Evicted for self defense

[Cobar]

People can enter into a Dom-Sub slave contract, sure. But they can never actually have a court uphold it. They might be signing papers, but they hold no legal weight.

[skb12172]

This ^^^

[Kommander]

What you forget is that it is perfectly legal to sign away your Constitutional rights. People sign gag orders and no competes etc. all day long.There is a difference between this, and asking a judge to oversee a contracts dispute between a junkie and a drug dealer regarding the purity of the smack- because using, producing, selling and possessing smack is specifically illegal.

Gag orders originate in the court system and therefore some level of due process is presumed. No competes have nothing to do with constitutional rights. You have no right to a job, nor a right to work in any specific field.

The 14th Amendment makes the institutional practice of slavery illegal. Funny how with almost no effort I can find people who willingly and eagerly have become actual slaves by contract- and I'm not talking wage-slavery I mean actual Dom-Sub slaves. It's a consensual agreement between two informed adults.

As others have said these contracts hold no judicial weight. Try filing papers in court to get the police to bring back your ex sub by force (though it is interesting to think about how a society in which such slavery was legal would work). Also lets note that the 14th Amendment has nothing specifically to do with slavery. What it does is makes states subject to the same restrictions that the federal government is subject to, especially regarding due process and equal protection.

[Jered]

What you forget is that it is perfectly legal to sign away your Constitutional rights. People sign gag orders and no competes etc. all day long.

I think you mean a non-disclosure agreement.

The 14th Amendment makes the institutional practice of slavery illegal.

That's actually the 13th Amendment. Of course, under the 13th Amendment, slavery is actually still allowed.


We should throw the people from the management company and the owner of this property in an arena where they can engage in unarmed battle with bands of junkies. They need to be publically shamed somehow, because obviously. They obviously favor burglars who destroy and steal their property over people with the stones to defend it.

[Aesop]

My private property rights DO trump your personal rights, when it is my property we're talking about. If we're referring to stores banning CCW on their property. I don't like it, but I agree private property rights are paramount. If you don't like it, don't come on my property. Nobody is forcing you.
However- ("My hypocrisy knows no bounds Wyatt") I also believe that if I know the penalty for being caught with my CCW on someone else's property, and I choose to defy that rule, it is my ass, and nobody else's- I put on my big boy pants every day. I accept the penalty that may result.

And the max penalty there is being asked, politely, to leave.

But this isn't about someone else's property.
It's the tenant's property; he contracted for it and paid monies to lease it. This gives him rights and say-so going back to English common law.
Trying to enforce a ban on otherwise legal behavior is going to be unenforceable.
At best, were the landlord to prevail, the counterclaim for $20M in damages and punitive fines for failing to adequately secure his property and protect the tenant would, and probably will, induce him to STFU and walk it back. If his lawyers don't knock him under the table first.

"So, Landlord Asswipe, since you expressly forbade your tenants to legally arm and defend themselves, as is their right under both state law and the federal Constitution, please tell the court what ineffective and wholly inadequate safety and security measures you employed, at your own expense, after leaving them subject to exactly the specific multiple felony acts previously noted, the justified fear of which led my client to arm himself and need to legally defend himself and his family while living on premises he rented from you, after you had attempted to render him and all your tenants utterly defenseless?
And while we're at it, have you stopped beating your wife?"

The jury would return a verdict requiring death by crucifixion, after a D-8 bulldozer enema.

[blackeagle603]

It's the tenant's property; he contracted for it and paid monies to lease it. This gives him rights and say-so going back to English common law.

^^This^^

[Vonz90]

It's the tenant's property; he contracted for it and paid monies to lease it. This gives him rights and say-so going back to English common law.

^^This^^

Hmmmm, kind of. In English common law from Norman times on, a lord had the right to prevent his vassals from keeping arms or from taking game on their land, etc.

If you go back to the older Anglo-Saxon times (and pretty much all of the Germanic feudal areas) even landless peasants had the right to arms and vassalage did not negate that right.

[BDK]

A) Almost certain state law will invalidate any such clauses in a private tenant lease - which means the LL's lawyer will be screaming at him to stop.

B) Pretty much, leased property is the Tenant's private property, barring any reservations of rights in the lease agreement, which are valid by law.

I honestly doubt, even in NYC, such a lease is valid

[McClarkus]

In the past I have told people they have the right to remain silent and I suggested they use it. It didn't always work.....

[MarkD]

A) Almost certain state law will invalidate any such clauses in a private tenant lease - which means the LL's lawyer will be screaming at him to stop.

B) Pretty much, leased property is the Tenant's private property, barring any reservations of rights in the lease agreement, which are valid by law.

I honestly doubt, even in NYC, such a lease is valid

I don't know about now, but NYC public housing was gun-free, and residents were subject to searches looking for guns and dope. IIRC without a warrant.

And that's worked SO well to keep crime at bay in public housing.....