One previously unmentioned facet of the new Illinois gun freedoms is how landlords, building owners and managers will deal with the prospect of tenants and visitors legally toting guns. Private property owners can, of course, prohibit handguns on their premises, so declaring leasing offices off limits to guns is obviously legal, but what about individual apartments? The general consensus is that a rental property can prohibit concealed firearms anywhere on the property, including individual apartments . . .
if the lease contains specific language to that effect. “We are going to be prohibiting [conceal carry], absolutely,” said Victor Rodriguez, property management consultant for Hispanic Housing Development Corp., which handles 3,600 units in the Chicago area. So if you live in or around Chicago, be sure to read the fine print.
“Just give them what they want.” A 19-year-old college student was killed on the South Side of Chicago last month, despite giving his robbers what they wanted. Two men held him up at gunpoint and demanded his cell phone, which he surrendered. Then they shot him. According to his mother, he had resisted joining a gang, despite getting into repeated fights with those who wanted to bring him into their ranks. After handing over his phone, the robbers asked him what gang he was in. When he could not answer, they shot him. I really would like to hear a civilian disarmament proponent explain their way out of this one.
SIG SAUER introduced their 938 .22 pistol at SHOT Show. Available as a standalone .22 (in two barrel lengths) or as a drop-in conversion kit for the 938 you already own. You know, because .22 is cheaper and easier to find than 9 mm.
There’s a bill pending in Tennessee that would repeal bans on concealed carry in government-owned parks statewide, and leaders of the Tennessee chapter of Moms Demand Action went to a Nashville park on Friday to express their disagreement. A half dozen speakers were heard in what the tennessean.com called a “lightly-attended” press conference, expressing concern that the proposed bill would take decisions about gun control out of the hands of local governments. Tennessee passed a law in 2009 that said people with handgun carry permits could carry in state and local parks. But they included a provision letting local governments opt out and reinstate bans. Several cities opted out. The current bill would eliminate that loophole. [See what I did there?] House Bill 1407 is scheduled for committee hearing on Wednesday; the Senate companion bill passed on February 13th. Sen. Stacey Campfield said he has the votes to override a veto from Gov. Bill Haslam, should he choose to go that route.
From The Firearm Blog: Israel Military Industries Ltd. (IMI) recently announced a new 5.56 NATO load called the Razor Core. The load is designed to improve stopping power, accuracy and range when compared to standard NATO ball ammo. Contrary to what its name might suggest, the bullet doesn’t expand or have any other overtly “razorlike” properties. In fact, according to one reseller, the bullet is a 77-grain Sierra HPBT MatchKing. However, it is engineered to be very accurate, and succeeds, if the accuracy graphs from the manufacturer are to be believed. $390 per 500.
SureFire Hellfighter 5. I need one of these to walk the dog.
No price listed yet, but a previous (3000 lumen) version went for about $5500.
Yesterday I featured James Yeager’s take on the situation in Connecticut. Here’s The Yankee Marshal’s, and I think it’s worth hearing. I’m fond of saying that the civilian disarmament movement should just quit with the nibbling around the edges and just sack up and try to repeal the Second Amendment, or sit down and shut the hell up. The Yankee Marshal is thinking along the same lines. He wants them to go after the guns in CT, to scare people into noticing what’s happening and “lift the veil.” Listen to what he’s got to say, and tell us what you think.
.
Are we in a picture drought and we have to reuse the same pictures over and over?
I was being lazy. It’s a story about Chicago, and concealed (and other) carry, and the source article didn’t have a photo.
If you’re gonna be lazy re use pictures of KJW.
Yankee is a smart guy maybe a little on the left for my tastes but when it comes to guns he is not wrong often.
If I’m honest, I can’t say I agree with the statement that he’s rarely wrong just for the fact that being a relatively new firearm owner I wouldn’t know if he’s wrong or not. The biggies, like safety, sure. But I’m still learning some of the details.
The two things that made me subscribe were his sense of humor and his tone. His sense of humor is twisted, as is mine. And his tone is (almost) never in-your-face-FOAD. I can handle conversing/debating with anyone of any social, religious, political stance as long as they’re willing to have a reasonable conversation. That’s the impression I get off him.
Here in Colorado, a court (can’t remember if state or Denver) ruled last year that public housing cannot forbid tenants from owning firearms. Public housing is run with taxpayer money and as such was not deemed “private property” when it came to forbidding firearms.
Along with the recalls, this decision was one of the few bright spots we’ve had here regarding the 2A.
I think TTAG did an article on that..don’t hold me to it though
Generally speaking if an article has fallen past page 3 it’s dead to me, but I’m learning to love the search bar to the right….
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/robert-farago/co-private-apartment-complex-bans-guns/
the reasoning is unfortunately limited. In essence, public housing is provided by a government entity, and the government cannot deny individuals their second amendment rights. This reasoning does not apply to private property owners. HOWEVER, I think that a private landlord would have a hard time enforcing a contractual ban on the tenant’s possession of noncontraband firearms. A landlord can ban illegal activities (e.g. nuisances or drug dealing), pets that damage the landlord’s property, and so forth. But this right is limited to conduct that threaten the landlord’s reversionary/investment interest in the property. But. a landlord gives up all right to the property except ownership when he leases the property to a tenant, and a tenant can do anything that is not in violation of the law. The landlord has no right to enter without permission, cannot search an apartment or other rental housing, cannot seize the tenant’s property, and cannot lock the tenant out. The laws undoubtedly vary from state to state, but many states have tenants rights laws to prevent–and punish–landlord abuses. So to suggest that an owner of a nonpossessory interest in real property can ban firearms or concealed carry conducted according to law is a questionable proposition–but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.
Not a lawyer – don’t know the specifics, but I seem to recall hearing or reading somewhere that a residential lease cannot have as a requirement that you relinquish any of your Constitutional rights. While they can make it a requirement that you may not commit any unlawful act on the premises, they cannot prohibit otherwise lawful activity.
Some legal eagle please clarify this for us.
Ah, the property owner loophole/intentional-ambiguity-created-for-trial-lawyers provision in the Illinois law. There is a potential benefit to it: anti-gun businesses who lease their property arguably can’t post valid no-gun signs.
“anti-gun businesses who lease their property arguably can’t post valid no-gun signs.”
… unless their landlord says they can.
It will be interesting to see how all these issues play out.
Predictably, the only people with their panties in a bunch over concealed carry are in Cook County.
Personally, I like the idea of business owners posting a sign that says, “This store protected by armed customers.”
I agree on all points. Interestingly, thus far, it appears most landlords and property management companies are staying out of this one. And for the same reason that most businesses are avoiding posting the signs: the POTG take the posting of the sign far more seriously than the antis take that no sign is posted. Even in downtown Chicago.
I don’t think a landlord can ban concealed carry in individual apartments. There are limits on a landlord’s powers over your rights. A landlord cannot consent to a search of your apartment by police. They cannot ban you from practicing your religion in your apartment. A landlord saying that you can’t own guns or conceal carry from your apartment to your vehicle, I think would be outside the rights of the landlord.
Thus, the trial lawyer comment. It’s a hot mess that our legislature all but admitted was done intentionally. They couldn’t resolve some issues, like tenant rights, and decided to let the lawyers have a field day.
YM makes a point, but in doing so throws the 300 odd people who were the “day late dollar short crowd” under the bus. Those poor bastards will be the first to get the letters and subsequent door kicks.
Those are the people who are under the hammer, and I fear for them and their families. Would he be so quick with the same opinion if he were one of the 300?
YM is going through a scenario. I do not disagrees with his opinion but I do not believe anything will happen. The current Gov. Is loosing in the early Polls, Finch the rating agency has put CT on their list for a potential second credit downgrade, the only companies not leaving the state are the ones getting a loan they do not need to pay back, and other democratic incumbents are singing amnesty for the CT 300.
Blood in an election year would be bad.
Nothing will happen just like in every single state that has tried registration.
This whole mess is political theater
Unless they feel they can fire up their base by kicking down doors. This is a tough one to call.
“Nothing will happen just like in every single state that has tried registration.”
You go right ahead and try telling that to the denizens of The People’s Republik of Kommiefornistan that ARE having their weapons confiscated. Sans due process. Without charge. Without trial. Without compensation.
Try trotting that out in front of the ZOO Yorkers that ARE/i> having their weapons confiscated. Sans due process. Without charge. Without trial. Without compensation.
You realize that there ARE rumblings of a such thing being plotted in Barryland and SCREW-YOU Jersey, too, right? Right?
If these people were dumb enough not only to register their “assault weapons” but do it wrong (getting the worst of both worlds), they should probably just get them out of the state.
they should probably just get
themout of the state.Fixed.
Frankly one should either comply with the law in some manner (register, remove or just plain move) or resolve to resist by planning, preparation and action. To defy the law without preparation and intention to fight it out is simply foolish and invites disaster.
With so many free states, I couldn’t be convinced to visit the likes of CT,NY,NJ,MA or CA by any contrivance short of force, let alone to live in one.
There will always be idiots among us and until SCOTUS sets limits on how far they may go in abrogating civil rights it might be best to live in a free state and visit the others only as part of an organized protest.
Well, short of an unforseen repeal, someone is going to be the first person arrested under this law. Maybe one of the 300, maybe someone else. I suspect none of them have been targeted yet because the state is worried about the admissibility of the applications, but I’ll let the lawyers say for sure.
Frankly, if the first person they go after as a test case is even half as likeable as YM, that would be good for our side.
It would have been helpful if he’d turned on – er, activated – the Hellfighter in a manner that would give some idea of the brightness.
4,500 lumens. Holy crap. I got a 600 lumen light from Home Depot, and IT hurts!
My brightest light is 750, and turning it on a light-colored surface will dazzle you.
Screw the surefire. I want what it was hanging off of. Now THAT’S something to walk the dog with!
Me too, but if I bought that giant gun to guard my valuable possessions, then THAT would be my only valuable possession. I’d need something else to guard IT. Maybe another, bigger dog. Possibly a wolf. Definitely another gun.
For five and a half grand it better double as one hell of a fleshlight.
At certain point, flashlights should not be measured in lumens anymore, there should be a next level, like most measurements.
After 500 it should stair step up, maybe be called toodamnbrightens.
Same thing with horsepower, using horsepower to measure the power of drag cars or jet engines is just silly.
I have but 200 lumens, but size doesn’t matter, am I right? Seriously, am I?
Its not the size of the flashlight, its the size of the box that it came in that counts.
Yes. Box size is always important.
The effect of the light follows an inverse square law. This means that with 200 lumens you need to get the thing about two feet from the perps face.
Well, OK, it really doesn’t matter. The quality of the reflector, the ability to focus the light, matters. And of course, what is in your other hand matters even more.
That’s like saying we are prohibiting you your constitutional rights because of your skin color
So far the law does not work that way. Gun owners are not a “suspect classification,” which means a group that historically has been subjected to invidious discrimination. like women, gays, blacks and them nasty ferreners.
I agree with Yankee’s stance on the whole confiscation thing.
Way to blow the (remaining) doors off of the anti’s old, tired, and discredited arguments. I guess they’ve conveniently ignored Canada, Australia, the U.K., Cambodia, Russia, Germany, Turkey… Hell, it even happened here. Many times. Yeah, you get the picture.
This is one of the few times I ABSOLUTELY agree with Yankee dude.
I’ve got to ask: If NJ, NY, and CT are effectively putting leg-irons on their free-state-defending militia, is this an opportunity for PA to make its move? Will we be welcomed by the natives as liberators?
Ah, the glory of an invading Pennsylvanian militia! What a grand day it would be! One state where there once were four!
🙂
On the one hand I don’t want it to come to confiscation. It will inevitably lead to serious trauma, possibly loss of innocent life. I don’t want to see that happen.
..but on the other, maybe it needs to. Maybe it’s the wake-up call that’s necessary to expose these statists for what they are.
Then again, I do not live in CT. I don’t think it’s right for me to say “Yeah, let ’em come and take it!” when they’re not going to be coming for ME. Lotta keyboard kommandos doing the same thing. So think for a moment. If they were coming for YOU, and seriously think about this–if they were coming for your guns, for your family…what would you do?
I know what I would do.
The landlord can set the rules — but evicting someone is a nightmare for landlords in most cities. And when the rent is being paid, its almost impossible.
Getting a tenant kicked out is relatively easy. Getting a tenant kicked out ‘legally’ is another. But that only matters once it gets in front of a judge.
My first study of non-criminal law was concerning landlord-tenant disputes and (of course) your very right Ralph. A creative tenant with a modicum of intelligence and a little spare time can make a landlord regret being one. The onus for most things under the law falls on the landlord. If the tenant pays the rent, doesn’t use the property for criminal activity and doesn’t destroy the place they are nearly sacrosanct. On the other hand the landlord is held to rules and regulations that often they are not even aware of. In the event that a tenant has the inclination and the will, life (and profitability) can become very difficult for a landlord. Put in simple terms, one half smart jerk with a copy of the relevant laws in his state and a bone to pick can make a landlord rue the day he did whatever it was that made that jerk focus on him if not the day that he became a landlord in the first place.
I’ve seen the situation deteriorate to the point where the lease that the landlord had thought ensured steady revenue was happily torn up in order to get the offended (and offending) tenant to leave.
I suspect that played well a tenant could get their landlord to pay the deposit on the next apartment they rent from some poor sucker just to get rid of them before they become any more costly and problematic.
Good intentions and simple ignorance on the part of a landlord mean little once the game is afoot and only the letter of the law applies. I suppose it’s that way with most of civil law, the party with the time and inclination to learn more of it can use it to the detriment of those who don’t.
Once the lease is up the tenant will be gone. Although if the tenant isn’t doing anything illegal or damaging the property, I’m not sure what they could be doing to be such a concern to the landlord.
For every problem tenant there is a landlord who refuses to return tenants’ damage deposits with interest as required by law. The vast majority of tenants just lay down and take it because taking them to court over it is too much of a hassle. When I was young, stupid and single I lived in this dive for $185/month and when I moved out the landlord sued me for ‘damages’ above the deposit. Supposedly he had replaced the 30 year old stove with one that cost $900. The judge informed him that damages are assessed on a prorated basis and since the stove had long since outlived it’s expected lifespan I could have destroyed it with an ax and he still wouldn’t be awarded anything for it. Anyway I had consulted with a lawyer over it and yes, the vast majority of laws are there to protect the tenant, but that doesn’t keep landlords from abusing their tenants.
And the landlord can also ban blacks/queers/cripples/orientals/etc, bible bangin study groups, the rowdy book clubs, cooking of fish, threesomes, require ID from visitors because are/aren’t not PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Why sell out your RIGHT so easily?
As far as Connecticut goes, hopefully cooler heads will prevail. The best scenario would be for the legislators to be the first to blink. The next best would be for a general rebellion from law enforcement. The third best would be for 200,000 otherwise lawful and productive citizens to flee the state. And the least desirable scenario would be violence.
I think that the majority of legislators who voted for registration had no idea that there would be widespread civil disobedience and they’re crapping their drawers right now. To the anti-second amendment crowd, the only people who would own an ‘assault rifle’ are either rednecks who just enjoy blasting stuff or seriously demented doomsday cultists. The rednecks surely wouldn’t risk a felony conviction over a toy, would they? Or does that mean there are 200,000 Randy Weavers living in their midst? They’ve backed themselves into a corner and staring down two equally unpleasant outcomes, violence in the streets or losing face.
I’d like to say that the majority of LEOs would walk away from the job before conducting a SWAT raid on a guy who may or may not still have a weapon that was perfectly legal 3 months ago. But I can’t. You spend 6 months sitting in a car waiting to nab someone rolling through a stop sign and tell me that you have no desire to put that fully automatic AR and a few flash-bangs to use.
If you own one of these newly illegal weapons, get them out of the state. Or at least hide them. It would be interesting to see the reaction when they start raiding peoples homes only to find out that none of them can be found and no one can account for their whereabouts. (Oh no, I sold that to some guy on Craigslist a couple of years ago.) If you think 300,000 legally owned ‘assault rifles’ scared the crap out of these guys imagine them realizing there are now 300,000 illegal ‘assault rifles’ in God knows who’s hands. And as soon as the po-po have left, start looking for a job in the nearest red state.
And if it absolutely MUST come down to bloodshed, just make sure you take out a couple of them with you. A few dead cops would really put the lawmakers in a conundrum.
Well said as usual Gov. I would only add that I believe that most gun confiscation squads would realize that now they are fair game. & this is a wall thats had some effect so far.
if it absolutely MUST come down to bloodshed
I certainly hope it doesn’t, and I don’t believe that the gangster politicians who currently control CT would go that far.
The cops are a different story. There are no controls on them, so who knows how they will act. One thing for sure — they will not be on our side.
And the least desirable scenario would be violence.
I certainly hope it doesn’t
Thank you, both. Sometimes violence is inevitable, but only a fool wishes for it. Viewing it as a necessity and glorifying it are two different things.
I now return you to my regularly scheduled snark.
No. What a few dead cops is actually more likely to do is finally give gun control the push it needs to finally pass the purely dog-and-pony show that is Congress, and be signed by our Dear Leader with the most glee seen on his face (and undoubtedly surrounded by children) since Eric “Fast & Furious” Holder declared that it was “legal” for him to use armed drones on American citizens even on American soil.
The police were decidedly not on the side of the citizenry after hurricane Katrina. What in the Hell honestly makes you believe that they’d be on our side in Disconnectedcut? They aren’t in Kommiefornistan, where people are already have their legal property seized without due process, and the same is happening on ZOO York.
There aren’t nearly enough “good” cops prevent such a thing from happening in the first place even if they did make a stand, and none are willing to take a stand in the first place. History absolutely PROVES this beyond any possible doubt.
I believe I made it clear that the law enforcement community as a whole were not likely to do the right thing.
The political fallout from violence depends largely on how the violence comes about. If gun owners take to the streets the general population would clamor for protection against these dangerous people. On the other hand if the local news is saturated with stories about 3:00am no knock raids on otherwise law abiding citizens going wrong the clamor will be for protection from the SWAT teams. If the politicians had the stomach for this they wouldn’t be nibbling at the corners on gun control, they’d ban them all. Hitler didn’t grandfather weapons.
“I really would like to hear a civilian disarmament proponent explain their way out of this one.”
You won’t get a rational response to this. They don’t give a rat’s ass, really, because it didn’t affect them directly. In fact, they wish for things like this to happen (innocents dying a violent death) so they can point the finger and say “See? Guns are BAAAAAAADDDD!!!!”.
The grabbers would say that the thugs wouldn’t have guns if there were decent “gun safety” laws on the books. And they would say it with a straight face.
To the folk of the great and grand lands of the north: YOU ELECTED TWITS TO OFFICE JUST LIKE THE NUMBNUTS DOWN HERE. START THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THAT, PRONTO ! Maybe you will be able to salvage some of your God given rights.
Elect Mark Steyn to parliament !!
I agree with Yankee, though I find it hard to admit it…
I like to listen to what he has to say because he is a sharp guy who makes some good points.
But, he gets under my skin. Even the should of voice bothers me, that backwoods, West Virginia (I think) accident with a slight lisp, and coupled with the mild aroma of pompous arrogance, it’s like nails on a chalkboard for me.
I would probably received his message better if I could just read it and never have to looked at him or heard him.
I’m from WV. Women say they like my accent.
It’s more of the lisp with the accent and then the arrogant tone send me overboard.
Any of the three unto themselves is fine, I can’t handle all three without being annoyed.
Also, I’m not a woman.
I sure hope Tennessee repeals their concealed carry bans in parks. I went to Tennessee with my family for a vacation a few years ago and chose Tennessee specifically because they recognize my concealed carry license. And what does a family inevitably do on vacation? They visit parks of course. Imagine my surprise when I saw signs at all the parks prohibiting concealed carry. We have not been back since.
However, if Tennessee repeals their concealed carry bans in parks, we will certainly be returning for vacations.
Uncommon- TN laws are a bit confusing, but carry (with a valid permit) is permitted in any STATE park, despite the existence of any pre-2009 signage. (TCA 39-17-1311 e1. The law they will (hopefully) pass addresses city/county parks.
So, come on back!
Yuck…Indiana beckons. Not done screwing gun owners in Illinois. Stay tuned for more crap.
Re: Razor Core:
“In fact, according to one reseller, the bullet is a 77-grain Sierra HPBT MatchKing”….
Doubtful. The 77gr Match king is very accurate but has a very thin jacket. It does not penetrate well. It probably is their new version, the TMK or “Tipped Match King” as seen here:
http://blackhillsammo.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/black-hills-ammunition-new-for-2014-5-56-77-gr-tmk/
Another of those “Just give them what they want” stories… Here in Phoenix, a couple was home when the robbers broke in. They tied up the man, and raped the woman. Then proceeded to burn him over his entire body with a hot iron. He had 3rd degree burns over most of his body. Some times it’s not worth it to let them have what they want.
Re: banning concealed carry in apartments.
It’s been ruled that public housing cannot ban legal, constituionally protected activities or possesions, inclduing guns.
Even before the new carry law, Illinois allowed for an individual to carry in any manner they chose in their home or fixed place of business, so no private landlord ever had the ability to ban the ownership or carrying of guns while in your own apartment. The only thing they can do now is prohibit concealed carry in common areas, and this only applies when that area is the destination. Meaning, you can carry through the foyer to leave or come home, but you can’t carry and loiter in the hallways if it’s prohibited. Any leasing agent who tried to overstep their bounds would get the smackdown real fast by anyone who knows the law or is paying attention.