai]

Well, for my two cents:

I've lived in neighborhoods that were not regulated by homeowners' associations, and I've lived in neighborhoods that were regulated by homeowners' associations. As a general rule, neighborhoods with good, active homeowners' associations are MUCH nicer places to live.

That said, and with regard to this "neighborhood gun ban" thing, it sounds to me like a load of huey! Hey, I can announce that I ban peanut butter and bananna sandwiches, but that doesn't mean I can go knocking on all those Elvis fans' doors and make them stop. A complete ban (on either item, guns or sandwiches) would be ENTIRELY unenforceable, both legally and logistically.

Now, the "ban" might just serve as a ban against open-carry within the neighborhood. I think that's about as far as the rule could be enforced. But, the homeowners' association does not have the right to search and seizure, so the rule could not possibly be enforced against discreet ownership.

 

[Jart]

First, as I already posted, realtors are liars and if you make the mistake of trusting them you will be sitting at closing facing signing up for a homeowners' association, like I did, after being assured none existed.

Sometimes I wonder how many people have stood up and walked out of a closing when an unpleasant surprise surfaces. Surely, I'm not the only one.

The expressions on their faces were priceless though.

 

[Number 6]

Basis

That said, and with regard to this "neighborhood gun ban" thing, it sounds to me like a load of huey [sic]! Hey, I can announce that I ban peanut butter and bananna [sci] sandwiches, but that doesn't mean I can go knocking on all those Elvis fans' doors and make them stop. A complete ban (on either item, guns or sandwiches) would be ENTIRELY unenforceable, both legally and logistically.

Really? Has there been a suspension of basic contract law of late? And do you single-handedly wield the unbridled authority to enact regulations in your neighborhood, or are you just off your regimen of psychotropic medications?

While the practicality of enforcement is, to put it mildly, a challenge, the bottom line is that the HOA was part of the conditions of purchase. IF the rule was duly posted, heard and enacted, it is now a valid condition of living in this little Shangri-La.

What are the consequences of breaching that contract? Depends on what the association rules and regs say. And whether the parties are willing to spend big bucks to roll the dice in court.

 

[invention_45]

Sometimes I wonder how many people have stood up and walked out of a closing when an unpleasant surprise surfaces. Surely, I'm not the only one.

That was my first home. Had I any idea of what was to follow, I'd most certainly have walked out.

The first time I bought, I let the realtor and bank set things up.

The second time, I called my attorney and let HIM set it up, telling him what I wanted and didn't want. Cost was $1000. And it went without a hitch.

Lesson learnt.

 

[Samurai]

Number,

I just don't think that a post-acceptance addition to the terms of a land-use covenant that denies a Constitutional right is going to hold up in court. Something about it just seems "unconscionable."

There are plenty of cases which uphold the validity of homeowners' agreements, and the covenant to stick to the agreements. (All Property Law cases.) BUT, I just bet that when matched against pure contract law, those homeowners' agreements won't stand as binding when they involve such a major term being enacted after the fact. Besides, homeowners' covenants involve regulation of land use, NOT a ban on chattel ownership. I just don't think it'll hold up.

Now, concerning the "whether the parties are willing to spend big bucks to roll the dice in court" comment, you're absolutely right. It's all a gamble. But, I'm talking about possibilities, not what a person necessarilly should do.

 

[Number 6]

Ah, but.....

Besides, homeowners' covenants involve regulation of land use, NOT a ban on chattel ownership. I just don't think it'll hold up.

Many, if not MOST condo and HA covenants affect "chattel ownership." Look at the prohibitions against boats, RV's, trucks and any unregistered vehicles being stored on the homeowner's property. Many prohibit pets, or at least certain types.

ALL those involve chattel property; the "regulation of land use" is minimal.

Note also that many do or did ban any outdoor displays, including flags. Are you suggesting that free speech is not a fundamental right, or that such common regulations don't "hold up?" And the flag-wavers don't pose a threat to public safety, which is what the HOA will claim it is protecting. :barf:

 

[Samurai]

Typically, those rules say that you can't keep boats, RV's, etc. outside where they can be seen. Hence, my original comment about the rule serving to ban open-carry. I don't think a homeowners' association can ban the contents of one's home.

 

[TheFacts]

Really? Guess they don't have zoning where you live.

Or health, fire, plumbing and building codes.

Ohh come on dude...are we even operating on the same wavelength. If you own your own house, condo, etc...you have the right to keep your domicile as filthy, combustion prone, backed up, and dilapidated as you choose. The codes you are describing mostly would apply to businesses. Speaking from personal experience, I have been in some dwellings that were not even fit enough for hippies to live in.

As for the HA, the purchasers SIGNED AWAY THEIR RIGHTS when they bought into the association. It's called a contract for a reason.

If a purchaser is ignorant enough to sign away their rights, then they DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR RIGHTS VIOLATED. Maybe before a naive soul signs their constitutional rights over to a bunch of Martha Stewarts who are on a power trip, they should have a lawyer look over the contract...just a suggestion



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[JR47]

The facts are a bit different, actually. Local Fire Codes may well extend into private domiciles. The current smoke detector and residential sprinkler laws, for example. There are also fire codes that limit the amount, and placement, of flammable liquids in homes. The building codes that your house is required to meet also must be met, and re-met, when additions are made.

If you have children, there are hygiene laws that must be met, as well. Now, those are the facts.

 

[Number 6]

False "Facts"

If you own your own house, condo, etc...you have the right to keep your domicile as filthy, combustion prone, backed up, and dilapidated as you choose. The codes you are describing mostly would apply to businesses.

Are you truly that ignorant, or just desperately hoping we are?

Ask any licensed electrician or plumber if the building codes only "apply to businesses." Ask the building inspector about required minimums for framing, flooring and roofing, to name but 3 obvious examples, and whether those standards apply to residential structures. Ask the fire department about the laws regarding smoke and CO2 detectors and the storage of flammable liquids, propellants or explosives in a home. Ask the board of health about requirements for water and sewage, as well as what constitutes a "nuisance" under health codes. Then tell your planning and zoning boards that they have no authority over residences.

IF and when you ever get a clue, you can come back and lecture use about your imaginary, unfettered "right" to do as you please with your own property.

 

[Jart]

That was my first home. Had I any idea of what was to follow, I'd most certainly have walked out.

The first time I bought, I let the realtor and bank set things up.

The second time, I called my attorney and let HIM set it up, telling him what I wanted and didn't want. Cost was $1000. And it went without a hitch.

Lesson learnt.

I feel your pain.

The one time I bailed was the second home and even then mollifying the spousal unit was an epic challenge. Would have been harder if it was the first one. I had a lawyer at the first closing. I don't recall why I had a lawyer the first time - blind luck probably.

 

[Musketeer]

I couldn't imagine signing a contract that committed me to payments for 20-30 years without a lawyer being present.

 

[Edward429451]

If you own your own house, condo, etc...you have the right to keep your domicile as filthy, combustion prone, backed up, and dilapidated as you choose. The codes you are describing mostly would apply to businesses.

Are you truly that ignorant, or just desperately hoping we are?

Ask any licensed electrician or plumber if the building codes only "apply to businesses." Ask the building inspector about required minimums for framing, flooring and roofing, to name but 3 obvious examples, and whether those standards apply to residential structures.

I'm a licensed P&H contractor and know somewhat of these requirements, at least in my locale. The way this works is that is really has to be a major dangerous violation before they can step in and revoke the CO. Code violations of a 'potentially' hazardous violation are first dealt with by the contractor and the homeowner. If the homeowner will not agree to the work to bring (whatever) up to code, then the contractor reports it to the local building dept, and an "administrative Lein" is placed upon the property which disallows the sale of the structure until the violations are brought to current code. It is stricter for commercial but applies to residential as well. The outside area of the structure is held to stricter compliance than the inside, generally speaking. So you can get away with some stuff for a while, but there's no blank check as to how far you can push it.

 

[TheFacts]

Ask any licensed electrician or plumber if the building codes only "apply to businesses." Ask the building inspector about required minimums for framing, flooring and roofing, to name but 3 obvious examples, and whether those standards apply to residential structures. Ask the fire department about the laws regarding smoke and CO2 detectors and the storage of flammable liquids, propellants or explosives in a home. Ask the board of health about requirements for water and sewage, as well as what constitutes a "nuisance" under health codes. Then tell your planning and zoning boards that they have no authority over residences.

My friend, if you analyze what you are saying, you will see that what you are citing infers to codes regarding the construction and mechanical preservation of a home PRIOR to when a house is sold. For example, if you decided to put your home up for sale tomorrow, you would, of course, be required to follow ALL HEALTH, PLUMBING, FIRE, AND BUILDING CODES before the sale is made. What I am talking about is in regards to a homeowner who chooses how to maintain his/her property. If they want to sell it at a later date, then they better conform to the above standards or face the ramifications (depending on locality). I aplogize if I did not make that clear enough. So, if one is a realtor (spell check??) who is in the business of selling homes, then the answer is obvious. As for your local property taxpayer, they can pretty much do as they please with their own property. By the way, in my statement regarding to an "unfettered" right to property as being absolute, absolute suggests the lawful use, storage, carrying (if possible), concealment, and destruction of one`s lawfully obtained possessions without restriction. However, just because many of us believe that we are entitled to do with our property as we see fit, does NOT mean that we are granted such rights under law. If that were the case, this "legal and political forum" would have little purpose.

I'm a licensed P&H contractor and know somewhat of these requirements, at least in my locale. The way this works is that is really has to be a major dangerous violation before they can step in and revoke the CO. Code violations of a 'potentially' hazardous violation are first dealt with by the contractor and the homeowner. If the homeowner will not agree to the work to bring (whatever) up to code, then the contractor reports it to the local building dept, and an "administrative Lein" is placed upon the property which disallows the sale of the structure until the violations are brought to current code. It is stricter for commercial but applies to residential as well. The outside area of the structure is held to stricter compliance than the inside, generally speaking. So you can get away with some stuff for a while, but there's no blank check as to how far you can push it.

Please read the 8th line down...and by the way, take a tour of N. Phila. and check out some of the "beautiful rowhomes" that accomodate soooo many poor and working class families and tell them about building codes.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[Number 6]

Still incorrect

Your first claim:

If you own your own house, condo, etc...you have the right to keep your domicile as filthy, combustion prone, backed up, and dilapidated as you choose.

Your latest assertion:

As for your local property taxpayer, they can pretty much do as they please with their own property.

Putting aside the other errors, these are still false statements. A property owner cannot use or abuse his/her property in such a way as to constitute a hazard to anyone else. Pathetic delusions notwithstanding, owning property does not grant unfettered rights.

While the laws vary from state to state and municipality to municipality, you can't store toxic waste, flammable liquids, explosives, etc. absent compliance with codes regarding storage and permits. For residences, it's pretty much a flat prohibition.

You can't maintain "attractive nuisances" on your land without putting up barriers to keep kids out (ask someone who owns a pool).

You can't accumulate debris to the point it becomes a health hazard, whether it be by fire, breeding vermin or insects, etc.

Those are just a few of the obvious limits. Of course, most people on this forum already grasped that concept, but there are a few who might have been deluded by the above quotes, absurd as they are.

 

[Samurai]

So, Number, besides simply calling everyone else "wrong," what exactly IS your point? Is it right and true for homeowners' associations to ban gun ownership? Is every person who lives in a HA-regulated neighborhood a mall-ninja-sheeple-zombie? Repeat what it is that you're trying to establish, because in the recent flame-storm, I think it's become unclear.

Edit: Oh, and while we're at it. There's a difference between holding a heated debate and calling other people on the forum "deluded" and "absurd." Curb your enthusiasm, please, and let's keep it civil.

 

[invention_45]

While the laws vary from state to state and municipality to municipality, you can't store toxic waste, flammable liquids, explosives, etc. absent compliance with codes regarding storage and permits. For residences, it's pretty much a flat prohibition

If you go to any Home Depot or Lowe's, you'll find more than one aisle's worth of flammable liquids and most likely considerable hazardous waste. Who do they sell all this stuff to?

Most homeowners store gasoline and some sort of grease-remover type chemical, like xylene, acetone, or MEK.

I assure you that nobody is interested in such storage unless they get the idea that you are storing it "to make bombs".

So it's nothing like a flat prohibition. My guess is that you'll raise eyebrows if you are found to be storing 100 gallons of MEK, but you will not even if you have a total of 5-6 gallons of stuff that would give your fire department a proverbial headache if they happened to need to fight a fire at your house.