Gun controll?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

As I said before: You're as free as you deserve to be.

So are we!

Over here, there's been a big stink recently because of city governments condemning private properties so that they can buy the property that's not for sale at market value for a WalMart to move in. Otherwise, you see, they'd have to pay enough to convince the property holders to sell, costing WalMart so much that they might not move in.

We all get what we deserve.

(As for zoning laws, if you want to build and live in a town over here, you're stuck with 'em. Live in the country and Bob's your uncle. I had a friend that had to move out of town to build an underground, geothermal, superinsulated home because the city had ordnances about, "living in an unfinished cellar or foundation.")

But ya. You're less free. Based on the legal principal of neener neener neener.

Seriously, though, you should have someone look at the presumption of innocence and no-warrant search thing. It could come up to bite you in the butt.

 

[jimbob]

Stout, your link was broken: too many "http"s

Here it is

 

[Stout]

Thanks jimbob...part of the reason for my inability to articulate my thoughts this morning is a tantruming toddler.

 

[brodski]

Brodski: I vaguely recall seeing similar statements, but do you have a link?

I don't I'm afraid, if was a thread posted in FC (I believe) over a year ago, I'll try to dig it out, but forum search is not a happy bunny ATM...

 

[brodski]

But in effect, it is a law against homosexuality in that location.

Brodski: I vaguely recall seeing similar statements, but do you have a link?

Will wonders never cease, I found one of the thread I was thinking of.

I don't think I misrepresented the situation

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56995

 

[jimbob]

Will wonders never cease, I found one of the thread I was thinking of.

I don't think I misrepresented the situation

Thanks, I was actually talking about

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56995

Actually I think you have ;-) slightly, by understating the case:

Am I reading it that correctly a single parent and "x" kids would be OK, an unmarried couple and one kid would be OK, a married couple and "x" kids would be OK, would but an unmarried couple and more than one kid woudn't?

Hey, would three lesbian cousins and their children be OK for this? Maybe that is the sort of traditional family that they are tying to encourage.

End derail...

 

[Architect]

Hi

As I said before: You're as free as you deserve to be.

So are we!

Okay, English may not be my first language but I'm having trouble following that. Do you mean that one is as free as one deserves to be? And if so, do you mean it in a general philosophical manner rather than specific to this point?

Over here, there's been a big stink recently because of city governments condemning private properties so that they can buy the property that's not for sale at market value for a WalMart to move in. Otherwise, you see, they'd have to pay enough to convince the property holders to sell, costing WalMart so much that they might not move in.

Ultra viries in the UK courts and subject to legal challenge. In fact, there is a statutory right to appeal in the case of all compulsory purchase notices under the UK planning and building control system. And very often to a public inquiry too.

That must be our police state trampling all over our rights again (this point is not aimed at you, Gaggle).

We all get what we deserve.

Seems a bit hard on a lot of people. Starving refugees, for a start.

(As for zoning laws, if you want to build and live in a town over here, you're stuck with 'em.

Structure and local plans in the UK must go to public consultation, and thereafter public local inquiry at which all objectors have a right to be heard. The PLI is held by an independent person appointed by the Scottish Government Inquiry Reporters Unit in Edinburgh. You may not like the outcome, but it's all above board and you're guaranteed to be heard.

Police state, again.

Live in the country and Bob's your uncle. I had a friend that had to move out of town to build an underground, geothermal, superinsulated home because the city had ordnances about, "living in an unfinished cellar or foundation.")

Greenbelt development, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks. If only rural development were that simple.....

Seriously, though, you should have someone look at the presumption of innocence and no-warrant search thing. It could come up to bite you in the butt.

Got both, saving for the fact that the latter is restricted to a test of reasonableness and it's very difficult to have searches thrown out on a technicality.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Will wonders never cease, I found one of the thread I was thinking of.

I don't think I misrepresented the situation

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56995

Broken link. Try THIS ONE!

<<sigh>> Lordlordlordlordlord. A city council.

I checked the Missouri codes: Nothing in there about the size of families, but I did find a rather nice bit on the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, saying:

Powers and duties of commission--rulemaking, procedure.

213.030. 1. The powers and duties of the commission shall be:

(1) To seek to eliminate and prevent discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing and to take other actions against discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, or familial status as provided by law; and the commission is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes;

... clip ...

(7) To receive, investigate, initiate, and pass upon complaints alleging discrimination in employment, housing or in places of public accommodations because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing and to require the production for examination of any books, papers, records, or other materials relating to any matter under investigation;

... clip ...

(9) To issue publications and the results of studies and research which will tend to promote goodwill and minimize or eliminate discrimination in housing, employment or in places of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing;

... clip ...

(12) To cooperate, act jointly, enter into cooperative or work- sharing agreements with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other federal agencies and local commissions or agencies to achieve the purposes of this chapter;

... clip ...

Unlawful housing practices--discrimination in housing--sufficient compliance with other standards--local government compliance --construction of law--housing for older persons, defined--conviction for controlled substances, effect--religious organizations, effect of.

213.040. 1. It shall be an unlawful housing practice:

(1) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, to deny or otherwise make unavailable, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, or familial status;

2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, or familial status;

(3) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, or familial status, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination;

Looks to me like they have a pretty good case under that, "familial status as it relates to housing," part, and I'd bet you an appearance in a pink tutu downtown with 45 minutes to draw a crowd that the mayor is sworn to obey the laws of the State of Missouri first.

I wonder if the city's laws might actually be actionable under part 213.040.1.3 above... it sure would be interesting if the entire document were found to illegal because of that one bit. At least the city council would be so busy rebuilding the city codes to spend much time worrying about the size of families.

OOH! OOH!! I wonder if the city council's collusion to pass the law would constitute a conspiracy to commit a Class C misdemeanor? Missouri says that conspiracy to commit a Class C misdemeanor is, itself, a commit a Class C misdemeanor.

TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!!

Oh - that would be SWEET! I wonder if there's a part in the city codes about evicting convicted criminals....

Damn. Sometimes I wish I were a lawyer and knew enough Latin to know what, "Pro Bono," meant.

 

[jimbob]

Wow, 15 years before you get 21 days holiday. Just think how much less would it be if their employees didn't have guns.

As we are talking about relative freedoms, I think this should be reiterated...

 

[Architect]

Wow, 15 years before you get 21 days holiday. Just think how much less would it be if their employees didn't have guns.

I missed that.

Jings.

People put up with that?!?!?!

 

[Fiona]

Course not. As Lothian said, they actually extracted these privileges through armed struggle. They are just not greedy, like europeans!!

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Okay, English may not be my first language but I'm having trouble following that. Do you mean that one is as free as one deserves to be? And if so, do you mean it in a general philosophical manner rather than specific to this point?

As regards the question you posed about the meaning of my comment about you (the people of your country) being as free as you deserve.

We (the people of this country) are as free as we deserve, too.

Ultra viries in the UK courts and subject to legal challenge. In fact, there is a statutory right to appeal in the case of all compulsory purchase notices under the UK planning and building control system. And very often to a public inquiry too.

That must be our police state trampling all over our rights again (this point is not aimed at you, Gaggle).

It's not the corporation doing it. It's the city council (see Lordlordlordlordlord post above) doing it with a misapplication (I think, but I don't matter) of the eminent domain laws.

The city condemns the property and buys it, then sells it to WalMart.

(Isn't there a WalMart = worst company in the world thread somewhere...)

...and it's Ok. I take things aimed at me verbally with great good humor. I figure any day I'm not on fire and being shot at is WONDERFUL!

Seems a bit hard on a lot of people. Starving refugees, for a start.

Talking about freedom, here, right?

Speaking of which: Remember that cockup in Somalia a few years (decades?) ago, with all the starving and the dying and the gleben?

The guys that went over there had to drive through fields of gran and veggies, past farms full of livestock...

The problem wasn't that there was no food. It was that the heavily armed jackassulants were preventing it from getting to the people that needed it!

ANOTHER reason to keep a rifle in the closet.

....

Sorry. I had to do that....

Structure and local plans in the UK must go to public consultation, and thereafter public local inquiry at which all objectors have a right to be heard. The PLI is held by an independent person appointed by the Scottish Government Inquiry Reporters Unit in Edinburgh. You may not like the outcome, but it's all above board and you're guaranteed to be heard.

Police state, again.

It seems to be all aboveboard over here, too, but the problem arises when the appellate authority is the same guys that are short-sheeting you for your land.

It wasn't happening here, and the national press became bored with it, so it vanished and I don't know what happened.

Greenbelt development, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks. If only rural development were that simple....

One of the great things about living in a baby nation, then, I guess. ...or maybe just a big one. We actually have to go out of our way to find stuff like that.

From here in southern Indiana, you can drive for hours east or west at 70 MPH (112 KPH) and see nothing but a whole lot of flat covered in corn and soy beans.

North and south run you into cities. LARGE cities.

Got both, saving for the fact that the latter is restricted to a test of reasonableness and it's very difficult to have searches thrown out on a technicality.

I mean the proviso about unannounced searches to inspect storage of controlled weapons.

If those A&E doctors can 'raise the public conciousness' and have their way, anyone who cooks their own food may wind up on the list.

A legal precedent is, after all, a legal precedent, and a controlled weapon is a controlled weapon.

[sing;tune="NannySong"] Supercalifragilisttheknivesareallungarded, even tho' the sound of it is something quite retarded, if you scream it loud enough you'll be highly regarded, Supercalifragilisttheknivesareallungarded!
Yum diddle diddle um diddle aye, yum diddle diddle um diddle aye... [/sing]

 

[littlehulkster]

But that is not the same as the point I am making, in some places in America, it is illegal for two adult men to live in their own home, as they do not meed the definition of a "family" supplied by the local government, in no way does their living together impinge on the rights of others, and that level of government intrusion would be unthinkable in the UK, yet somehow, we are "less free"...

I think you have a homeowner's association confused with a local government. Homeowners associations are quasi-legal partnerships of homewoners in a certain neighborhood who band together to set rules. If you are not a member, they have zero power in the eyes of the law. A local government cannot apply zoning laws to pre-existing houses, only new ones being built. If two men had a home built in a commercial zone, that's their fault for not checking the regulations.

Also, do you even have free speech in your country? I was under the impression you could be arrested for whatever the government du jour deems "hate speech."

 

[Architect]

Also, do you even have free speech in your country? I was under the impression you could be arrested for whatever the government du jour deems "hate speech."

I suggest that you avail yourself of a little reading, in particular the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights (which is binding upon member nations) aka ECHR, and also look at the very strict circumstances under which the nations of the EU apply restrictions - incitement to crime with particualr emphasis on religious or racial causes.

But I answered this already, as you'd have noted if you'd read a page or so back.

 

[Rolfe]

But Gaggle, I made a point earlier about planning laws. None of us would argue that there has to be a restriction on a private individual's right to develop (or otherwise) their property inasmuch as it can have a potentially adverse impact on the rights on those adjacent. The rights of the wider population have to be balanced against those of the individual....

But Architect, the situations you describe are not comparable. Yes, you need permission to build houses or alter houses or stick bits on houses, and while we might find this annoying, the reasons are fairly obvious as you said. However, so long as the house complies with planning regulations, nobody can dictate who can or can't live in it, so far as I know.

The situation Brodski seems to be describing is of a house which seems to have been, in and of itself, completely legal as a residantial structure. The objection was to the family who owned it, apparently they were unfit to occupy the structure. This is really quite foreign to me, and does sound very much like government oppression.

Is there anything similar in Britain? I can't think of anything.

Certainly you'd have to get permission if you wanted to use your house as a hotel, or indeed run any business from your house I think. And if you wanted to convert a house to multiple occupancy, say flats, again you'd need permission. But as for anyone being told that they couldn't live in their own house, when it was a house designed to be lived in, I really can't imagine it.

There seem to be quite a lot of areas where citizens in the US are less free than citizens in other countries. But that's all right, doesn't matter, guns are the only thing that matter and so long as they have their guns they don't seem to notice how oppressed they really are!

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

As regards the question you posed about the meaning of my comment about you (the people of your country) being as free as you deserve.

We (the people of this country) are as free as we deserve, too.

In that case "one" would be an appropriate rendering of the original phrase and I understood correctly.

It's not the corporation doing it. It's the city council (see Lordlordlordlordlord post above) doing it with a misapplication (I think, but I don't matter) of the eminent domain laws.

Yes, those were the circumstances I was referring to. Do that in the UK and the local authority will spend some considerable time in either court or a public local inquiry, or possibly both. The courts do not look at all fondly upon ultra viries use of powers.

Talking about freedom, here, right?

And in stable Western democracies, presumably.

The problem wasn't that there was no food. It was that the heavily armed jackassulants were preventing it from getting to the people that needed it!

ANOTHER reason to keep a rifle in the closet.

Another reason not to let your state descend into anarchy, more like.

....From here in southern Indiana, you can drive for hours east or west at 70 MPH (112 KPH) and see nothing but a whole lot of flat covered in corn and soy beans.

North and south run you into cities. LARGE cities.

I'm sure that the Canadians are familiar with the concept.

I mean the proviso about unannounced searches to inspect storage of controlled weapons.

The police can also make unannounced inspections of premises licenced for the sale of alcohol in order to ensure that the relevant laws are being enforced. The police can also set up speed traps unannounced in order to catch those breaking the law. So what?

 

[Fiona]

I think you have a homeowner's association confused with a local government. Homeowners associations are quasi-legal partnerships of homewoners in a certain neighborhood who band together to set rules. They have zero power in the eyes of the law.

The link referred to a City Council, not a homeowner's association. I did assume a city council was some form of local government.

If a homeowners association sets rules but has no power to enforce them then what is the point of them?

 

[Architect]

And indeed in the UK even a quasi-private group would be subject to judicial review in the event that it had acted in such a manner.

For our US friends, judicial review is a very simple and relatively affordable system whereby you can ask the local court to intervene where it can be shown that an organisation has acted ultra viries. But if you cry "wolf", then costs can and will be awarded against you.



But Gaggle, you've ignored this and the planning analogy. Why are these not unacceptable restrictions on personal freedom, but gun control is? Surely they're both the same thing?

 

[Rolfe]

Goog God! I just caught up with the actual thread.

Things on the freedom front are far worse than I realised in the USA.

It seems as if the government can do anything it likes and everyone is happy, because they know they're "free", because obviously they have all these guns and that is the only criterion by which freedom can be judged.

Sheesh!

Rolfe.

 

[littlehulkster]

The link referred to a City Council, not a homeowner's association. I did assume a city council was some form of local government.

If a homeowners association sets rules but has no power to enforce them then what is the point of them?

If the City Council is trying that, I suggest the men lawyer up, because this will be a very easy and no doubt profitable court case for them.

Also, a homeowners association has power if you are a member. If you're not, they can't do anything. Even if you are a member, their options are really limited. They're like the UN of housing comissions. The most they'll ever do is shake their fists in your direction.