- Messages
- 3,061
- Reactions
- 9,995
Pointless to OC period. My opinion.
I think it DOES have a point - Just not a very good one and delivered in a manner incongruous with our cause. IMHO
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pointless to OC period. My opinion.
businesses such as apartments don't want resistance or to be questioned on their judicial rulings. From information I see, there was no inquiry if or to what means they asked, they took one cowards word and have now made a decree that this individual is guilty of breaking a rule.
Pointless to OC period. My opinion.
Zacklies!Apartments don't make judicial rulings. They make contractual agreements with tenants. All this hollering about rights is IMO hot air in this particular instance. Yes, one maintains basic rights.... but when signing a contract that says not to carry in a manner that alarms other tenants, by signing that rental agreement one has waived the right to open carry, as we understand it's meaning, under most circumstances. In this circumstance, one signed having had to know that OC bothers most people in today's Oregon. So yes, sign that contract waive that right. You have the right, and you waived it!!!
Judges make rulings. If one insists on open carry, and other tenants complain, the mgr/owner is within his rights to notify the tenant of a violation of the contract. It doesn't matter if the others are being whiny babies. And the mgr is never going to have to prove that you carried in such a manner as to alarm others because obviously you did alarm others and they complained. All he has to do is keep a record of the date/time. Do it enough times and the mgr/owner can start eviction proceedings if they want to, and legally they should so they don't waive their right to enforce the rules agreed upon. In court, if you want to take it that far, you think an Oregon judge is going to side with several tenants doing he said/she said, or with a gun totin badazz?
Zacklies!
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!
And your 100% correct about OR courts finding in favor of anything anti gun, ask Mike Strickland!
And the original post was from Wilsonville... where would that be adjudicated if it went to court?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Wilsonville.
Municipal/Traffic Court | City of Wilsonville Oregon
www.ci.wilsonville.or.us
They have a written signed agreement that he is abiding by. If they didn't want him to do what he is doing, they had the opportunity to put that into the agreement. If they had done so, he would have had the opportunity to decide whether or not he is willing to comply with that. They mentioned one thing related to what he is doing in their written agreement and it doesn't prohibit him from doing what he's doing. It isn't like they didn't think of it ahead of time. They did. They mentioned it in the agreement and wrote down the guidelines they expect him to follow. He's doing that.And I think taking a brash "I don't care" attitude regarding someone else's property is strange coming from members that generally care VERY MUCH about their own property and rights therein.............
OP said..How is it "rolling yellow belly" when a property owner enforces rules that were agreed upon to live there? What I mean is what is the point in strutting around the common areas OCing? Intimidation? A-hole factor? Just because?