Richmond vet wins right to keep flagpole in yard

[OakRidgeStars]

It's always refreshing these days to see common sense prevail. Even if it takes a little arm twisting to do it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579 ... latestnews

[allingeneral]

Another +1 for FoxNews for bringing this story to the people so that the people could be outraged and apply proper pressure to stop the lunacy.

[zephyp]

Another +1 for FoxNews for bringing this story to the people so that the people could be outraged and apply proper pressure to stop the lunacy.

And kudos to the hero for sticking to his principles.

[GS78]

Coates & Davenport was the legal firm representing the ass-ociation.


"There's never been a day in my life or a place I've lived in my life that you couldn't fly the American flag," he said.

This hero is what America used to be. Its sickening to realize how far we as a nation have fallen. The majority of people living in and off this country do not deserve the protection afforded them by a man like this, or any of the young people serving today. This may be the straw that breaks 'this' camel's back, Im disgusted and ashamed of most of my fellow countrymen.....

present company excluded....

[jdonovan]

Sorry folks I have to come down on the other side of the issue here.

This guy moved into a HOA controlled area and then decided to disobey the rules.

Folks we get AMAZINGLY bent out of shape when someone won't follow the rules where gun rights are concerned....but some of you are fine with the vet. breaking the rules. This seems a bit like a double standard here.

I'm among the biggest disliker of HOA's & CCR's there is.... but if you CHOOSE to live in an HOA you've got two choices.... live under the rules, or follow the processes to get them changed.

He had the right to fly the flag on a house mounted pole, but chose not to.

This situation was NOT about flying a flag it was about a flag pole.

[GS78]

Sorry folks I have to come down on the other side of the issue here.

This guy moved into a HOA controlled area and then decided to disobey the rules.

Folks we get AMAZINGLY bent out of shape when someone won't follow the rules where gun rights are concerned....but some of you are fine with the vet. breaking the rules. This seems a bit like a double standard here.

I'm among the biggest disliker of HOA's & CCR's there is.... but if you CHOOSE to live in an HOA you've got two choices.... live under the rules, or follow the processes to get them changed.

He had the right to fly the flag on a house mounted pole, but chose not to.

This situation was NOT about flying a flag it was about a flag pole.

This is about the flag. The HOA, along with anybody who would take a stance against this "vet" is just flat wrong. The display of the flag of this country should never be restricted as long as it is treated with proper respect. When a medal of honor winner decides to display the flag of this country, a flag which he shed his blood for at the behest of his presidents(three seperate wars) I say that all those "offended" by his display should weigh their options and consider moving. I understand the legal argument. I also understand why lawyers are thought of as scum, generally.... I would stand watch over this guys flag pole anytime. A house mounted pole is just not the same...if you don't know the difference, you wouldn't understand.

[zephyp]

Sorry folks I have to come down on the other side of the issue here.

This guy moved into a HOA controlled area and then decided to disobey the rules.

Folks we get AMAZINGLY bent out of shape when someone won't follow the rules where gun rights are concerned....but some of you are fine with the vet. breaking the rules. This seems a bit like a double standard here.

I'm among the biggest disliker of HOA's & CCR's there is.... but if you CHOOSE to live in an HOA you've got two choices.... live under the rules, or follow the processes to get them changed.

He had the right to fly the flag on a house mounted pole, but chose not to.

This situation was NOT about flying a flag it was about a flag pole.

This is about the flag. The HOA, along with anybody who would take a stance against this "vet" is just flat wrong. The display of the flag of this country should never be restricted as long as it is treated with proper respect. When a medal of honor winner decides to display the flag of this country, a flag which he shed his blood for at the behest of his presidents(three seperate wars) I say that all those "offended" by his display should weigh their options and consider moving. I understand the legal argument. I also understand why lawyers are thought of as scum, generally.... I would stand watch over this guys flag pole anytime. A house mounted pole is just not the same...if you don't know the difference, you wouldn't understand.

Yes there are two sides to this. The guy did "break" the rules but the HOA were real jerks about it. AND, I completely and totally agree with GS78. THERE SHOULD NEVER BE AN ISSUE WITH ANYONE DISPLAYING OUR FLAG AS LONG AS PROPER RESPECT IS SHOWN. I can remember a time (can you) when the HOA would have been "disappeared."

[jdonovan]

Yes there are two sides to this. The guy did "break" the rules but the HOA were real jerks about it. AND, I completely and totally agree with GS78. THERE SHOULD NEVER BE AN ISSUE WITH ANYONE DISPLAYING OUR FLAG AS LONG AS PROPER RESPECT IS SHOWN. I can remember a time (can you) when the HOA would have been "disappeared."

I can't recall anyone I know having an interaction with their HOA's when the ASSociation was anything less than jerks.

Up here in NoVA it seems the larger HOAs have realized that running them is a PITA and the board of directors are contracting out day-to-day management to HOA management companies. You can imagine how reasonable and understanding these outside companies are.

I would love to see a federal/state pre-emption law that allows the proper display of the US, state or county flag.

I dislike HOA's immensely. When it came time to buy a new house I chose one with out an HOA. I could have bought a less expensive home closer to work, but it was important to me to retain as many property rights as possible.

[novasig226r]

Rules are rules and we are expected to obey them. We do get mad when our 2A rights are infringed, and we protest for change. Some go to court to fight the fight.

If we don't follow the rules we face punishment. We have means by which we can appeal decisions, or change rules, or demonstrate our displeasure.

The association could have enforced its rules by bringing suit against Colonel Barfoot in court - a valid course of action.

Colonel Barfoot (and any supporters) could have petitioned the association to amend its rules and allow the residents to erect flagpoles. The association would then handle that petition, and, if amended, enact rules governing the particulars of flag poles rather than banning them outright.

Or Colonel Barfoot (and any supporters) could have demonstrated. Demonstrations, or protests, are a time-honored means of voicing opposition. His "rebellion" stirred up a hornet's nest, but he prevailed. Lots of things can be changed if one just voices opposition. Americans are a feisty bunch, and history shows that we don't go down without a fight. We might get hauled in to court, we might petition for change, or we might just get on a soapbox and call out "Foul!" and rally the troops.

Now that the HOA has dropped their request to remove Col. Barfoot's flagpole and their threat of court, I would petition them to formally amend the bylaws to allow flagpoles.

Colonel Barfoot, I salute you, sir!

[zephyp]

Rules are rules and we are expected to obey them. We do get mad when our 2A rights are infringed, and we protest for change. Some go to court to fight the fight.

If we don't follow the rules we face punishment. We have means by which we can appeal decisions, or change rules, or demonstrate our displeasure.

The association could have enforced its rules by bringing suit against Colonel Barfoot in court - a valid course of action.

Colonel Barfoot (and any supporters) could have petitioned the association to amend its rules and allow the residents to erect flagpoles. The association would then handle that petition, and, if amended, enact rules governing the particulars of flag poles rather than banning them outright.

Or Colonel Barfoot (and any supporters) could have demonstrated. Demonstrations, or protests, are a time-honored means of voicing opposition. His "rebellion" stirred up a hornet's nest, but he prevailed. Lots of things can be changed if one just voices opposition. Americans are a feisty bunch, and history shows that we don't go down without a fight. We might get hauled in to court, we might petition for change, or we might just get on a soapbox and call out "Foul!" and rally the troops.

Now that the HOA has dropped their request to remove Col. Barfoot's flagpole and their threat of court, I would petition them to formally amend the bylaws to allow flagpoles.

Colonel Barfoot, I salute you, sir!

Well said, sir !!

[fireman836]

This country has come to the point where fools denigrate the flag. It has been burned, dishonored, denied and refused. Illegal immigrants come here and hang their country’s flag instead of ours. That US Flag has stood for freedom since its inception and has been sent around the world to help repressed peoples. A large number of men and women have died for the flag and what it stands for. It should fly high in every development for all to see. I applaud Col. Barfoot for fighting repression of the symbol of our country.

[Afrikaner82]

I stand with Col Barfoot, all the HOA is about money that is all and we all know they believe money is power well wait till the economy goes south.

I do not live in an HOA and if I move well sucks to be them they can go to hell.

Rules are rules was mentioned here well what if you 1st amendment is taken away by the govt will you abide by the rules?

[Bewaffnet]

Somehow, I doubt anyone there would have been offended if the vet had urinated on the flag and wrote "Bush lied, kids died" on it. It would have been defended by the ACLU as "freedom of speech".

[novasig226r]

I stand with Col Barfoot, all the HOA is about money that is all and we all know they believe money is power well wait till the economy goes south.

I do not live in an HOA and if I move well sucks to be them they can go to hell.

Rules are rules was mentioned here well what if you 1st amendment is taken away by the govt will you abide by the rules?

Respectfully, I stand by my statement that rules are rules. Civil society requires, demands even, that its citizens abide by the rules lest that civil society becomes anything but. I'm not suggesting that there won't be attempts to take away our liberties. I am saying that we have several means by which to handle such an incident.

Soapbox, jury box, ballot box, cartridge box. Good people don't allow their government to trample them. The trouble is, too many in this country are too willing to give up their liberties if they could gain even the slightest bit of security.

It is curious, though, to note just how many laws have been put in place to prevent citizens from carrying out the very duties that kicked off the fight for our freedom:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[GS78]

Somehow, I doubt anyone there would have been offended if the vet had urinated on the flag and wrote "Bush lied, kids died" on it. It would have been defended by the ACLU as "freedom of speech".

I agree with you about the turd thing...

[GS78]

I stand with Col Barfoot, all the HOA is about money that is all and we all know they believe money is power well wait till the economy goes south.

I do not live in an HOA and if I move well sucks to be them they can go to hell.

Rules are rules was mentioned here well what if you 1st amendment is taken away by the govt will you abide by the rules?

Respectfully, I stand by my statement that rules are rules. Civil society requires, demands even, that its citizens abide by the rules lest that civil society becomes anything but. I'm not suggesting that there won't be attempts to take away our liberties. I am saying that we have several means by which to handle such an incident.

Soapbox, jury box, ballot box, cartridge box. Good people don't allow their government to trample them. The trouble is, too many in this country are too willing to give up their liberties if they could gain even the slightest bit of security.

It is curious, though, to note just how many laws have been put in place to prevent citizens from carrying out the very duties that kicked off the fight for our freedom:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

and what do you suggest when the rulemakers have left the reservation and make rules to benefit themselves at the cost directly to the commoners?

[zephyp]

Somehow, I doubt anyone there would have been offended if the vet had urinated on the flag and wrote "Bush lied, kids died" on it. It would have been defended by the ACLU as "freedom of speech".

You nailed that one...

[jadedone4]

Somehow, I doubt anyone there would have been offended if the vet had urinated on the flag and wrote "Bush lied, kids died" on it. It would have been defended by the ACLU as "freedom of speech".

You nailed that one...

...this was never a First Amendment issue; no one here has stated that he should not raise the flag, the contested issue is the pole in which he erected to raise the flag and how it was not approved by the HOA (of which he freely chose to be a part of, by signing on the dotted-line and buying). This is/was a property rights issue - no different than when a property owner (say Walmart) decides that they do not want us in their stores as law-abiding gun-owners; we attempt to educate the property owner, work with them on some reasonable accord and if all else fails - we simply take our business/commerce elsewhere.

[GS78]

Somehow, I doubt anyone there would have been offended if the vet had urinated on the flag and wrote "Bush lied, kids died" on it. It would have been defended by the ACLU as "freedom of speech".

You nailed that one...

...this was never a First Amendment issue; no one here has stated that he should not raise the flag, the contested issue is the pole in which he erected to raise the flag and how it was not approved by the HOA (of which he freely chose to be a part of, by signing on the dotted-line and buying). This is/was a property rights issue - no different than when a property owner (say Walmart) decides that they do not want us in their stores as law-abiding gun-owners; we attempt to educate the property owner, work with them on some reasonable accord and if all else fails - we simply take our business/commerce elsewhere.

You are wrong, you are not financially coupled with walmart when you shop there. Without seeing the HOA contract, we don't know the details of it, however I would guess if the phrase no flag poles on your property WAS in there he may have thought twice. The fact that the neighbors and HOA management would not have had a "problem" with this man if he would have just used a garden flag or a different mounting device instead of a flag pole is absolutely ridiculous! Where does it end? I think the HOA and the attorneys office involved made the correct and intelligent decision.....just let it go... it was about to get real ugly for both enterprises.

[jadedone4]

...this was never a First Amendment issue; no one here has stated that he should not raise the flag, the contested issue is the pole in which he erected to raise the flag and how it was not approved by the HOA (of which he freely chose to be a part of, by signing on the dotted-line and buying). This is/was a property rights issue - no different than when a property owner (say Walmart) decides that they do not want us in their stores as law-abiding gun-owners; we attempt to educate the property owner, work with them on some reasonable accord and if all else fails - we simply take our business/commerce elsewhere.

[/quote] You are wrong, you are not financially coupled with walmart when you shop there. Without seeing the HOA contract, we don't know the details of it, however I would guess if the phrase no flag poles on your property WAS in there he may have thought twice. The fact that the neighbors and HOA management would not have had a "problem" with this man if he would have just used a garden flag or a different mounting device instead of a flag pole is absolutely ridiculous! Where does it end? I think the HOA and the attorneys office involved made the correct and intelligent decision.....just let it go... it was about to get real ugly for both enterprises.[/quote]

I am correct; HOA documents, or contracts as you termed them, are living breathing entities, much like our general laws - they often do NOT remain static to that which you agreed to at purchase. This was/is not a First Amendment issue; it is property-rights issue. WRT "coupled with Walmart..." the point was that you choose to live there, if you do not want such policies burdened upon you, then you also choose NOT to live there... or you choose to be part of the process in the rule-making and creating rules that aligned with the majority of the members. I agree both parties ended this before it got "ugly" suing an HOA is never a pleasant thing, as you are basically suing yourself.