• bane_killgrind@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It wouldn’t be “no guns”, it would be “carry this insurance if you have guns” and then fining the people who don’t or won’t carry the insurance.

    • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I doubt that fine would be legal. The most I’ve seen is just a standard requirement for a license/permit (i.e. legal ownership), and maybe restricting open/concealed-carry in the neighborhood (but outside the house. Inside your house is out of the HOA’s grasp, though.)

      https://vinteum.io/security/qas-about-guns-in-your-hoa/

      Edit: Kansas actually doesn’t require any license or permit to buy or own a gun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Kansas

      • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        HOAs implement illegal rules all the time. They were literally first used to end run discrimination laws. It doesn’t even have to be insurance, it could be something else to frustrate gun owners lives. That’s the beauty of selective enforcement /s

        • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Illicit rule making being in their repertoire wouldn’t make it any more just (two wrongs, and everything) or enforceable, as the gun owner could easily just not abide by or pay it. Also, Making any regulation/fee or anything to “frustrate” gun owners could also be seen as harassment.

          There is no indication that the guy ever used or brandished the gun outside his home, which is where the HOA’s jurisdiction would be. Like I said, the HOA can’t do a damn thing about what goes on inside someone’s home. If they were to try, it would fall flat the minute it gets challenged especially with Kansas being one of the states having a castle doctrine which implies the possibile use of a gun (i.e. deadly force) for defense.

          The case is likely going to be about the castle doctrine and it’s limits on whether someone standing on your doorstep constitutes a threat, (which it doesn’t) along with trying to prove that the kid was trying to break in (this I doubt) which could justify an imminent threat.

          I am in no way on the side of the old man. I actually think he was completely in the wrong (also got off way too easy) and the kid was legitimately just at the wrong house.

          My opinion is the man should be evaluated for mental fitness and if unfit would be required to need a caretaker, of sorts. If no mental issues, be tried and convicted for the first degree assault (attempted homicide) charge.

          The HOA however does not have any actual stake in it that I’ve found, as the kid was shot from behind the storm door by the old man who was inside his house.

          • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s pissing into the wind to assume an hoa won’t do the wrong thing.

            There’s existing mechanisms to enforce fines.

            I’m not talking about this article just HOAs in general

            • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yes. I’m not saying that they wouldn’t try to come up with bogus/farfetched regulations, but they legitimately cannot do anything about what goes on behind closed doors in someone’s house. To do otherwise would be a breach in that person’s right to privacy. It’d be like an HOA telling you, you have to vacuum/sweep/mop every other day, otherwise you can be fined. (or saying you can’t have sex on Sundays)

              HOAs do have some extralegal clout, but the right to privacy stops them from interfering in anything you do that isn’t openly visible. (i.e. Doing a meatspin in front of a window facing the street can be penalized, but taking a dump in your kitchen sink can’t, unless the sink is in front of a window facing the street and the blinds/curtains/shutters are open.)

                • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  And if they do, they open themselves up to a lawsuit.

                  But, in relation to the story. It’s a gun owning, likely conservative (and MAGA’d), prejudicial old white man with nothing better to do but watch his balls sink lower and lower. Harassing him or his money with BS regulations for him having a gun in his house will just have him spend the huge amount of free time he has fighting them and likely filing a claim/s against the HOA

                  • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    they open themselves up to a lawsuit.

                    Similarly to some retiree, the HOA can drag out court by virtue of being funded by all the home owners.

      • lath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Shooting your gun makes a loud noise that can lower property value hence gun use falls under hoa purview.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        You’re right. Let’s give everyone good free gun insurance. We can call it Otrumpacare

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ah yes, let’s ensure only the well off can afford firearms.

        Let’s be fair, half the point of an HOA is keeping the poors (and ethnics, but they aren’t allowed to say that part out loud any more) out of your neighborhood to maintain property values. So your HOA requiring you to carry some kind of gun insurance wouldn’t be completely unreasonable, if you can’t afford it (or anything else they want) you shouldn’t be living under that HOA.

        Also why I don’t live in an HOA, and having an HOA was a red flag when I was looking for a house.

      • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Guns aren’t cheap. If you can buy a gun, and you can buy ammo, you can afford insurance. It’s only the well off who already can afford firearms so I don’t get what you’re arguing? You wanna give guns to poor people?

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          No, all of that is wrong, and yes, the poor people should have guns. Everyone has the right to self defense.

          Guns can be cheap, ammo is generally affordable, and there could be many who could afford both but not insurance. $250 one time purchase versus $hundreds or $thousands annually.

          Also, there’s no way in hell you could put a requirement to pay regular insurance costs as a requirement to exercise a Constitutional right. The courts would flush that down the shithole immediately.