TexasCHLforum.com

Tamie wrote:That's how new rules usually work. They forbid something that used to be allowed, or allow something that used to be forbidden.

Sure. Pot was legal until it became illegal. Many things that used to be illegal are legal now.

What rankles people, including me, is making a rule that is aimed at a specific person who followed the existing rules up to that point. That is why we generally have grandfather clauses, and the U.S. Constitution prohibits bills of attainder and ex-post-facto laws.

The U.S. Constitution does not apply to HOAs, as I mentioned earlier.

- Jim

bdickens wrote:I also don't see why my neighbor should care about how much I get for my house when I sell it.

Why am I cursed with being able to see both sides of issues?

I am not concerned with my former neighbor's financial condition.

I might be concerned if the house were so run down that the Beverly Hillbillies' nasty in-laws could buy it and move in with their livestock. But that's an issue that I would deal with if it happened.

That's a goat on the roof.

- Jim

Someone will buy it. Only the price is negotiable.

Then we get to the question of how much work your neighbor is supposed to do so that you can get the best price before moving away. The whole business is nasty.

- Jim

It comes up every session.

You have to be careful what you wish for when it comes to legislation.

- Jim

Unfortunately or not, according to your point of view, HOA covenants typically allow a small group of people to make decisions that affect all the residents with no prior notice. HOAs are not subdivisions of government and are not bound by the federal or state constitution. (They are subject to some civil-rights laws.) Take it or leave it. We still have a choice.

As an "editorial comment," I can't resist adding that many suburban homeowners seem to want their neighborhoods to be like the fictional Stepford.

- Jim

It's a private-property issue. Everyone who buys into an HOA neighborhood voluntarily signs up for the whole enchilada.

I wouldn't do it. I would rather be able to have a barbecue in my front yard and paint my shutters purple, and I acknowledge my neighbors' right to do the same or whatever they want short of burning tires as a hobby.

- Jim

lkd wrote:My understanding (and I'm SURE Jim will correct me if I'm wrong ...

Actually, I don't know much about the rules. They have to have defined hours, but maybe they can have five minutes a week. They are not required to advertise.

At any rate, a lot of people operate that way, and BATFE allows them to continue.

Tamie wrote:He either has hours he's open for business or he doesn't. I don't have much sympathy if he's trying to have it both ways.

Your emotions are not part of the equation.

Consider an FFL in some sparsely populated area like Montana or Alaska -- even parts of West Texas. There might be one FFL in a 100-mile radius who has only a few customers per month. It would make no sense for him to set up a storefront and sit there for eight hours a day with no customers.

- Jim

lkd wrote:If he's an FFL, I'm not sure how he could keep customers from walking in/out for a firearms transfer, since they have to fill out the form and have a background check to purchase a firearm.

FFLs are supposed to have a defined business premises and hours. However, I know some that don't have a sign, don't advertise, and basically invite customers individually. They do most of their business at gun shows.

Having an FFL allows them to ship and receive firearms with no intermediary at their end.

The business model that this guy is talking about seems to be pure internet sales with delivery from him to an FFL near the buyer.

I've seen a few sellers on AuctionArms that say something like, "We ship to transfer FFLs only. Don't even bother to ask."

It seems reasonable, if that's how the guy wants to do business.

- Jim

Clements said there would be no customers walking in or out of his house and no business signs posted outside. He would make deals selling the weapons online, but Clements said he may store some guns at his house.

Now prohibiting that is thoroughly ridiculous. It's no different from selling Beanie Babies on eBay.

- Jim

P.S.: As far as lawsuits are concerned, IANAL, but as I understand it, the HOA has to sue the homeowner to force him to do anything that he won't do voluntarily. The burden of proof would be on the HOA to prove that the homeowner was violating the covenants.

- Jim

My HOA states that you may operate a business so long as it's not "dangerous", but I would hardly describe selling firearms as dangerous,...

That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I've seen people go into conniptions over a gun store opening "near" a school (which in their minds seems to mean in the same county). I guess they think that lunatics buy machine guns there, walk out the door, and start shooting.

I don't know of any law or regulation that would classify an FFL as any more dangerous than a dry cleaner or paint store.

- Jim

I looked and could not find anything on the web.

Since I seem to be the devil's advocate today, what if the title of this thread was, "Homeowner attempts to violate covenants [which he voluntarily signed] by operating retail business in home"?

This kind of thing happens all the time. I have even heard of people holding Bible study and other religious meetings in their home, who had the HOA come down on them.

- Jim