In todays WTF news

[DenverChief]

CASTLE ROCK - Retired Marine Art Dorsch says his Second Amendment rights are in danger.

His apartment complex, the Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, sent out a notice telling all residents to get rid of their guns.

The 77-year-old retired US Marine Corps veteran sent a newstip to 9Wants to Know saying he's afraid he'll be homeless if he doesn't comply.

The letter went out to residents on August 1 and says they have until October 1 to comply with updated "community policies."

On page 2 is a brand new provision saying "firearms and weapons are prohibited."

"It upsets me very much," Dorsch said.

As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property.

"I'm a hunter. I'm a licensed conceal and carry person," Dorsch said.

Dorsch says the guns, which he keeps securely locked in a safe, make him feel secure in his home.

They want to take them all away from me. They say I can't live here," he said.

Dorsh says apartment managers told him to give up the guns and stay, give notice and move out voluntarily, or be forced to move out if he doesn't comply with the new policy.

Nobody answered the door at the apartment office on Tuesday afternoon.

When reached by phone, Brooke Young, Ross Management Group regional manager, said "It's our policy not to comment to the news media," before hanging up.

"The best thing this tenant can do is either move out or get rid of the guns," 9NEWS legal analyst Scott Robinson said.

Robinson says, in most cases, courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants.

"The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" Robinson said.

Dorsch says the issue goes beyond the Second Amendment.

"I'm vulnerable. I'm not safe," Dorsch said.

If he loses his guns, Dorsch says he loses so much more.

"My freedom," Dorsch said. "Yeah it's emotional. Because I don't think it's fair."

Dorsch says he barely has enough money to live, never mind hire a lawyer.

So, if he's not able to fight the new rules, he says he'll have no choice but to leave his guns with a friend who lives 30 miles away.

He hopes he'll still be able to go hunting, as he has every year since 1953.



I really hope some of the gun rights groups step in and help out - this is just asinine if you ask me






http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns



Update:

CASTLE ROCK - A controversial gun policy at an apartment complex for seniors has been thrown out after a 9Wants to Know report.

The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.

"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few,"

After 9Wants to Know reported on the policy Tuesday night, Douglas County commissioners began calling for quick action by the housing authority.

READ: Castle Rock apartment tenants told they must get rid of their guns

Douglas County Director of Public Affairs Wendy Holmes said commissioners were "alarmed" to learn of the policy and pushed the housing authority for "an acceptable and expeditious resolution."

"The Board of Douglas County Commissioners is pleased that the Housing Authority concurred with the Commissioner's position that the policy changes from Ross Management should not move forward. We thank them for a quick and proper conclusion," Holmes said in a statement.

When retired US Marine Art Dorsch got a notice from Oakwood management, he felt like the freedom he fought for was being taken away.

"It upset me very much," Dorsch said. "Because I don't think it's fair."

The notice was informing residents of an updated policy, banning all firearms and weapons from the property effective October 1.

There is no gun language in the lease Dorsch signed earlier this year.

"They want to take them all away from me. They say I can't live here," Dorsch said.

The Ross Management Group, based in Wheat Ridge, implemented the policy change.

Managers refused to comment. An employee even closed the door on 9Wants to Know reporter Will Ripley as he asked why tenants were being told they can't have firearms.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out

[el borracho]

Maybe he should have used the money as part of a down-payment on a house instead. :shrug:

[Dayze]

I tink he's screwed. It's not his property.

[kcpasco]

Id sue their asses off if they really tried to enforce that.

[DenverChief]

I tink he's screwed. It's not his property.

But where is the line drawn? Can a landlord also say you cannot have republican/democrat conversations in his property and if you are caught you can be evicted?

I mean I get property rights - but property rights end when they begin to violate my rights as a citizen...

[Third Eye]

The only problem I really see here is that they should have just waited to enforce the new policy upon each tenant's lease renewal. Other than that, it's their property and they can do what they want. BTW, I'm all for gun ownership.

[007]

Well, they are a business and business' can keep guns from entering their premises, so he is probably screwed here.

[Simply Red]

Obama the Marxist. Way to go.

[SPchief]

Id sue their asses off if they really tried to enforce that.

And you'd lose

[DenverChief]

And you'd lose

I don't know - it is a domicile - not a place where the public congregates. I think that those who have leases prior to the rule change or live "month to month" have an argument but if you walk in and sign a lease that states that then you are screwed.

[kcpasco]

And you'd lose

Ok fine then ill just tell the assholes I got rid of them. Im pretty sure a landlord cant force you to open a safe.

[Simply Red]

settle down Chris Dorner

[DenverChief]

If they have "section 8" or government subsidized housing wouldn't that in effect prevent the government from subsidizing them because they are prohibiting legal activities?

[Simply Red]

If they have "section 8" or government subsidized housing wouldn't that in effect prevent the government from subsidizing them because they are prohibiting legal activities?

if it's privately owned property it'll supersede all others, with something like this, right?

[Discuss Thrower]

There has to be some civil rights legislation that prevents this... Being a business doesn't allow you to discriminate on the basis of race right..?

Not that gun owner = minority, but that's the reasoning I'm thinking of..

[007]

Ok fine then ill just tell the assholes I got rid of them. Im pretty sure a landlord cant force you to open a safe.

That would be an interesting conundrum.

[ClevelandBronco]

It will be interesting to see what happens here. My initial guess is that the apartment managers/owners are overstepping their authority. Can a tenant be coerced to give up a Constitutional right? What if tenants were told that they'd have to give up their rights under other amendments in exchange for living in these apartments? Could a landlord coerce a tenant to give up his first amendment rights in order to live in these apartments? Could they be told that they'd have to give up their right to due process? I kind if doubt that this will be allowed to stand ultimately.

[007]

While I disagree with the landlord here and feel it is overstepping because of the constitution, I also see why they think they can do this. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[ClevelandBronco]

At least they're not being told that they have to quarter soldiers of the king's army. That would be too much, IMO.

[DenverChief]

if it's privately owned property it'll supersede all others, with something like this, right?

I don't think so - IF there is govt subsidized housing there then they have to allow tenants to participate in legal activities or risk losing that funding - just like colleges/hospitals etc

['Hamas' Jenkins]

There has to be some civil rights legislation that prevents this... Being a business doesn't allow you to discriminate on the basis of race right..?

Not that gun owner = minority, but that's the reasoning I'm thinking of..

Bring a gun into a stadium sometime and see what happens.

[DenverChief]

Bring a gun into a stadium sometime and see what happens.

But you don't live in a stadium...

[ClevelandBronco]

Bring a gun into a stadium sometime and see what happens.

Certainly the right to keep and bear arms can be limited, as can the right to free speech, but we are talking about someone's home, whether he owns the real estate or not.

[DenverChief]

Certainly the right to keep and bear arms can be limited, as can the right to free speech, but we are talking about someone's home, whether he owns the real estate or not.

Bingo

[Discuss Thrower]

Bring a gun into a stadium sometime and see what happens.

I wasn't aware I could rent a stadium suite to live in. Think it can beat the $900/month I'm paying now?

[Imon Yourside]

A mans home is his disarmament zone....or so it is now.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Certainly the right to keep and bear arms can be limited, as can the right to free speech, but we are talking about someone's home, whether he owns the real estate or not.

Guess what, it's no more his than a hotel room. He doesn't pay property taxes on it, nor does he pay for upkeep.

It may suck for him, but he has absolutely no recourse.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I wasn't aware I could rent a stadium suite to live in. Think it can beat the $900/month I'm paying now?

Bring a gun into a Motel 6 then. You're clueless.

[DenverChief]

Guess what, it's no more his than a hotel room. He doesn't pay property taxes on it, nor does he 't pay for upkeep.

It may suck for him, but he has absolutely no recourse.

Actually it is more his home than a hotel room - very different once you establish residency after 30 days.

[ClevelandBronco]

I don't exactly look forward to hearing that one of their tenants has been killed during a breaking and entering, but I'd advise the apartment owner to carry one hell of a lot of liability insurance.

[DenverChief]

Bring a gun into a Motel 6 then. You're clueless.

I have traveled and stayed in a hotel room with a firearm before - what are you trying to say?

[Discuss Thrower]

Bring a gun into a Motel 6 then. You're clueless.

Since when are hotels on the same legal basis as apartments?

[Imon Yourside]

I have traveled and stayed in a hotel room with a firearm before - what are you trying to say?

Busted!!!!!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Actually it is more his home than a hotel room - very different once you establish residency after 30 days.

He doesn't own the property. This isn't very hard to understand. If you don't own the property, you are ultimately subject to the whims of the person who does, save for extremely rare (Civil Rights Act in the Deep South) circumstances.

This is no different than someone being forced to give up their dog if the pet policy had changed.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I have traveled and stayed in a hotel room with a firearm before - what are you trying to say?

You're a cop for Chrissakes. Standard rules don't really apply.

[DenverChief]

He doesn't own the property. This isn't very hard to understand. If you don't own the property, you are ultimately subject to the whims of the person who does, save for extremely rare (Civil Rights Act in the Deep South) circumstances.

This is no different than someone being forced to give up their dog if the pet policy had changed.

Except there is no constitutional guarantee to own a dog...

[ClevelandBronco]

Guess what, it's no more his than a hotel room. He doesn't pay property taxes on it, nor does he pay for upkeep.

It may suck for him, but he has absolutely no recourse.

Guess what, bag o' dog shit boy. People who know as little about the law as you and I won't be the ones who decide whether you're right or just arrogant and wrong.

[Imon Yourside]

Next Up: Apartment complexes can limit your free speech because they own the land. Film at 11.

[DenverChief]

You're a cop for Chrissakes. Standard rules don't really apply.

If there is a clause that exempts me correct? Otherwise I'm still at the whim of the property owner.

So my question is can a land owner restrict what television station(s) you watch? Can they dictate who you associate with and evict you if they find you in violation of the "community rules" ?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Since when are hotels on the same legal basis as apartments?

Since neither occupant owns the living space. You can't be kicked out of a hotel room you've reserved and occupied peacefully, provided you aren't breaking any of the rules of the hotel, just like you can't be forcefully evicted if you abide by the rules of the original rental agreement, but if those rules change and you are in violation of them, you generally have two choices: change with them or move.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Except there is no constitutional guarantee to own a dog...

Nor is there a constitutional right to carry a gun wherever you please.

I repeat again, you're a cop. How do you not know this?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Next Up: Apartment complexes can limit your free speech because they own the land. Film at 11.

Of course they can, dumbass. Put up political signs in a rented house and see how long they last.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Guess what, bag o' dog shit boy. People who know as little about the law as you and I won't be the ones who decide whether you're right or just arrogant and wrong.

Common sense isn't arrogance.

Oh, and fuck off you dripping sack of cunt puke.

[DenverChief]

Nor is there a constitutional right to carry a gun wherever you please.

I repeat again, you're a cop. How do you not know this?

At the very least you have the right to keep a firearm in your domicile

I get that places where the public congregates (by and large your typical business) can restrict your "right" to carry a firearm. However a private residence - even if not owned by the resident residing there - should be exempt

[ClevelandBronco]

Common sense isn't arrogance.

What do you have, an English degree or some shit? Fuck off.

[DenverChief]

FWIW Colorado Constitution:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

[Imon Yourside]

Of course they can, dumbass. Put up political signs in a rented house and see how long they last.

I have dumbass, and they were there until I took them down. The landlord(owner) only gave a shit when I had a car parked out front my friends had glued army men onto and spray painted, he kindly asked me to park it somewhere else.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

If there is a clause that exempts me correct? Otherwise I'm still at the whim of the property owner.

So my question is can a land owner restrict what television station(s) you watch? Can they dictate who you associate with and evict you if they find you in violation of the "community rules" ?

:facepalm:

They already do that. Most apartment complexes won't allow you to install satellite television. You want the Dish Latino Max package? Tough shit. Cable or get fucked.

[DenverChief]

:facepalm:

They already do that. Most apartment complexes won't allow you to install satellite television. You want the Dish Latino Max package? Tough shit. Cable or get ****ed.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/faqs-satellite

['Hamas' Jenkins]

FWIW Colorado Constitution:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

Pro-tip: he may call it his home, and it is in the domestic, "look at how I decorate sense", but it's not his property. You don't understand the semantics you're using.

[DenverChief]

Pro-tip: he may call it his home, and it is in the domestic, "look at how I decorate sense", but it's not his property. You don't understand the semantics you're using.

Legally it is his "home" - you are correct it is not his property but it is his home

['Hamas' Jenkins]

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/faqs-satellite

may be installed on an area that you own

"There are some restrictions that apply."

I guess you are trying to lean on "exclusive use."

If you want to attach it to your RV, go right ahead. It's like some of you have never lived in an apartment or duplex before.

[Discuss Thrower]

Of course they can, dumbass. Put up political signs in a rented house and see how long they last.

Of course given that those generally violate the terms of a lease.

Now what happens when the landlord disapproves of speech made inside in the apartment that cannot be seen from the outside which was discovered during normal operations which were agreed upon by both parties? IE, a Nazi flag, a copy of the Nuremberg Laws et cetera?

If this hypothetical Mr. Goerring is evicted because an employee of the complex saw these things inside the apartment, is it acceptable to remove Goerring's rights because someone found it offensive?

[ClevelandBronco]

Go, "Hamas," go! The satellite thing was a really powerful credibility builder for you, don't you think, you legal eagle, you?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Legally it is his "home" - you are correct it is not his property but it is his home

Again with the semantics. He can call it his home all he wants, but he has to abide by the parameters of a legal agreement and pay money every month to someone else just for the right to live there.

Look, I feel sorry for the guy. That sucks, especially since he's lived there for a while and never really had any issues. And if he wants to shame them into making a different decision, then more power to him, but he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

[DenverChief]

may be installed on an area that you own

"There are some restrictions that apply."

I guess you are trying to lean on "exclusive use."

If you want to attach it to your RV, go right ahead. It's like some of you have never lived in an apartment or duplex before.

I have and I installed my dish on a 2x4 sunk into a 5 gallon bucket with concrete and placed on my patio. It was placed on something that I own and in an area of exclusive use

[DenverChief]

Again with the semantics. He can call it his home all he wants, but he has to abide by the parameters of a legal agreement and pay money every month to someone else just for the right to live there.

Look, I feel sorry for the guy. That sucks, especially since he's lived there for a while and never really had any issues. And if he wants to shame them into making a different decision, then more power to him, but he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Thats why they have attorneys that make way more money than I do...I think he has an argument, I will be interested to see how this plays out

FWIW the definition of a "home" is

a house, apartment, or other shelter that is the usual residence of a person, family, or household.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Of course given that those generally violate the terms of a lease.

Now what happens when the landlord disapproves of speech made inside in the apartment that cannot be seen from the outside which was discovered during normal operations which were agreed upon by both parties? IE, a Nazi flag, a copy of the Nuremberg Laws et cetera?

If this hypothetical Mr. Goerring is evicted because an employee of the complex saw these things inside the apartment, is it acceptable to remove Goerring's rights because someone found it offensive?

Free speech laws protect you against prosecution by the state by things you say. They don't protect you from losing your job or getting kicked out of your apartment.

Here's an example:

http://www.unlawfuldetainercases.com/art_gang_colors.html


Ultimate summation based upon case history:

In the article above, I set forth the proposition that owners of private rental property are not bound by the terms of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and therefore the constitutional rights of free speech, rights to bear arms, etc., are not enforceable on private property except for exceptions noted. Unless there is a state law that would control constitutional rights of free speech or other rights also protected by the United States constitution, the private owner is not bound to grant to occupants / tenants on the owner's property free speech rights

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Thats why they have attorneys that make way more money than I do...I think he has an argument, I will be interested to see how this plays out

FWIW the definition of a "home" is

a house, apartment, or other shelter that is the usual residence of a person, family, or household.

I really think you should look up the word "semantics".

[DenverChief]

Unless there is a state law that would control constitutional rights of free speech or other rights also protected by the United States constitution, the private owner is not bound to grant to occupants / tenants on the owner's property free speech rights

Sounds like the Colorado Constitution

[DenverChief]

I really think you should look up the word "semantics".

I know what semantics are - what I don't understand is why you are avoiding my arguments by screaming "semantics"

[DenverChief]

The law IS semantics

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I have and I installed my dish on a 2x4 sunk into a 5 gallon bucket with concrete and placed on my patio. It was placed on something that I own and in an area of exclusive use

You have the one acceptable loophole.

You couldn't install it if your patio was a shared balcony, nor are you allowed to attach it to the building. Furthermore, in many cases you still have to purchase additional insurance to cover the potential damage the dish could cause.

[DenverChief]

I think that is why if you re-read the clause it specifically mentions "home, person and property"

It differentiates between a home and property

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I know what semantics are - what I don't understand is why you are avoiding my arguments by screaming "semantics"

Your arguments aren't valid because you're conflating the common idea of a home being where someone lives with property that someone owns. They are discrete entities and are largely understood as such by literate people.

[ClevelandBronco]

The law IS semantics

That must be why they have guys who are paid to argue about what all those words might mean.

[DenverChief]

You have the one acceptable loophole.



And that's what I'm looking for here with the gun law :thumb:

[ClevelandBronco]

So if my mortgage company owns more of my home than I do, I suppose that means that they can tell my wife that she can't vote. That fucking sucks.

[DenverChief]

Your arguments aren't valid because you're conflating the common idea of a home being where someone lives with property that someone owns. They are discrete entities and are largely understood as such by literate people.

I disagree good sir. I believe that any normal person would see that one can have a home and not be a property owner or have a home and be a property owner. It is legally acceptable doctrine. Hence why I mentioned that after 30 consecutive days in a hotel you have established residency and cannot just be "kicked out" the hotel would have to go through the eviction process.

[Discuss Thrower]

Free speech laws protect you against prosecution by the state by things you say. They don't protect you from losing your job or getting kicked out of your apartment.

Here's an example:

http://www.unlawfuldetainercases.com/art_gang_colors.html


Ultimate summation based upon case history:

In the article above, I set forth the proposition that owners of private rental property are not bound by the terms of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and therefore the constitutional rights of free speech, rights to bear arms, etc., are not enforceable on private property except for exceptions noted. Unless there is a state law that would control constitutional rights of free speech or other rights also protected by the United States constitution, the private owner is not bound to grant to occupants / tenants on the owner's property free speech rights

That case dealt with the distribution of materials. Mr. Goerring has never made an attempt to publicize his Nazi ideology. (Or maybe he's not even a Nazi at all, he just has a weird predilection to fascist arcana)

Even then the decision came down from a split state supreme court that dealt solely with the right to make public speech. Mr. Leifer seems to believe this corroborates his idea that landlords can deny any constitutional right they may deem fit but that only pertains to public speech or assembly but the text of the decision doesn't explicitly say that.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So if my mortgage company owns more of my home than I do, I suppose that means that they can tell my wife that she can't vote. That fucking sucks.

Still a dumbass after all these years. If you're the one paying property taxes, you're the one who owns it. You may be in debt over it, and the bank may have the right to repossess the home if you don't meet the obligations of your loan, but they do not physically own the home until you fail those obligations and lose your collateral (in this case, your home).

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I disagree good sir. I believe that any normal person would see that one can have a home and not be a property owner or have a home and be a property owner. It is legally acceptable doctrine. Hence why I mentioned that after 30 consecutive days in a hotel you have established residency and cannot just be "kicked out" the hotel would have to go through the eviction process.

And why would the hotel kick you out? Because you violated a policy of theirs. And why will they ultimately succeed in evicting you? Because they own the property, they set the policies, and you don't.

[ClevelandBronco]

Still a dumbass after all these years. If you're the one paying property taxes, you're the one who owns it. You may be in debt over it, and the bank may have the right to repossess the home if you don't meet the obligations of your loan, but they do not physically own the home until you fail those obligations and lose your collateral (in this case, your home).

I'm not laughing at you, "Hamas." I'm laughing with you.

[ClevelandBronco]

Shit, that's not true. I'm laughing at you.

[DenverChief]

the bank may have the right to repossess the home if you don't meet the obligations of your loan

So if the bank includes a no firearm clause in the loan then...

[DenverChief]

And why would the hotel kick you out? Because you violated a policy of theirs. And why will they ultimately succeed in evicting you? Because they own the property, they set the policies, and you don't.

All I'm trying to say is that it becomes a home after the 30 consecutive days of occupation. At a hotel/motel/Holliday Inn. Hence if a Hotel/Motel/Holliday Inn can become a home then it is completely plausible to say that an apartment rented in the same manner could be considered a home and thus protected.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

That case dealt with the distribution of materials. Mr. Goerring has never made an attempt to publicize his Nazi ideology. (Or maybe he's not even a Nazi at all, he just has a weird predilection to fascist arcana)

Even then the decision came down from a split state supreme court that dealt solely with the right to make public speech. Mr. Leifer seems to believe this corroborates his idea that landlords can deny any constitutional right they may deem fit but that only pertains to public speech or assembly but the text of the decision doesn't explicitly say that.

Shit, many places ban you from even hanging stuff on the walls. Would you view that as an imposition on your freedom of expression? They aren't letting you hang something you want to.

They definitely have the right to bar you from putting a flag outside the apartment or even one in the window.

As far as inside, it could easily be enforced by a simple statement in the lease barring the hanging of anything on the walls.

[DenverChief]

Because the Colorado Constitution differentiates from home and property

['Hamas' Jenkins]

All I'm trying to say is that it becomes a home after the 30 consecutive days of occupation. At a hotel/motel/Holliday Inn. Hence if a Hotel/Motel/Holliday Inn can become a home then it is completely plausible to say that an apartment rented in the same manner could be considered a home and thus protected.

It's only protected in the sense that you need a court order to evict someone. That doesn't mean they can't be evicted. And if someone is clearly violating an established agreement then they will be evicted, regardless of whether or not they consider it their home.

There are, literally, dozens of examples of this happening all over the country and not one successful legal challenge that I've found on a cursory search.

[DenverChief]

It's only protected in the sense that you need a court order to evict someone. That doesn't mean they can't be evicted. And if someone is clearly violating an established agreement then they will be evicted, regardless of whether or not they consider it their home.

There are, literally, dozens of examples of this happening all over the country and not one successful legal challenge that I've found on a cursory search.

Each state has varying laws on the subject. I agree it is a losing legal battle in other states, most of which are anti-gun (Illinois) however Colorado being a pro-gun state I could see it going the other way. The State Supreme court is very very pro gun

[Discuss Thrower]

Shit, many places ban you from even hanging stuff on the walls. Would you view that as an imposition on your freedom of expression? They aren't letting you hang something you want to.

They definitely have the right to bar you from putting a flag outside the apartment or even one in the window.

As far as inside, it could easily be enforced by a simple statement in the lease barring the hanging of anything on the walls.

Then Mr. Goerring's paraphernalia is just simply inside the apartment either leaning, unattached, to the walls or laid on the floor. He's evicted for possessing these offensive materials and this is 100% legitimate? Again, until the day the landlord or a proxy of said landlord entered Goerring's unit, nobody had knowledge of these materials existing and he's never made a point to disseminate any political or social views to anyone in the complex (be it verbal or printed).

And I'd be surprised to know of someone being banned from an apartment for thumb-tacking up a few things. As far as I know it's SOP for a landlord just to void a deposit for "damages" such as these.

[KChiefer]

I don't exactly look forward to hearing that one of their tenants has been killed during a breaking and entering, but I'd advise the apartment owner to carry one hell of a lot of liability insurance.

Do they need more insurance than when some kid gets a hold of a gun some idiot stuffed under their mattress and kills themselves or another kid?

Next Up: Apartment complexes can limit your free speech because they own the land. Film at 11.

They can. Step out in the hallway and start yelling and disturbing other tenants and see what happens. Put your dildo in a window sill and see what happens.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Because the Colorado Constitution differentiates from home and property

It's clearly a reiteration of the 2nd Amendment. It's saying that laws cannot ban someone's ability to use a firearm to protect their home, in self defense, or for their property.

Again, if the home was their property they'd pay property tax on it. You can keep the gun in your car if you have appropriate documentation because it's your property.

This is from a Colorado source:

therefore, there is a legitimate argument that Landlords may include a lease provision banning gun possession or ammunition in or near the rental property, just as a landlord may prohibit pets, smoking, profane language or loud noise.

http://www.aamdhq.org/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=Ask%20the%20Lawyer&refno=30


If you want the guy to keep his rights then I suggest you advocate for a law that bars landlords from prohibiting tenants owning guns. Unless that happens, you have no legal recourse.

[DenverChief]

Minnesota has a law on the books limiting guns on some private property, but it states: "Landlords may not restrict the lawful carry of firearms by tenants or their guests."


http://realestate.aol.com/blog/on/tenant-sean-blakley-gun-eviction/

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So if the bank includes a no firearm clause in the loan then...

And of course that will happen...

I live in a HOA where you aren't allowed to put up political signs (thank God), and you must have at least two shrubs in the front of the house

Everyone who lives in the HOA must abide by these rules or risk fines and/or legal action.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/on/tenant-sean-blakley-gun-eviction/

Which is a specific law. Why is this so hard to understand? Unless that law exists, the landlord holds the power. If Colorado passed a law that allowed you to tack your satellite onto the siding of the complex you could, but they don't right now so you can't.

[ClevelandBronco]

therefore, there is a legitimate argument that Landlords may include a lease provision banning gun possession or ammunition in or near the rental property, just as a landlord may prohibit pets, smoking, profane language or loud noise.

http://www.aamdhq.org/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=Ask%20the%20Lawyer&refno=30

What your source calls a legitimate argument, you seems to be counting as a legal certainty. I'm beginning to see why you were all hung up on semantics earlier.

[DenverChief]

Which is a specific law. Why is this so hard to understand? Unless that law exists, the landlord holds the power. If Colorado passed a law that allowed you to tack your satellite onto the siding of the complex you could, but they don't right now so you can't.

All I was saying was that there are successful challenges in other states...you are getting pretty wound up about this

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Then Mr. Goerring's paraphernalia is just simply inside the apartment either leaning, unattached, to the walls or laid on the floor. He's evicted for possessing these offensive materials and this is 100% legitimate? Again, until the day the landlord or a proxy of said landlord entered Goerring's unit, nobody had knowledge of these materials existing and he's never made a point to disseminate any political or social views to anyone in the complex (be it verbal or printed).

And I'd be surprised to know of someone being banned from an apartment for thumb-tacking up a few things. As far as I know it's SOP for a landlord just to void a deposit for "damages" such as these.

Possessing the materials in and of themselves does not constitute speech. Displaying them, however, does.

Example:

If the landlord wanted to draw up a lease that says you can't own any books with the letter F in the title and you sign the lease and they come in, and find your copy of Mein Kampf, you're fucked.

Next lease renewal comes around, they see Goerring's Nazi regalia, so they draw up an addendum to the lease, barring it. If you don't agree, then you leave, unless there is a specific law that prohibits them from kicking you out for that reason, and since they aren't the government, that's pretty unlikely to happen.

[keg in kc]

How is this any different than my complex telling me I can't own a dog? Or have a grill out on my balcony (although that one's a city ordinance I think). Their property, their policies. If I have a problem with it, I move.

[ClevelandBronco]

And of course that will happen...

I live in a HOA where you aren't allowed to put up political signs (thank God), and you must have at least two shrubs in the front of the house

Everyone who lives in the HOA must abide by these rules or risk fines and/or legal action.

They cool with guns?

I suppose if an HOA can restrict political signs (which they can in some states), they might conceivably try to restrict homeowners from possessing firearms as well.

[KChiefer]

All I was saying was that there are successful challenges in other states...you are getting pretty wound up about this

He's not getting any more wound up than you are.

BTW, I'm wondering how you feel about recent HOAs that are demanding that people agree to having "X" amount of guns/ammo before they live there. Is that OK?

[DenverChief]

How is this any different than my complex telling me I can't own a dog? Or have a grill out on my balcony (although that one's a city ordinance I think). Their property, their policies. If I have a problem with it, I move.


Dogs and grills aren't protected. As I mentioned earlier the Colorado Constitution specifically guarantees the right to keep firearms for protection of "home,... and property"

[ClevelandBronco]

How is this any different than my complex telling me I can't own a dog? Or have a grill out on my balcony (although that one's a city ordinance I think). Their property, their policies. If I have a problem with it, I move.

You have no Constitutional right to a dog or a grill. Some of us think the second amendment complicates this issue, at least one of us thinks it doesn't.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

All I was saying was that there are successful challenges in other states...you are getting pretty wound up about this

I am honestly somewhat taken aback that this is so hard for people to understand.

You use Minnesota law like it means something, but that law isn't in effect in Colorado, and until it is, it's a pointless comparison. I can't set up a weed dispensary in Wyoming right now even if I can in Colorado.

A challenge could happen, but that doesn't mean the tenant in question won't be kicked out.

[DenverChief]

He's not getting any more wound up than you are.

BTW, I'm wondering how you feel about recent HOAs that are demanding that people agree to having "X" amount of guns/ammo before they live there. Is that OK?

I think thats pretty damn funny. I think in all honesty it is a silly provision but hardly a limitation of freedoms

[ClevelandBronco]

He's not getting any more wound up than you are.

BTW, I'm wondering how you feel about recent HOAs that are demanding that people agree to having "X" amount of guns/ammo before they live there. Is that OK?

It's a weird covenant, but the Constitution is silent when it comes to protecting you against having to own arms.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

They cool with guns?

I suppose if an HOA can restrict political signs (which they can in some states), they might conceivably try to restrict homeowners from possessing firearms as well.

They allow them, and they potentially could. If we don't like it, we could sell the house or advocate for a dissolution of the HOA.

This issue has popped up:

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6242822

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Dogs and grills aren't protected. As I mentioned earlier the Colorado Constitution specifically guarantees the right to keep firearms for protection of "home,... and property"

Doesn't mean you can keep those guns on someone else's property.

[keg in kc]

Dogs and grills aren't protected. As I mentioned earlier the Colorado Constitution specifically guarantees the right to keep firearms for protection of "home,... and property"I hadn't read any of the thread. Then it's probably similar to the recent case in Delaware.

[Discuss Thrower]

How is this any different than my complex telling me I can't own a dog? Or have a grill out on my balcony (although that one's a city ordinance I think). Their property, their policies. If I have a problem with it, I move.

Grills are regulated according to city ordnances. Pets are landlord's discretion with the only exception made for service animals.

[DenverChief]

I am honestly somewhat taken aback.

Why are you personally effected? This is merely a discussion of legal strategy, which I think hold some merit based upon almost a decade of dealing with the law in an enforcement sense.

I'm not the judge on the bench, my opinion in the end means nothing. However my professional experience and education lend an interesting perspective. If I'm wrong in the end no big deal. Everyday legal loopholes are found by crafty attorneys (good and bad, see Zimmerman, depending on which side you stand)

This is a good discussion. I'd like to keep it civil, the name calling (for everyone) is a bit underhanded. I get property rights but I think that a loophole has been found. One that you refuse to address.

[DenverChief]

I hadn't read any of the thread. Then it's probably similar to the recent case in Delaware.


Oh do share. I am very interested in hearing about successful challenges

[DenverChief]

Doesn't mean you can keep those guns on someone else's property.


If it is your home I think you can. Like I have said if we were talking about stadiums, theaters, stores or anywhere else the public gathers I would completely agree with you. But a private residence, whether owned or rented is a completely different story.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Why are you personally effected? This is merely a discussion of legal strategy, which I think hold some merit based upon almost a decade of dealing with the law in an enforcement sense.

I'm not the judge on the bench, my opinion in the end means nothing. However my professional experience and education lend an interesting perspective. If I'm wrong in the end no big deal. Everyday legal loopholes are found by crafty attorneys (good and bad, see Zimmerman, depending on which side you stand)

This is a good discussion. I'd like to keep it civil, the name calling (for everyone) is a bit underhanded. I get property rights but I think that a loophole has been found. One that you refuse to address.

I think you believe that you've found a loophole because they say home and property, but I can't imagine a court finding that a place where someone lives that is not property they own is custom to the same protections as property they own.

It's really that simple: you have different rights with your car than a rental. You have different rights with a home than an apartment. Just because a court order is necessary for eviction doesn't mean that you own the apartment.

[keg in kc]

Oh do share. I am very interested in hearing about successful challengesI don't know anything about it, just came up in a google search when I was looking up colorado stuff: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130731/NEWS01/130731010/In-win-NRA-public-housing-gun-ban-sent-Delaware-Supreme-Court?nclick_check=1

Apparently this is a case that's gone back at least 3 years and involved federal appeals.

[DenverChief]

It's really that simple: you have different rights with your car than a rental. You have different rights with a home than an apartment. Just because a court order is necessary for eviction doesn't mean that you own the apartment.

Do tell what rights you don't possess in a rental. I haven't heard that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to rentals.

I think you are confused about concepts. I was merely stating that if a hotel can be subject to becoming a residence (home) that it wasn't a stretch to say that an apartment can be a residence (home)

[DenverChief]

I don't know anything about it, just came up in a google search when I was looking up colorado stuff: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130731/NEWS01/130731010/In-win-NRA-public-housing-gun-ban-sent-Delaware-Supreme-Court?nclick_check=1

Apparently this is a case that's gone back at least 3 years and involved federal appeals.


Interesting. I had brought that up earlier in the thread that federally subsidized housing could/would be a problem for landlords if they tried to ban legally protected activities

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Do tell what rights you don't possess in a rental. I haven't heard that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to rentals.

I think you are confused about concepts. I was merely stating that if a hotel can be subject to becoming a residence (home) that it wasn't a stretch to say that an apartment can be a residence (home)

The right to attach shit to the building, hang flags, political signs, loud music, profanities, dogs, grills, painting, hanging stuff on walls, and seemingly hundreds of other things.

Gun owners are not a protected class and thus fair housing laws do not apply to them.

[ClevelandBronco]

I don't know anything about it, just came up in a google search when I was looking up colorado stuff: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130731/NEWS01/130731010/In-win-NRA-public-housing-gun-ban-sent-Delaware-Supreme-Court?nclick_check=1

Apparently this is a case that's gone back at least 3 years and involved federal appeals.

Interesting case, but it seems that the Delaware case involves a prohibition of guns in common areas, not in private rented quarters.

[keg in kc]

Interesting case, but it seems that the Delaware case involves a prohibition of guns in common areas, not in private rented quarters.I believe I read somewhere else that it was originally a prohibition everywhere, then that was overturned as unconstitutional, the association changed it to common areas and now that's being challenged. But I may not have a grasp on all of it (and honestly don't really care).

[2bikemike]

As a landlord I can tell you that unless his lease is up the apt. complex doesn't have a leg to stand on. I guess if he is month to month they could make an argument.

I am not sure how the Supreme Court would rule on such a situation. However I do think that the City of San Fran tried to keep people in Public housing from having firearms and that was overturned in court.

As far as the BBQ's on the patio that is usually a fire code thing. I own a 4plex in Olathe that caught on fire from the patio but that was from a dumbass smoking on the patio they think he tossed his butt on the deck on a windy day. Damaged 2 of the 4 units.

I tried finding info on the San Fran thing and this is what I found. https://learnaboutguns.com/2009/01/31/nra-wins-against-illegal-san-francisco-public-housing-gun-ban/

[DenverChief]

As a landlord I can tell you that unless his lease is up the apt. complex doesn't have a leg to stand on. I guess if he is month to month they could make an argument.

I am not sure how the Supreme Court would rule on such a situation. However I do think that the City of San Fran tried to keep people in Public housing from having firearms and that was overturned in court.

As far as the BBQ's on the patio that is usually a fire code thing. I own a 4plex in Olathe that caught on fire from the patio but that was from a dumbass smoking on the patio they think he tossed his butt on the deck on a windy day. Damaged 2 of the 4 units.

Thanks for the refreshing perspective. An actual landlord needed to chime in

[ClevelandBronco]

Thanks for the refreshing perspective. An actual landlord needed to chime in

There's been one chiming in almost from the beginning.

Well, since post 17 anyway.

[DenverChief]

There's been one chiming in almost from the beginning.

:cuss: well at least the "new" perspective

['Hamas' Jenkins]

All the landlord has to do is wait until the current lease expires and unless there is a state law similar to the one in Minnesota the tenant can be evicted.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Here:

www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/2013/05/21/can-landlords-limit-their-tenants-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

http://www.inman.com/2013/02/14/would-gun-ban-violate-tenants-rights/

[2bikemike]

Found this too. http://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/2013/05/21/can-landlords-limit-their-tenants-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

Can Landlords Limit Their Tenants’ Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms?


Every day in our country about 289 people are shot, some deliberately and some by accident. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure someone in a domestic murder, suicide, or accident than to be used in self-defense. (From the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.)

Given these troubling statistics, many landlords and property managers have been wondering if their property rights allow them to limit gun ownership in their rental properties without violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The answer is yes. The Second Amendment is a limit on government power, not a limit on private citizens. And if a private citizen landlord wants to ban guns in his or her rental properties, there is no Second Amendment violation.

Gun owners who are told they can no longer keep their guns may claim they are being discriminated against, but they will find no support in fair housing laws as gun owners are not considered a protected class under those rules.

However, if you do want to limit or prohibit firearms on your rental property, implementing and enforcing those policies could be difficult. Landlord tenant law requires you to wait until the end of each tenant’s lease and include the limit or ban in the new lease or in a set of House Rules that your tenants sign when they renew.

And what if you suspect your tenants are keeping a firearm in a rental unit, in violation of your established policy? You might have a hard time verifying that a gun is being stored on the premises because state privacy laws may prevent you from doing an inspection. However, if you do have proof of a violation, and your tenants have agreed in the lease to abide by your policy, you can initiate an eviction.

Finally, a limited number of states, like Minnesota, have enacted laws that prohibit landlords from limiting tenants from owning firearms, so if you are thinking about limiting or banning firearms on your rental property, make sure that doing so won’t violate your state’s laws.

As always, the information provided here is just that–it is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you have any particular questions or issues, please consult an attorney.

[2bikemike]

Here:

www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/2013/05/21/can-landlords-limit-their-tenants-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

http://www.inman.com/2013/02/14/would-gun-ban-violate-tenants-rights/

Damn I am just a tad slow!

[ClevelandBronco]

Interesting arguments in those links. Whether or not they offer sound legal advice, given the parallel construction of those two articles, I might accuse at least one of those columnists of plagiarism.

[BlackHelicopters]

Can't even masturbate on a plane anymore.

[rockymtnchief]

It's clearly a reiteration of the 2nd Amendment. It's saying that laws cannot ban someone's ability to use a firearm to protect their home, in self defense, or for their property.

Again, if the home was their property they'd pay property tax on it. You can keep the gun in your car if you have appropriate documentation because it's your property.

This is from a Colorado source:

therefore, there is a legitimate argument that Landlords may include a lease provision banning gun possession or ammunition in or near the rental property, just as a landlord may prohibit pets, smoking, profane language or loud noise.

http://www.aamdhq.org/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=Ask%20the%20Lawyer&refno=30


If you want the guy to keep his rights then I suggest you advocate for a law that bars landlords from prohibiting tenants owning guns. Unless that happens, you have no legal recourse.

Piss on Colorado. I'm glad I'm back in Montana.

Section 6. Landlords and Tenants -- No Firearm Prohibition Allowed.
A landlord or operator of a hotel or motel may not, by contract or otherwise, prevent a tenant or a guest of a
tenant from possessing on the premises a firearm that it is legal for the tenant or guest to possess. A landlord
or operator of a hotel or motel may prohibit the discharge of a firearm on the premises except in selfdefense. _________

[Saul Good]

I don't think the constitution has anything to do with this scenario. It deals with the government's ability (or inability) to restrict gun ownership. The apartment owner isn't the government, nor is it telling you that you can't own guns...just that you can't keep them there.

That said, they can't just unilaterally change the terms and conditions of your lease. They can put it into contracts going forward. Whether or not it's enforceable remains to be seen, as it could be considered an unreasonable demand by the owner.

[notorious]

What happened that made the apartment ownership care about their tenants owning guns?

This guy could be a moron.

[Earthling]

What happened that made the apartment ownership care about their tenants owning guns?

This guy could be a moron.

If I was making a guess I would guess insurance rates most likely would go down. Theft and burglaries will probably go up though, or so logic would dictate.

[BlackHelicopters]

Party on, Colorado.

[ClevelandBronco]

I don't think the constitution has anything to do with this scenario. It deals with the government's ability (or inability) to restrict gun ownership. The apartment owner isn't the government, nor is it telling you that you can't own guns...just that you can't keep them there.

That said, they can't just unilaterally change the terms and conditions of your lease. They can put it into contracts going forward. Whether or not it's enforceable remains to be seen, as it could be considered an unreasonable demand by the owner.

You're right. The second doesn't seem to protect the tenant except perhaps in government owned or government subsidized housing. Fair housing doesn't cover him. Landlords might prohibit the ownership of any number of otherwise legal things. I'm willing to bet, however, that if this becomes a high profile situation, there will be a small army of attorneys deployed that leave no Colorado law book unopened in an effort to find some law somewhere (beginning, depending on wording, in the state constitution) that will prohibit the landlord from banning guns in the terms of his lease agreement with his tenants. In that event, another small army of attorneys would be deployed on an effort to protect the landlord's interests.

Personally, I don't think it's worth the landlord's time and effort, but that's just me.

[Dayze]

But where is the line drawn? Can a landlord also say you cannot have republican/democrat conversations in his property and if you are caught you can be evicted?

I mean I get property rights - but property rights end when they begin to violate my rights as a citizen...

yeah, I agree. definitely an interesting discussion

[Simply Red]

I'm mostly disturbed that any of you would stay in a motel 6.

[JoeyChuckles]

I'm mostly disturbed that any of you would stay in a motel 6.

They are the only ones that leave the light on for me.

[ptlyon]

I'm mostly disturbed that any of you would stay in a motel 6.

Better than a motor home

[ptlyon]

Can't even masturbate on a plane anymore.

Or let a hockey mom do it for you

[Imon Yourside]

What happened that made the apartment ownership care about their tenants owning guns?

This guy could be a moron.

They probably made a deal with the local burglars association or local gang.

[Imon Yourside]

I'm mostly disturbed that any of you would stay in a motel 6.

If you took a poll, most would say their best sexual experiences came at a motel 6. Tom Bodette staring over you and all.

[Imon Yourside]

Do they need more insurance than when some kid gets a hold of a gun some idiot stuffed under their mattress and kills themselves or another kid?



They can. Step out in the hallway and start yelling and disturbing other tenants and see what happens. Put your dildo in a window sill and see what happens.

Those are not free speech issues, crude lude and disturbing the peace are clearly different.

[Beef Supreme]

I believe I would tell my landlord to come and get them.

[notorious]

Did he pull a Frazod?

[Frazod]

Did he pull a Frazod?

Hey now. nlm

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Those are not free speech issues, crude lude and disturbing the peace are clearly different.

If you are going to use terms relating to the first amendment perhaps you should bone up on when it does and doesn't apply. You don't have free speech rights to say whatever you want on anyone else's private property, nor do you have second amendment rights on anyone's property.

The first amendment relates to government regulation of speech. A landlord banning your speech isn't the government. A landlord telling a tenant they can't have guns isn't the government.

[notorious]

Hey now. nlm

That was quick!


LMAO

[ChiefsLV]

Damn Obama care, screwing up our guns.

[Ace Gunner]

But where is the line drawn? Can a landlord also say you cannot have republican/democrat conversations in his property and if you are caught you can be evicted?

I mean I get property rights - but property rights end when they begin to violate my rights as a citizen...

to me, this a pretty big question because the gov't has already provisioned legalities for corporations that are against the laws of our land.

imo they have long since crossed the line. I'm going to bet this will be upheld and the "line" scoots further into corporatist rule.

[Frazod]

Oh, and screw this communist piece of shit landlord in particular and the liberal twats that are ruining Colorado and the entire country in general, but also, the guy who is the subject of the story should have kept his guns to himself. That's nobody's business. If you live out in bumblefuck and everybody has a gun, that's one thing, but if you're in some shithole suburb of Denver and you've got NRA bumperstickers all over your car and sit on your porch cleaning your guns, then you're just asking for trouble.

I own, so it would never be an issue, but still, none of my neighbors know I own guns. While I'm in a pretty conservative suburb, it's still a suburb of Chicago, so I keep it quiet. I don't talk to anybody about it, don't have bumperstickers or decals on the car, anything. I won't even load the gun bags into the trunk if the garage door is open. Its just the smart thing to do.

[Beef Supreme]

Oh, and screw this communist piece of shit landlord in particular and the liberal twats that are ruining Colorado and the entire country in general, but also, the guy who is the subject of the story should have kept his guns to himself. That's nobody's business. If you live out in bumble**** and everybody has a gun, that's one thing, but if you're in some shithole suburb of Denver and you've got NRA bumperstickers all over your car and sit on your porch cleaning your guns, then you're just asking for trouble.

I own, so it would never be an issue, but still, none of my neighbors know I own guns. While I'm in a pretty conservative suburb, it's still a suburb of Chicago, so I keep it quiet. I don't talk to anybody about it, don't have bumperstickers or decals on the car, anything. I won't even load the gun bags into the trunk if the garage door is open. Its just the smart thing to do.

Sounds like you want gun owners to be the new gays.

[Frazod]

Sounds like you want gun owners to be the new gays.

If only gun owners could get that sort of consideration.

[DenverChief]

to me, this a pretty big question because the gov't has already provisioned legalities for corporations that are against the laws of our land.

imo they have long since crossed the line. I'm going to bet this will be upheld and the "line" scoots further into corporatist rule.

Scary isn't it? I really hope that we (Colorado) and other states can get some laws on the books that are similar to Montana and Minnesota to prohibit private entities from restricting our right to legally possess a firearm in a rented domicile.

I think corporate America knows that they can get away with pretty much murder. I remember working for an amusement park and telling people to change their shirt if they wanted entry because the shirt was offensive. They always screamed first amendment and my reply was always the same. Not on private property. I just can't believe it didn't dawn on me sooner.

[AustinChief]

The first amendment relates to government regulation of speech. A landlord banning your speech isn't the government. A landlord telling a tenant they can't have guns isn't the government.
This is pretty much it.

BUT in this case the landlord is actually wrong for one reason. They are trying to make a substantial change in policy without amending the lease agreement. No chance he can be evicted for this but he'll be out of luck when his lease is up.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

This is pretty much it.

BUT in this case the landlord is actually wrong for one reason. They are trying to make a substantial change in policy without amending the lease agreement. No chance he can be evicted for this but he'll be out of luck when his lease is up.

That would be true if he were still in his lease, but I don't think anything has definitively claimed one way or the other.

[AustinChief]

That would be true if he were still in his lease, but I don't think anything has definitively claimed one way or the other.

True but this part...

The letter went out to residents on August 1 and says they have until October 1 to comply with updated "community policies."

...makes me believe that the landlord is trying pull a fast one. Hard to imagine that all leases will be up between August 1st and Oct 1st.

[Just Passin' By]

Where's the constitutional issue supposed to be here? If this is a private owner, not government housing, this seems more like an issue of contract law.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

True but this part...



...makes me believe that the landlord is trying pull a fast one. Hard to imagine that all leases will be up between August 1st and Oct 1st.

No doubt about that, but that still doesn't shed light on this guy's specific lease.

[AustinChief]

No doubt about that, but that still doesn't shed light on this guy's specific lease.

yep, he could be month to month, in which case... oops.

[DaFace]

30 seconds of Googling says that this is perfectly legal and not at all unprecedented (or even rare).

[jettio]

yep, he could be month to month, in which case... oops.

If this were Texas, he could wait until the sun goes down and then shoot the landlord for stealing his guns.

I wonder why this guy considers it impossible to move.

[OrtonsPiercedTaint]

A 77 year old would feel the same way about losing his driver's license. It may be for the best.

[Psyko Tek]

But where is the line drawn? Can a landlord also say you cannot have republican/democrat conversations in his property and if you are caught you can be evicted?

I mean I get property rights - but property rights end when they begin to violate my rights as a citizen...

which amendment is stronger never thought of that?

I can understand both as property rights,
but when you rent a property don't you lease the people rights also?
the problem is that this was not stated from the beginning..
does he have the right to change half during a lease
I could see this being legal for new leases and renewals

we have propert rights vs 2nd amendment interesting to see what will come of the ensuing laws suit

[Frazod]

A 77 year old would feel the same way about losing his driver's license. It may be for the best.

Yeah, I'm sure it's great. Now every scumbag criminal in Denver that watches the news will know the guy's unarmed AND where he lives. What could possibly go wrong?

But it's for the best, right?

[Psyko Tek]

Certainly the right to keep and bear arms can be limited, as can the right to free speech, but we are talking about someone's home, whether he owns the real estate or not.

that is what I am wondering about, I think if you can stipulate these things at the beginning of as lease and the tenant signs it giving up these rights it is legal
if you change half way through the lease I think the leasee gets to wait until thew end of the lease to comply

[Psyko Tek]

There has to be some civil rights legislation that prevents this... Being a business doesn't allow you to discriminate on the basis of race right..?

Not that gun owner = minority, but that's the reasoning I'm thinking of..

owning a gun is not a race neither is having a dog in a pet less apartment
think a bit please

[Frazod]

They say once a Marine always a Marine. Now that this story has gotten so much publicity, hopefully a bunch of them and/or some NRA people will step up and help the guy find a new safe place to live and get him moved in.

And after that, I hope that apartment complex becomes crime central, assuming it's not already.

[Psyko Tek]

If there is a clause that exempts me correct? Otherwise I'm still at the whim of the property owner.

So my question is can a land owner restrict what television station(s) you watch? Can they dictate who you associate with and evict you if they find you in violation of the "community rules" ?

I would say yes, in my complex, in AZ, a guy got evicted just for 3 residents thinking he pointed a gun at us

[DaFace]

Yeah, I'm sure it's great. Now every scumbag criminal in Denver that watches the news will know the guy's unarmed AND where he lives. What could possibly go wrong?

But it's for the best, right?

You don't think it's reasonable for a landlord to be afraid that some idiot might mistake a noise in the dark for a criminal and end up putting a hole through their refrigerator? :Poke:

[Discuss Thrower]

You don't think it's reasonable for a landlord to be afraid that some idiot might mistake a noise in the dark for a criminal and end up putting a hole through their refrigerator? :Poke:

Then evict him for damaging property / discharging a firearm. If there was an intruder then it's justified..

[DenverChief]

I would say yes, in my complex, in AZ, a guy got evicted just for 3 residents thinking he pointed a gun at us

well thats breaking the law - simple ownership isn't illegal

[DenverChief]

Then evict him for damaging property / discharging a firearm. If there was an intruder then it's justified..


Agreed

[DaFace]

Then evict him for damaging property / discharging a firearm. If there was an intruder then it's justified..

It's next to impossible to recover money out of an evicted tenant, so they'd be out the cost of the refrigerator. And in an apartment complex, what if it didn't go into a refrigerator but instead went into another apartment and hit someone?

From a landlord's perspective, it's pretty easy to understand why someone might want a rule like that (though I probably wouldn't try and enforce it myself).

[DenverChief]

Halleluja - common sense prevails

CASTLE ROCK - A controversial gun policy at an apartment complex for seniors has been thrown out after a 9Wants to Know report.

The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.

"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few,"

After 9Wants to Know reported on the policy Tuesday night, Douglas County commissioners began calling for quick action by the housing authority.

READ: Castle Rock apartment tenants told they must get rid of their guns

Douglas County Director of Public Affairs Wendy Holmes said commissioners were "alarmed" to learn of the policy and pushed the housing authority for "an acceptable and expeditious resolution."

"The Board of Douglas County Commissioners is pleased that the Housing Authority concurred with the Commissioner's position that the policy changes from Ross Management should not move forward. We thank them for a quick and proper conclusion," Holmes said in a statement.

When retired US Marine Art Dorsch got a notice from Oakwood management, he felt like the freedom he fought for was being taken away.

"It upset me very much," Dorsch said. "Because I don't think it's fair."

The notice was informing residents of an updated policy, banning all firearms and weapons from the property effective October 1.

There is no gun language in the lease Dorsch signed earlier this year.

"They want to take them all away from me. They say I can't live here," Dorsch said.

The Ross Management Group, based in Wheat Ridge, implemented the policy change.

Managers refused to comment. An employee even closed the door on 9Wants to Know reporter Will Ripley as he asked why tenants were being told they can't have firearms.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out

[Discuss Thrower]

It's up to the states to prevent these sorts of things from occurring though. Not arbitrary commissions.

[DenverChief]

It's up to the states to prevent these sorts of things from occurring though. Not arbitrary commissions.

I'm pretty sure it was the county commissioners

[Frazod]

You don't think it's reasonable for a landlord to be afraid that some idiot might mistake a noise in the dark for a criminal and end up putting a hole through their refrigerator? :Poke:

The truth of that incident is bad enough, it would be nice if somebody used it just once. nlm

[Frazod]

Halleluja - common sense prevails



http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out

Good.

[Bugeater]

If they have "section 8" or government subsidized housing wouldn't that in effect prevent the government from subsidizing them because they are prohibiting legal activities?
I used to work at a HUD subsidized townhome complex, and guns were strictly prohibited there.

[Frazod]

I used to work at a HUD subsidized townhome complex, and guns were strictly prohibited there.

Yeah, I'll bet that was effective. LMAO

[DenverChief]

Additionally:

. DENVER RENTERS BEING DISARMED?

The Denver Housing Authority wants to know if Ross Management Group is trying to pull similar rogue gun bans in the city.



The company manages properties in Aurora, Arvada, Denver and Greeley.



"It's unconstitutional to prohibit the legal possession of a gun or a firearm on public housing property," a DHA spokesperson said.



The company wouldn't talk about the gun ban via phone or in person. So it's not clear the motivation behind the company's decision.



The company's owner, Debi Ross, and her husband have given $9,000, only to Democrats, since 2006.



Public housing gun bans have been challenged in a number of states. In several cases, outright gun bans have been more narrowly tailored to common areas, after a lawsuit was filed.

[Lzen]

The truth of that incident is bad enough, it would be nice if somebody used it just once. nlm

Why don't you refresh us all on that story. :D

[Lzen]

Oh, and screw this communist piece of shit landlord in particular and the liberal twats that are ruining Colorado and the entire country in general, but also, the guy who is the subject of the story should have kept his guns to himself. That's nobody's business. If you live out in bumble**** and everybody has a gun, that's one thing, but if you're in some shithole suburb of Denver and you've got NRA bumperstickers all over your car and sit on your porch cleaning your guns, then you're just asking for trouble.

I own, so it would never be an issue, but still, none of my neighbors know I own guns. While I'm in a pretty conservative suburb, it's still a suburb of Chicago, so I keep it quiet. I don't talk to anybody about it, don't have bumperstickers or decals on the car, anything. I won't even load the gun bags into the trunk if the garage door is open. Its just the smart thing to do.

This guy likes to hunt. So I would guess that even if he did keep it quiet, someone might notice him carrying his rifle to his car and report it to the landlord.

[Frazod]

This guy likes to hunt. So I would guess that even if he did keep it quiet, someone might notice him carrying his rifle to his car and report it to the landlord.

That's certainly true. But there are other things you can do to draw unneeded attention to yourself that a crusty old ex-Marine might easily do without really thinking about it.

[Frazod]

Why don't you refresh us all on that story. :D

:moon: