It seems that I am not the one going far afield. Look, I am a big defender of gun rights, but the way laws and leases are interpreted are the way they are interpreted.
The 14th Amendment made Government discrimination based upon things illegal and applied CERTAIN federal rights to the states. It DID NOT make private discrimination illegal, though over time it was applied to prevent some private discrimination impossible to defend in court because court action is government action. In fact, until the recent McDonald case, the 2d Amendment was never applied to govern state action. The 2d Amendment being applied to private citizens to restrict how a land owner can lease property? Never, or at least, not yet and there would be no precedent for that.
So, what made "public accommodation" discrimination illegal? Various Acts of Congress, not the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment gave Congress authority to outlaw racial, then expanded to ethnic and religious, discrimination. Other laws deemed gender discrimination illegal in certain (not all) circumstances and to this day, gender discrimination is not given the same scrutiny as race, ethnicity or religion.
So, the 14th Amendment, in and of itself, does not govern private actions and federal (and state) laws against discrimination is where we must look to to see what is illegal and legal. Please direct me to the federal or state law that forbids leases from excluding firearms. If it is there, that is where we look for the lease being illegal, not the 14th or 2d Amendments.
Once again, we are not children, so let's not talk of what we think should be the interpretation of the law. Let's confine the discussion to what the IS and how courts, based on precedent, will interpret it. When one of you want to bring the seminal lawsuit on this issue, then we can talk about what the law should be (but find yourself another lawyer, because I believe in private property rights). Until then, people live their lives based on what IS, not on what WE WANT IT TO BE.
....and it seems that I've missing meeting many of you at the bar association meetings.
For anyone who doubts my analysis of how the law would actually be applied, I would love to be proved wrong. Please direct me to an Indiana case that holds a "no firearms" provision in a lease invalid. If you can do that, I'll eat crow- not the first time.
The 14th Amendment made Government discrimination based upon things illegal and applied CERTAIN federal rights to the states. It DID NOT make private discrimination illegal, though over time it was applied to prevent some private discrimination impossible to defend in court because court action is government action. In fact, until the recent McDonald case, the 2d Amendment was never applied to govern state action. The 2d Amendment being applied to private citizens to restrict how a land owner can lease property? Never, or at least, not yet and there would be no precedent for that.
So, what made "public accommodation" discrimination illegal? Various Acts of Congress, not the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment gave Congress authority to outlaw racial, then expanded to ethnic and religious, discrimination. Other laws deemed gender discrimination illegal in certain (not all) circumstances and to this day, gender discrimination is not given the same scrutiny as race, ethnicity or religion.
So, the 14th Amendment, in and of itself, does not govern private actions and federal (and state) laws against discrimination is where we must look to to see what is illegal and legal. Please direct me to the federal or state law that forbids leases from excluding firearms. If it is there, that is where we look for the lease being illegal, not the 14th or 2d Amendments.
Once again, we are not children, so let's not talk of what we think should be the interpretation of the law. Let's confine the discussion to what the IS and how courts, based on precedent, will interpret it. When one of you want to bring the seminal lawsuit on this issue, then we can talk about what the law should be (but find yourself another lawyer, because I believe in private property rights). Until then, people live their lives based on what IS, not on what WE WANT IT TO BE.
....and it seems that I've missing meeting many of you at the bar association meetings.
For anyone who doubts my analysis of how the law would actually be applied, I would love to be proved wrong. Please direct me to an Indiana case that holds a "no firearms" provision in a lease invalid. If you can do that, I'll eat crow- not the first time.
Last edited:
