HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Apartment tenants told th...

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:58 AM

Apartment tenants told they must get rid of their guns or move.

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

Colorado of all places. You would expect bullshit like this in an anti-gun state, but not in Colorado. Hopefully an attorney or one of the RKBA organizations will step forward and help fight this.

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

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."

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

151 replies, 14835 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 151 replies Author Time Post
Reply Apartment tenants told they must get rid of their guns or move. (Original post)
MicaelS Aug 2013 OP
ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #1
Warpy Aug 2013 #53
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #56
JimDandy Aug 2013 #105
DonP Aug 2013 #2
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #3
Jenoch Aug 2013 #6
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #14
Jenoch Aug 2013 #16
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #17
gejohnston Aug 2013 #19
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #20
gejohnston Aug 2013 #23
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #25
gejohnston Aug 2013 #39
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #59
gejohnston Aug 2013 #78
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #114
gejohnston Aug 2013 #118
Jenoch Aug 2013 #21
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #22
calimary Aug 2013 #27
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #30
Niceguy1 Aug 2013 #52
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #115
gejohnston Aug 2013 #117
Eleanors38 Aug 2013 #35
Jenoch Aug 2013 #46
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #116
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2013 #121
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #122
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2013 #124
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #130
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2013 #147
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #148
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2013 #150
MicaelS Aug 2013 #125
Politicalboi Aug 2013 #29
tumtum Aug 2013 #33
Jenoch Aug 2013 #47
spin Aug 2013 #84
tumtum Aug 2013 #127
dballance Aug 2013 #69
Jenoch Aug 2013 #70
dballance Aug 2013 #72
Jenoch Aug 2013 #73
dballance Aug 2013 #76
gejohnston Aug 2013 #80
dballance Aug 2013 #86
gejohnston Aug 2013 #87
Jenoch Aug 2013 #88
dballance Aug 2013 #137
Jenoch Aug 2013 #144
indie9197 Aug 2013 #103
Jenoch Aug 2013 #107
dballance Aug 2013 #68
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #100
JimDandy Aug 2013 #109
dballance Aug 2013 #138
tumtum Aug 2013 #139
tumtum Aug 2013 #140
dballance Aug 2013 #143
bunnies Aug 2013 #4
gejohnston Aug 2013 #5
bunnies Aug 2013 #7
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #10
bunnies Aug 2013 #12
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #15
bunnies Aug 2013 #18
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #61
gejohnston Aug 2013 #11
bunnies Aug 2013 #13
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #63
bunnies Aug 2013 #71
lastlib Aug 2013 #24
gejohnston Aug 2013 #38
lastlib Aug 2013 #40
gejohnston Aug 2013 #41
lastlib Aug 2013 #49
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #64
gejohnston Aug 2013 #81
rl6214 Aug 2013 #44
lastlib Aug 2013 #50
rl6214 Aug 2013 #151
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #62
mercuryblues Aug 2013 #28
jimmy the one Aug 2013 #8
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #9
Politicalboi Aug 2013 #26
Bazinga Aug 2013 #113
beevul Aug 2013 #149
bravenak Aug 2013 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #32
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2013 #34
Eleanors38 Aug 2013 #36
Inkfreak Aug 2013 #37
thucythucy Aug 2013 #42
Inkfreak Aug 2013 #51
thucythucy Aug 2013 #77
gejohnston Aug 2013 #43
rl6214 Aug 2013 #45
sarisataka Aug 2013 #48
tridim Aug 2013 #55
sarisataka Aug 2013 #57
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #54
sarisataka Aug 2013 #58
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #60
sarisataka Aug 2013 #65
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #66
sarisataka Aug 2013 #75
VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #146
tridim Aug 2013 #67
sarisataka Aug 2013 #74
gejohnston Aug 2013 #82
Niceguy1 Aug 2013 #102
MrModerate Aug 2013 #79
gejohnston Aug 2013 #83
MrModerate Aug 2013 #91
gejohnston Aug 2013 #93
JimDandy Aug 2013 #96
gejohnston Aug 2013 #97
Jenoch Aug 2013 #98
JimDandy Aug 2013 #104
Jenoch Aug 2013 #108
spin Aug 2013 #85
MrModerate Aug 2013 #92
spin Aug 2013 #101
MicaelS Aug 2013 #89
tumtum Aug 2013 #119
MicaelS Aug 2013 #123
tumtum Aug 2013 #126
MicaelS Aug 2013 #128
ceonupe Aug 2013 #133
tumtum Aug 2013 #135
locks Aug 2013 #90
gejohnston Aug 2013 #94
JimDandy Aug 2013 #106
gejohnston Aug 2013 #120
sarisataka Aug 2013 #95
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #99
beevul Aug 2013 #110
ileus Aug 2013 #111
jimmy the one Aug 2013 #112
elleng Aug 2013 #129
MicaelS Aug 2013 #131
tumtum Aug 2013 #134
Deep13 Aug 2013 #132
tumtum Aug 2013 #136
Jenoch Aug 2013 #141
tumtum Aug 2013 #142
hack89 Aug 2013 #145

Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:00 PM

1. That is interesting.

Doesn't seem legal, but it is interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:30 PM

53. It's private property

and apartment owners have long had provisions against smokers, pets and children.

The owner will find the pool of prospective tenants lessened considerably, but that's his problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #53)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:33 PM

56. "Considerably"? How?

Do you think most people own guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #53)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 01:57 AM

105. No, It's a Government Owned Property!

A private property owner could ban guns at their apartment complex, but for the government to do so infringes on a person's constitutional right to own guns.

ETA: It's owned by the county's housing authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:03 PM

2. This will be a very expensive new rule for Oakwood Apartments

There are a lot of things private property owners can control and ban on their own property, IANAL but I'm pretty sure constitutional rights aren't one of them, especially new ex post facto rules.

OTOH, some lawyers are going to make a shitload of money on this and maybe they'll buy their families some nice things with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:20 PM

3. Why not?

If an employer can deny insurance coverage for legal prescriptions based on their religious beliefs, pharmacist can deny filling Rx based on their religious beliefs, why can't an apt owner deny gun ownership on his property?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:34 PM

6. 2nd Amendment

It is illegal in Minnesota for a landlord to enforce such a rule on their tenants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:21 PM

14. 9th Amendment

legalized birth control. So why should an employer be able to decide what medication a woman can have? Why are pharmacists allowed to deny legal medication based on their religious views?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:29 PM

16. I don't have all the answers.

I do know that my initial post is correct, at least it has been found that way in the courts.

I do not believe an employer can decide what medication a woman can have, not even if she is his employee.

The only reason I can give you for your last question is that the courts have made it so in some areas. In that case, I suppose the person would have to go to another pharmacy.

I'm not an advocate for the two points you have asked about regarding medicine, just attempting to answer your question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:34 PM

17. A renter who wants guns

can rent somewhere where the landlord allows it.

So here we have 2 different constitutionally protected rights, yet only one of them is deemed beyond reproach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:44 PM

19. false equivelance

the employer doesn't decide what birth control a woman can have, just what the insurance plan is willing to pay for. Two different things. Employers can also not allow firearms within the business.
In a business, the employer can set up security cameras legally almost anywhere in the business. landlords can't put cameras in anyone's living room or anywhere that is the renter's private space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:49 PM

20. No they are not false

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/28/2228651/conservative-court-says-religious-employers-can-deny-their-workers-birth-control/

Although Thursday’s decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius leaves a few procedural stones unturned before courts can begin carving holes in the birth control rules, it leaves little doubt that a majority of the court’s judges will allow employers with religious objections to birth control to withhold birth control from their employees.

So why can one constitutionally protected right be allowed while the other is not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:01 PM

23. I didn't say your claim was false,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
I said it was false equivalence.
we are talking about
employer vs landlord
employer purchase vs individual purchase

You are talking about employers being forced to pay for birth control. Employees are free to purchase form they want out of their own pocket.

The OP is about a landlord making a rule what someone may possess in their own home.

Now, if Castle Rock said they were not going to buy each tenant a gun or two, OR, if Hobby Lobby said women using birth control could not work there, you might have a valid point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:10 PM

25. Not buying it

Insurance companies are to offer birth control, employers want to opt out based on their beliefs. Yet a landlord can not opt out?

Why is one constitutionally protected right considered sacrosanct, yet another is considered deniable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #25)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 04:02 PM

39. still a logical fallacy

If you can't grasp the many differences, nothing I can do for you. BTW, birth control isn't a constitutionally protected right. Abortion is, but not pills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #39)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:36 PM

59. But you can have a "Seniors Only" community and ban children...

but not guns? Thats just nutty....it's private property. Ask NRA supporting Rand Paul this question!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #59)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:43 PM

78. I don't believe those should be allowed either

age discrimination is age discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:35 AM

114. Except it is

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html


The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed.

Further, this right to privacy is "fundamental" when it concerns the actions of married couples, because it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions." Because a married couple's use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut must prove to the Court that its law is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to overcome that right (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Because Connecticut failed to prove this, the law was struck down as applied.

Other justices, while agreeing that marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and that the Connecticut law should be struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas as to where in the Constitution such a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights contained by the people, allows the Court to find the "fundamental right to marital privacy" without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice John Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental right to marital privacy" exists only because marital privacy has traditionally been protected by American society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, Justice Byron White argued that a fundamental right to marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due Process Clause, and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.


Yet, for all their differences, the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive." In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the idea that the Constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract. Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird ), and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade ).

An employer does not own the employee, any more than a renter owns the property.
So again, why are gun rights sacrosanct, while birth control rights are considered negotiable?

















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #114)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 09:23 AM

118. Yeah, I'll remember that

the next time an employer wants to drug test, not that I wouldn't pass. What does that have to do with health insurance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:51 PM

21. "A renter who wants guns can rent somewhere the landlord allows it."

The courts don't see it that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:00 PM

22. Why is

one constitutionally protected right sacrosanct, while the other is up for grabs?

I am not saying anyone here agrees, just looking for an honest answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:16 PM

27. In general, it's a VERY worthwhile question.

As a woman who feels that her body is now under siege in many parts of this country, I think it's an extremely valid question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #27)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:27 PM

30. That's it

A woman pays for insurance coverage, so how can a legal Rx be denied, due to an employer's or pharmacist's beliefs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #30)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:26 PM

52. rhe peraon is still allowed to purchase and use

And legal form of birth control she wants.

A more accurate comparison would be if the land lord prohibited women using birth control from renting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #52)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:46 AM

115. A woman already pays for her insurance

So she has to also pay out of pocket for what her insurance already covers, due to someone's beliefs. How is that acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #115)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 09:20 AM

117. I am talking if the employer pays

if it is a group plan where she pays, then it isn't acceptable. I don't know Hobby Lobby's situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 03:02 PM

35. I found some material on this subject...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-01/classified/ct-mre-0303-renting-20130301_1_gun-owners-gun-ban-month-to-month-tenants

In this Q & A, the commentator says a landlord CAN disallow gun-ownership on the property. I don't know what kind of legal precedent is used for this opinion. But these comments interesting:

"Your manager's concerns are a bit off the mark: The U.S. Constitution (specifically, the Second Amendment, which concerns the people's "right to bear arms") is aimed at the government, not at individuals like you ."

and

"Privacy laws in most states will prevent you from inspecting your tenants' homes for evidence of violations. And ironically, if rule-breaking tenants take steps to keep firearms out of reach and locked away (as they should for safety reasons), it will be harder still for you or any guest or maintenance worker to spot them while in the unit on legitimate."

(The commentator in this exchange contends that gun-owners are not a protected class, such as race, religion, sex, etc.)
______________

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/oct/28/tennessee-ag-says-landlords-can-ban-tenants-guns/

In this Tennessee AG opinion, a landlord can impose a ban on guns on the property using a clause in the lease, and need not post a sign announcing such (a very foolish measure in any case), but a tenant cannot be criminally liable for violating such a lease provision if the sign is not used. There was some discussion about legislation concerning landlord bans, but I haven't found any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:21 PM

46. Get to the specifics...

which right and which amendment 'specifically' is it that you are referring? I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm not a lawyer at all. I do know the details are important. Also, the courts have decided, I'm sure you could get an explanation by looking up the specifics that I mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 09:12 AM

116. the decision is


based on 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th. 10 years after Griswold vs Ct, the supremes ruled that the right to privacy included all females. There are also laws to protect your medical records. Theoretically an employer should not even know what medications women are taking. So why can employer deny a legal prescription to an employee based on his beliefs. yet a property owner has to allow tenants to have guns on his property, contrary to his beliefs.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Griswold+v.+Connecticut


Addressing the propriety of its review of such legislation, the Court reasoned that although it is loath to determine the need for state laws affecting social and economic conditions, these statutes directly affected sexual relations between a married couple and the role of a physician in the medical aspects of such a relationship. Such a relationship is protected from intrusion by the government under the theory of a right to privacy. This right, while not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, exists because it may be reasonably construed from certain amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.
snip

The Court created the right of privacy from the penumbras of these specific rights, which it deemed created zones of privacy. The statutory regulation of a marital relationship by the state was an invasion of the constitutional right of a married couple to privacy in such a relationship, a relationship that historically American law has held sacred. The means by which the state chose to regulate contraceptives—by outlawing their use, rather than their sale and manufacture—was clearly unrelated to its goal and would detrimentally affect the marital relationship. The question of enforcement of such statutes also was roundly criticized since it would mandate government inquiry into "marital bedrooms."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #116)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:04 AM

121. re: "So why can employer deny a legal prescription to an employee based on his beliefs."

AFAIK, employers who pay for all or part of a group health plan can select any plan they choose and, if the insurance company offers the option, they can enable or disable certain electable coverages. Some places elect for vision and/or dental others don't. Some larger companies self-insure. They can, for the most part, customize a plan according to their finances and preferences. They often pay a bit to an insurance company to administer the benefits.

Apartments come with a lease. If the lease you sign restricts certain behaviors and types of property, and those restrictions comply with state and local laws, then they are valid and enforceable. Standard lease forms usually incorporate provisions for changes to the rules and the lease itself. Standard lease forms usually also incorporate provisions for cases where portions of the lease or rules are found illegal/unenforceable by due process. Many apartments have rules against tenants maintaining "water containing devices, equipment and furniture" which disallow washing machines, fish tanks and water beds. Depending laws in some states, general firearm ownership may be allowed to be restricted but those with CC permits might be treated differently under the law.

I'm not seeing why there's conflict with these issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #121)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:12 AM

122. Some

employers want to opt out of birth control specifically; based on their beliefs. They will cover any other prescription except BC. So how can one right be denied because of a person's belief, yet another can not be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #122)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:52 AM

124. As I explained in #121...

...those employers may be within the scope of the law to do so. It is not an invasion of privacy since the employer doesn't need knowledge of who is taking what. I'm not aware of a law that says a person has a right to have his medicines paid for by someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #124)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:14 AM

130. Insurance companies

provide BC pills at no extra cost. If I woman has insurance coverage, why should she pay out of pocket to get birth control pills, based on her employers belief? She is already paying for the coverage that should provide them, by forcing her to also pay out of pocket is making her pay twice for the same Rx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #130)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 03:24 PM

147. re: "Insurance companies provide BC pills at no extra cost."

Maybe I'm missing something but if the BC pills are free, why would anyone need to pay for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #147)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 04:13 PM

148. you are the one saying she should

Insurance covers BC pills. A woman pays for insurance, so why should she have to also pay out of pocket for her BC pills?

Why should an employer be able to opt out of BC prescriptions because of their belief system. The woman is still paying for the insurance, the employer has blocked her from getting a legal prescription. If she wants/needs it, she will have to pay out of pocket. How many women can afford $30 to $120 a month out of pocket for a RX that insurance already covers, but her employer opts out of, because of their beliefs? Yes a woman can still obtain the pills with her own money, but that makes her pay twice for it. Once through insurance coverage and once out of pocket.


You have two private citizens, each want to ban a different constitutionally granted right of others. What makes one right sacrosanct and the other negotiable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #148)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 06:18 PM

150. Here is basics

The RKBA is a long established and articulated right with plenty of precedents. The right to have BC included under your employer paid health insurance has neither long been established, is not articulated in the Constitution and has little by way of court precedent.

That doesn't mean it won't become accepted that employer health insurance must cover BC.

Please understand that I'm not attacking or defending the ideologies of either of these concepts. I'm just explaining why they are treated differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #122)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:04 AM

125. Because it hasn't fully tested in a court of law.

You want apartment complexes to be able to ban guns from their premises? Then you need to be willing to spend the time and money (which might take years) to set a legal precedent. All the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:21 PM

29. Then I would kick them out

Over something else. Fuck gun nuts and their rights. The 2nd Amendment means NOTHING to me. It means I may die by some gun nut so he can carry his paranoia with him wherever he goes. Fuck that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #29)


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:25 PM

47. Is anyone with a gun

automatically a 'gun nut'? What about a single woman who has a .410 shotgun for self-protection?

Is a Korean War veteran who has a 1911 Colt, just like the one he carried to war, a gun nut as well?

My nephew is an Iraqi War veteran. He also bought a Beretta 92F, similar to his sidearm, is he a gun nut?

If you are a landlord and evict a tenant, it better be for a legal reason. It's not always easy to do even if you do have the law on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:05 PM

84. Chances are greater far greater that you will die by the hands of a criminal with a gun rather than

an honest, sane and responsible gun owner and in reality the chances that you will be shot by a criminal are very slim.

Gun crime in the United States is approaching an all time low.

Released: May 7, 2013

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Pace of Decline Slows in Past Decade

by D’Vera Cohn, Paul Taylor, Mark Hugo Lopez, Catherine A. Gallagher, Kim Parker and Kevin T. Maass

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008. The rate appears to be higher in 2011 compared with 2008, but the increase is not statistically significant. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall also dropped in the 1990s before declining more slowly from 2000 to 2010, then ticked up in 2011.

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/


Gun Violence

How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011. In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.
Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.

***snip***

Nonfatal Firearm-Related Crime
Nonfatal firearm-related crime has fallen significantly in recent years, from almost 1.3 million incidents in 1994 to a low of 331,618 incidents in 2008. Since then it has risen; in 2011 there were 414,562 incidents.

As a percentage of all violent incidents (i.e., rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault), between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crime has ranged from a high of 8 percent to a low of 5 percent. In 2011, firearm crimes comprised 8 percent of all violent crimes.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/


The main stream media does not often mention these statistics perhaps because it doesn't fit its agenda of promoting strong gun control.

Surprisingly Florida which as been widely criticized recently for lax gun control laws is experiencing an all time low in gun violence.

Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
Debate continues over relationship between guns and crime


By JACOB CARPENTER
Posted January 6, 2013 at 5:15 a.m.


In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.

As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The Firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/06/fla-firearm-violence-hits-record-low/


Now obviously I am a strong gun rights supporter. That may be because I could owe my existence to the fact that my mom had a tiny LadySmith revolver in her purse when she was attacked by a man who rushed her after hiding behind some bushes while she was walking home from work in the 1920s in Pennsylvania. She fired two shots over his head and he ran. The revolver held .22 short rounds which would have had little effect even if she had hit him in center body mass.

Still that doesn't mean that I do not support improved gun control laws in our nation. I simply realize that a firearm in the right hands can stop a tragedy just as a firearm in the wrong hands can cause one.

Therefore I support universal background checks and law enforcement efforts to punish criminals who carry and misuse firearms to attack citizens. Anyone who illegally carries a firearm or who straw purchases or smuggles one into the inner cities of our nation deserves to spend a long time in prison. Anyone who buys a firearm or ammunition should have a strong background check and proof that he/she has had firearms safety training.

I also support the legalization of some drugs as we lost our War on Drugs decades ago and many of the shootings in cities in Chicago are a result of drug gangs fighting over turf.

Still I can understand why some people have a hatred of firearms and gun owners. I doubt if anything I can say will alter your viewpoint and while I will consider your arguments, I doubt if they will cause me to change my views.

If it is ever possible that both sides of the gun control debate can ever sit down and honestly address the problem of gun violence in our nation, I am sure that we can make some serious headway. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen as the gun rights groups insist that the solution is to arm most people and the gun control groups favor banning certain guns or all firearms. Compromise and progress is largely impossible at this time.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:09 AM

127. It sure sounds like you're the one that's paranoid of gun owners.

 

You would kick seniors out of there homes because of your paranoia of gun owners?
You do know this complex is a senior living complex, don't you?

In your own words, Fuck that shit.

While we're at it, what other rights/amendments don't mean nothing to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:01 PM

69. That's not the 2nd Amendment at Work then.

If that is the case in Minnesota then the state legislature must have passed a STATE law to that effect. They may have passed it in support of the 2nd Amendment but it's not the 2nd that prevents landlords from prohibiting guns.

In case everyone has forgotten Jim Crow and other laws. The 14th Amendment didn't prohibit discrimination and segregation or stop it. The US congress had to pass the voting rights laws and the civil rights acts to do that. Along with a lot of private businesses just stopping those practices due to protests, boycotts and so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #69)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:04 PM

70. For enforcement purposes,

the 4th Amendment would come into play. I've been looking for the Minnesota statute and court cases but have been unable to find them. I do know that an apartment dweller can leagally have firearmes in their apartment in Minnesota.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #70)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:16 PM

72. There is the federal fair housing act and many states have Renters' Rights laws.

I do not doubt that Minnesota has passed laws that make it illegal for landlords to prohibit firearms. Most states do have Renters' Rights laws that dictate when and under what circumstances a landlord can enter your apartment and how much notice they must give. That's pretty common.

But the 4th Amendment all on its own does not forbid a private search on private property.

People in this country are very confused about what the Constitution does and does not cover. It explicitly covers government actions. None of the Constitution nor the first 10 amendments commonly known as The Bill of Rights are limits on private entities. The US Congress, state and local authorities have all had to pass laws that extend those rights to cover private businesses and entities.

As I mentioned. The 14th Amendment made the African American slaves citizens and provided that the US government could not discriminate. It did not prevent private entities from discriminating. If it had we would never have had sit-ins at lunch counters, and signs in business windows that said the business only served whites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #72)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:21 PM

73. It is not legal for

a landlord to search an apartment. When , I brought up enforcement, I was referring to law enforcement, but that would happen only if the landlord called the cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #73)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:30 PM

76. You better read your state and local laws and any rental agreement you enter into.

It's perfectly legal for a landlord to enter and search an apartment they own as long as they comply with state and local laws. Most states require the landlord should have cause to enter the apartment. Such as for repairs or to inspect it on some regular basis to ensure the tenant is abiding by the "usual wear and tear" clauses in the rental agreement or to change the filters on HVAC systems or for a variety of other common causes. Yes, in most places, it's not legal for your landlord to randomly stop in and search your apartment for no reason or cause. But that has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment protections you enjoy from the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #76)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:50 PM

80. no they don't

they have to give 24 hour notice for routine maintenance like changing filters. They have no right to open the door for the cops without a warrant, and they have no right to go through your stuff. They have no right to search. Even searching military barracks requires a warrant (which is different than an inspection. An inspection is going to every room, a search is going specifically going to your room. The same applies to military family housing.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #80)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:27 PM

86. I think you fail to see I agree with you.

As I said, most states or localities have renters' rights laws or privacy laws that prevent landlords from randomly entering or searching a rental dwelling. The length of time of the notice varies from place to place. If those laws were not in place then there would be no protection against such actions under the 4th Amendment since it doesn't apply to private entities.

I cannot speak to military barracks as I am not familiar with what applies to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #86)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:47 PM

87. My bad

I learned from living in them, and general military knowledge, including UCMJ, is one of the two promotion tests the USAF gives. The other is specific to your job.

What I found was that the US and Canada have the same policies concerning personal firearms on base. Barracks residents must keep them in unit armory when not at the range or hunting, those living in family housing may keep them in their homes, but must be registered with the military police unit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #76)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:50 PM

88. I know the 4th

does not apply to the landlord, it does apply to the cops, so the landlord cannot call the cops if they find a gun.

A landlord has reasomable access, that does not include searching, such as going through drawers and under furniture.

If I were an apartment dweller I would have the laws readily available. I do know it is illegal for a landlord in Minnesota to restrict a tenant from possessing a firearm in their home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #88)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:09 PM

137. What on earth makes you think the landlord can't call the police?

If your landlord enters your dwelling legally or illegally (but not at the behest of the authorities) and sees illegal activity taking place they can most certainly call the police. Then the police have a reason to present to the judge for a warrant. The same goes for any building maintenance people or outside vendors who do work there.

All the landlord has to do is say "I was in there for a repair" or "I smelled smoke" or "I accidentally entered the wrong apartment" or some similarly "reasonable" excuse for being in there to keep him/herself out of trouble with privacy and renters' rights laws. Whether or not the landlord is lying it has no bearing on the police actions. If they get an unsolicited tip from your landlord, then get a warrant and do a legal search they're in compliance with the 4th. Any illegal activity they find is subject to prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #137)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 01:42 PM

144. What illegal activity?

I never said anything about illegal activity. The landlord cannot just enter your apartment at will. Sure, if there is a fire, or a bathtub running over, but I'm not talking about an emergency. The landlord has to give you notice to enter your apartment if they are going to do so when you are not home. Of course these laws vary by state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 01:18 AM

103. What about in college dorms?

I think most colleges have outlawed guns in dorms. Not sure if the legal basis is the same as an apartment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #103)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 02:19 AM

107. I do know that college dorms are not covered by the

the Minnesota law that allows aparment dwellers to possess firearms in their homes. Believe it or not, many Minnesota colleges have special gun lockers for students' to store their guns. I think they are restricted to long guns used primarily for hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:56 PM

68. The constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT - NOT PRIVATE entities.

The apartment owner is well within their rights to make rules for their private apartment complex - at any time. As long as they're not in violation of any agreements they signed with the renters by making a new rule they don't have a problem.

Private entities such as your employer, your church, your private school, bars, restaurants, amusement parks the local grocery and other stores and malls are all free to deprive you of your "constitutional rights" on their private property. You have no right to privacy, free speech, or against self-incrimination from private entities. Your employer is free to question you and fire you if won't answer questions. You have no 5th amendment rights from them. Your employer can search you locker or desk at work, or your company-provided vehicle. They don't need a warrant. Private entities are free to throw you out of their establishment based on your speech. Even political speech.

So sorry, no lawyers are going to make a "shitload" of money off this because the apartment owner isn't doing anything illegal, unethical or inappropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:30 AM

100. None of those places are a persons' dwelling- and that makes a huge difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 02:53 AM

109. Well, hold on there...

You're exactly right about the constitution protecting us from the government, but generally not from private entities (The 13th Amendment, for example, has protected citizens, in some cases, from the discriminatory policies of private entities). You're wrong, though, about the apartment complex owner not doing something illegal, because the owner IS the government (county housing authority), and, as you've so nicely established, the government can't ban renters from possessing guns inside their public-housing units.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #109)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:24 PM

138. You're right on the 13th Amendment

I'll concede that it does appear to apply directly to private entities on a broad reading. For reference it says:

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When I researched case law it does back up your comment. It looks like the 13th Amendment has been used against private employers who instituted de facto slavery. This has typically ended up being minorities who were the brunt of the actions.

In the posts to which I responded I did not see anywhere that the complex is owned by the housing authority - my bad. That certainly puts a different light on things. If that's the case then the landlord's rules must be subject to review by some board. If that board is wise they will invalidate the rule and save everyone a lot of time and money by avoiding the obvious legal challenges to the rule. Though, I am not at all versed on how the courts have treated publicly-owned properties and tenants in the past. I'll have to research that but I won't be surprised if they've allowed some sort of "public safety" type of exception in those cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #138)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:36 PM

139. Policy has already been rescinded.

 

the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership

"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,"



Apparently Ross Management instituted this policy without the knowledge or consent the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #138)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:42 PM

140. There is some precedence for the overturning of public housing gun bans.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/05/us/high-court-in-maine-overturns-ban-on-guns-in-public-housing.html

High Court in Maine Overturns Ban on Guns in Public Housing
Published: April 05, 1995


Maine's highest court struck down a 20-year state ban on guns in public housing projects today in a case that has been watched as a test of the ability of public housing agencies to restrict guns to prevent violence.

Sidestepping the constitutional issue of the right to bear arms, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine ruled, 6 to 0, that the Portland Housing Authority lacked authority under state law to regulate the possession of guns.

A 1989 state law gave the state exclusive authority to regulate guns. And in a state where hunting is popular, it is unlikely that the Maine Legislature will enact a ban on guns in the projects.


Colorado has a state pre-emption law except for Denver County/City.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tumtum (Reply #140)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 01:05 PM

143. Thanks for the info. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:25 PM

4. Businesses can do it.

Why not property owners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:29 PM

5. perhaps because for the same reason a store owner

can go anywhere in the business he wants, where he wants. Apartment owners can not. A store or a factory is not the same as an apartment building. IOW, you are saying renters have no rights within their homes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:36 PM

7. I rent.

And I have to abide by the rules the landlord sets out for me. I dont get to treat it as if its my home because its not mine. Im just living in it. Living by the landlords rules are part of renting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:51 PM

10. Legally, it *is* your home, and there's lots of case law to back that up.

Granted, landlords have certain rights as property owners- but those don't include
the right to arbitrarily decide what Constitutional rights you do and do not have in your own home

A commenter at the link in the OP put it best, I think:

Your home is not the same thing as a place of business and there is a recognized level of sovereignty involved with where someone lives. Note ownership is not a prerequisite for exercising rights. First there is already established case law stating all out bans on firearms in the home is unconstitutional. Second there is already established case law stating any portion of a contract that signs away someones constitutional protected civil liberties is invalid. This property management company is in for a big loss in court. Bet on it.


Suppose your landlord was a Freeper and declared that you couldn't post 'unacceptable'
(to them) things online, or decided that LBGT people or Muslims were no longer allowed.

Would you accept that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:07 PM

12. Of course I wouldnt accept that.

Discrimination is illegal. Not to mention extremely idiotic and rude. I do have a crazy RWinger who has guns living right below me though. So perhaps my living situation is coloring my views on this.

If bans of firearms in homes has been deemed unconstitutional, then it looks like this guy doesnt have anything to worry about. I wanst aware of that fact. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:23 PM

15. His only worry is how to spend his share of the settlement from the management company.

Unless, of course some higher-up uses more than three brain cells and realizes this is a
guaranteed loser in court...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:36 PM

18. And just imagine the lawsuit the complex would face...

if one of those gun-free apartments got broken into or someone got assaulted by and intruder. The victim would own that place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:44 PM

61. Not equivalent...your gun can cause actual physical damage to property

much like a pet or cigarettes can...however your posting on the Internet cannot cost the landlord physical damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:57 PM

11. which are limited to things that affect the property

like what color to paint the walls or how many cats you can have. Guns don't sharpen their claws on the door cases, and new guns don't leave stains in the carpet.
There are also health and safety codes that if you don't follow the rules, the owner would be in trouble with code enforcement.
There is also the ex post facto issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:12 PM

13. lol. Good points.

Im curious as to what prompted the landlord to this and how he thinks he can enforce it. He certainly doesnt have the right to go into each apartment and search it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:46 PM

63. He doesn't have the right to search for drugs either....but if he finds out you have them....

it's to the curb you go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #63)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:05 PM

71. For sure.

And the cops in our town wouldnt hesitate to tell them either. They actually sent our landlord a letter ratting us out over a noise complaint made by our asshole downstairs neighbors. They were pissed off that we wouldnt let them search the house when they came to tell us to be quiet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:05 PM

24. but guns never cause holes in floors, walls, ceilings, furnishings, tenants......

gotta stand up for the rights of them gun-humpin' bullet-heads to plug folks, yeppers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 03:58 PM

38. guns don't do that on their own

and most of the time, the gun comes from outside.
Cats on the other hand, do act on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #38)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 04:56 PM

40. damage done is damage done.....

and a gun does a lot more damage to a tenant than a cat does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #40)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 05:17 PM

41. so does a large knife

more so at close range. Besides, I seriously doubt the landlord is concerned about the very rare negligent discharge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:17 PM

49. I could think of a few landlords who are...

myself, being one of them. I really don't like bullet holes in my walls or ceilings or tenants or anyone else, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:48 PM

64. Rare? Do you read the news?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #64)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:54 PM

81. statistically rare

In a journalism class I took years ago the first lesson was "dog bites man isn't news, but man bites dog is" IOW, if it were common, it wouldn't be news and not reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:16 PM

44. You lost it at "gun-humpin"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #44)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:19 PM

50. would you have preferred "barrel-fellatin'"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #50)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:24 PM

151. Still just as juvenile

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:45 PM

62. and uns NEVER cause physical damage to property right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:19 PM

28. By an employer

denying a woman birth control they are essentially saying a woman has no right over her own body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:39 PM

8. rooms to let, 50 cents

micaelS: You would expect bullshit like this in an anti-gun state, but not in Colorado. Hopefully an attorney or one of the RKBA organizations will step forward and help fight this.

Yeah, maybe while they're at it they can mandate a new bill REQUIRING everybody to OWN a gun. That would pose no problem, eh? can't infringe on rkba if everybody has one right?
Show them colorado upstarts what's what, can't mess with 2nd Amendment mythology & ban guns, so make em required everywhere. Like in Kennesaw Joja. You don't want one? sorry the law here says you gotta have one, it's our armed fantasy doctrine.

link.. 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?"

54 days, and counting. Kinda like chicago, on a microcosmic scale.
.. and like apartments with 'no pets' policies.
Rooms to let, fifty cents
No guns, no pool, no pets - I ain't got no cigarettes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:40 PM

9. Can I get some vinaigrette and extra croutons to go with that salad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:15 PM

26. GREAT!

I hope this takes hold, and landlords can control these nuts. I know if I had a rental property, I would NOT rent to a gun owners. Welcome to Tobacco Land gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:18 AM

113. Because obviously gun owners need to be controlled.

Thanks for affirming the adage, "It's not about guns, it's about control."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 06:13 PM

149. In other news, water is wet.

"Welcome to Tobacco Land gun nuts."

As if it hasn't been clear for over a decade, that there are fundamentalist puritanical zealots who dislike guns no matter how low the misuse numbers get...or something...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:29 PM

31. My mother has this rule in her building.

Her husband shot himself in our home and ever since then, you may not step foot on her property with a firearm unless you are law enforcement. She suffers greatly from PTSD as she watched his brain matter explode out of his head into her face. If you don't like it you can move or put your firearms in storage off site. You want to keep guns, buy your own damn property and keep them there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:41 PM

32. So what? It's private ownership.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:56 PM

34. The latest info I accessed indicated that these units are condos.

If they are owner occupied, the association probably has no standing for any such rules. Additionally, any rules such as those may be unenforceable and possibly illegal depending on state law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 03:25 PM

36. Some additional material and a very good discussion...

Now, before some folks go ape, this site may support views to your liking. In any case, the discussion on this topic is highly informative and intelligent; Uncle is known to keep a tight hand on the throttle, I understand. One comment, posted below, gets to the heart of the matter, and suggests possible consequences in case law.

http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/02/03/renting-and-guns/

Ian Argent Says:
February 3rd, 2011 at 8:04 pm
@Borepatch’s view is mine, as well. I just thrashed a similar issue out in comments at Snowflakes. The landlord is free to prohibit by contract. If he does he is liable for affirmatively defending the tenant(s) and securing his premises to the “disarm” line; and providing safe, secure, and convenient storage so that the tenat’s right to bear arms off the property is not infringed.

I somehow doubt that most landlords would prohibit under those circs…

The problem is that currently, the “common” law is that the landlord’ sinaction in banning guns from the property is likely actionable, and a “prohibition” clause is considered effective. This needs to change.

- See more at: http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/02/03/renting-and-guns/#sthash.uWURSBCy.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 03:35 PM

37. I don't see how they'd enforce something like that. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Inkfreak (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 05:39 PM

42. Same way a landlord would enforce a no pets

or a no kids rule.

If the landlord or someone representing him/her sees a gun, out goes the tenant.

And before you get all second amendment on me, remember that the second amendment limits government interference with the RTBA, but says nothing about the private sector. Just as the first amendment limits the government's ability to limit your speech, but says nothing about whether your boss or landlord can prohibit certain types of speech at the workplace or on his/her property.

I doubt any court is going to prohibit the right of a landlord (or condo association) to make these kinds of rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #42)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:25 PM

51. "And before you get all second amendment on me" lol

I planned on doing no such thing. I merely asked a question. I'd say that keeping a pistol or rifle out of sight would be significantly easier than a pet. As for legality, I have no clue. But I bet some lawyers will be making some cash on arguing this in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Inkfreak (Reply #51)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:33 PM

77. "But I bet some lawyers..."

Sounds like a safe bet to me!

Yeah, I imagine hiding a gun would be easier than hiding a pet (or a kid).

I was reacting to some of the other comments on this thread. Didn't mean to be snarky.

Best wishes,

Thucy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 05:58 PM

43. What happened to

standing up to corporate power? These apartments are owned by California based corporation. I thought individual rights trumping corporate power was a progressive value?
The individual and constitutional rights should always trump corporate property rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:19 PM

45. It doesn't fit the anti gun agenda

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:29 PM

48. While clearly aimed at

gun owner, it is an open door to evict any "undesirable"
firearms and weapons are prohibited.

weapon: an object or instrument used in fighting

So any tenant with a gun, pepper spray, baseball bat, knife (like in a kitchen).... may be evicted under this policy.

Anyone else see how this can be selectively enforced?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #48)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:30 PM

55. IMO gun owners are the ultimate "undesirable" neighbor

Because their guns increase my chance of getting shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #55)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:34 PM

57. So are you ok

with other ways this may be used?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:30 PM

54. GOOD! If they own the property....they HAVE the right to prohibit them.

they can prohibit you from owning a pet because of property damage....ipso facto...guns. Good for them! "Stand your ground" Apartment owners....the renters can just go live someplace where their weapons are wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #54)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:36 PM

58. By putting in place such prohibitions...

do you believe property owners are than legally liable for their tenant's safety?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #58)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:40 PM

60. they are facing property damage...and THAT's why.

It's their property ....they write the rules. Gun ownership is a choice...it's not like gender or race....You can choose not to own guns. If hotels can be non-smoking...then apartments can be non-firearm.

I love how much this issue scares the RKBA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #60)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:51 PM

65. I am not only speaking of guns...

the policy says weapons, which would include stun guns, pepper spray, Louisville sluggers if no kids are in the household and so on.

So by requiring a weapon free property should the landlord have the responsibility for the resident's safety?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #65)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:54 PM

66. and your point is?

Is the landlord responsible if you have a gun and get killed by a robber coming through their window? No....so...

Is the landlord responsible if you cannot own a dog and get broken in to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #66)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:29 PM

75. I think it is clear

Is the landlord responsible if you have a gun and get killed by a robber coming through their window?

In this case the victim had an option. If the land lord prohibits that option, how much responsibility should the land lord take on?

Is the landlord responsible if you cannot own a dog and get broken in to?
That would be a property issue and different from a self defense issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #75)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 03:00 PM

146. Not if you want to own a dog for self defense it is not different.

It's certainly one of the main reasons I have always had one and have never been broken into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #65)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 07:55 PM

67. Pepper spray is non-lethal, guns are not. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #67)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:24 PM

74. Pepper spray is defined as a weapon

and therefore banned under this policy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #67)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:57 PM

82. there are no non-lethal weapons

the military uses the term "less than lethal" for a good reason. Pepper spray can kill someone with asthma or high on cocaine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #54)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:42 AM

102. kind of hard to enforce

If you keep it low key, like a person should. If rhey ask aay no. That's it. They can't go rummaging through your property anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:49 PM

79. First off, this is great step forward.

I love it when people exercise their rights not to have their heads blown off by some crazy person/careless person/innocent child.

And given that thousands of places of business apply similar restrictions, it seems that (in the abstract) this is perfectly lawful.

A tiny step, I know, but we all know the saying about 'the journey of a thousand miles.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #79)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:02 PM

83. the apartment building is not owned by people

it is owned by a corporation. Corporations are not people my friend.

Those restrictions will do what exactly? Oh, the once in 50 years careless person. It isn't going to stop a crazy person, since they tend to walk past "gun free zone" signs with their weapons. If your theory is correct, Newtown, Aurora, Portland mall, wouldn't have happened. Oh, then there is every day in Chicago and Camden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #83)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 10:59 PM

91. I proposed no theory.

I simply stated that (IMO) living in an apartment complex that bans guns is inherently superior to living in one that doesn't. And that if this starts a trend, it would be a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #91)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:19 PM

93. I disagree

any place where a corporation bans any personal freedom, especially those specified in the Constitution, is inferior and have no place in a liberal society. It is the kind of authoritarianism that are antithetical to true liberalism.
I don't see it starting a trend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #83)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:29 PM

96. I would guess it has to do with liability...

If guns are prohibited on the property through a contract with the tenants, and the owner additionally does some due diligence inspecting the tenant's premises on at least an annual basis, then, if a mishap involving a tenant-owned-gun (or guest of a tenant) occurs on the property, the landlord has a good chance of not being held liable for damages in any lawsuit that arises from a tenant breaking the 'no guns' part of the contract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #96)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:44 PM

97. no it doesn't.

and the building manager can't search for any guns or anything else. How would a landlord by liable for something he had no part of? it is like the stupid "sue the gun manufactures" strategy. When Brady was allowed to do them, none of them had merit and would have lost if they went to court. What they did was force companies to pay legal fees to defend themselves against them in hopes of a settlement. That is how SLAPP suits work, which is where Brady lawyers got the idea. If some tenant did something stupid, the landlord is not liable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #96)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:47 PM

98. Are you sure

your proposed 'annual inspecrions' are legal? Renters have privacy rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #98)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 01:40 AM

104. Absolutely.

Just abide by your state laws as to any required prior notice to the tenant and put it in your lease contract. Former property manager here and also tenant for many years, so I've dealt with it in contracts on both sides. You've never encountered property maintenance/cleanliness/upkeep inspections in a residential unit you've rented?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #104)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 02:23 AM

108. I have

rented apartments in two states (MN and WI). I have rented several apartments in the past. In no apartment have I ever had an 'inspection' of an apartment while I was a tenant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #79)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:18 PM

85. So some elderly person or the average woman has little or no chance ...

to defend themselves against a much larger or physically fit attacker and almost no chance of surviving an attack by an individual armed with a club, knife or gun without suffering serious injury or death.

I guess you favor survival of the fittest. The weakest members of the herd are simply out of luck.

I suggest we work together to do our best that to insure that only honest, responsible, sane and well trained individuals own firearms but I suspect you will disagree.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #85)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:03 PM

92. It provides an alternative for those who believe that living surrounded by guns . . .

Is nuts.

If your theoretical elderly person wants to live surrounded by guns, god knows there're enough places that'd make that easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #92)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:35 AM

101. That's a fair point. I would never live there. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 10:40 PM

89. Policy banning firearms is thrown out

http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=349123

Excellent results.

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

"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.

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #89)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 09:31 AM

119. If I'm reading this correctly,

 

Ross Management, without the knowledge or permission of the Douglas County Housing Partnership, implemented this no guns policy all on their own?

Are they stupid? Did they think that the Douglas County Housing Partnership wouldn't find out?

Ross Management should be fired and another management company brought in that won't attempt to violate citizens rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tumtum (Reply #119)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:42 AM

123. Seems that way.

Since they won't answer questions, then we have to assume this was something they cooked up all on their own.

And yes, their management of properties should be immediately terminated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #123)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:05 AM

126. I'm speculating that there are some asses with bite marks on them

 

over at Ross Management this morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tumtum (Reply #126)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:10 AM

128. Well maybe not.

If it came direct from Corporate, I'm willing to bet it was approved by the Rosses, who own the company. I would be willing to bet this is something they cooked up, and thought they could slip it into effect without anyone noticing it until it was too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tumtum (Reply #119)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:22 AM

133. It's already happening

 

Expect in less than a month they will be released from their contracts.

They kicked a hornets nest and it will cost this management company big time. Expect them to rebrand and or spin off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #133)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:26 AM

135. Good.

 

This kind of shit shouldn't be tolerated, especially when they go after seniors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 10:53 PM

90. Bad news that this good news did not last

Kudos to Oakwood Apartments for trying to have a sensible gun policy. Most of us in Colorado would love to live in a place that outlaws guns in all residences, schools, and public places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #90)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:22 PM

94. You realize it was a decision from

a corporate office in California don't you? That is not a sensible gun policy. Most people in your neighborhood or your circle of friends and acquaintances maybe, but I doubt most people in Colorado.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #94)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 02:07 AM

106. No, the company is based in Colorado.

A simple google search brought up their website:

Ross Management Group
4251 Kipling St., Suite 405
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033

http://www.ross-management.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #106)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 09:39 AM

120. the management company

is Ross Management. There is a California based real estate company with a similar name

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #90)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:26 PM

95. Just to be clear...

Total ban=sensible

outlaws guns in all residences, schools, and public places

In other words, outlaw guns

Do I have it right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #90)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:22 AM

99. -3 for not using the terms "gun safety", "reasonable" and "common sense".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #90)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 02:54 AM

110. Uh...what?

"Most of us in Colorado would love to live in a place that outlaws guns in all residences, schools, and public places."

"Most of us...?"

You got a citation for that, or is it...an opinion...an assertion... which does not successfully mesh with reality in any way that might be considered accurately representative?

On edit: Perhaps I wasn't fair with you.

Who exactly is "most of us"?

"Most of us gun control supporters?"

Surely you didn't mean "most of us Coloradans".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 06:55 AM

111. Isn't it great to be made a unwilling victim...how noble of them.

What other rights would they desire to strip away from there tenants ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:03 AM

112. 'anti-gun' california has more guns than all?

michaelS: Colorado of all places. You would expect bullshit like this in an anti-gun state, but not in Colorado.

Funny the way you all refer to states & people as 'anti gun' this or that; California perhaps has more legally owned (or not) guns inside it's state borders than any other state in the united states, but it's 'anti-gun' since it has stricter guncontrol laws.
What I think is gunworld & nra & gun lobby should boycott gun sales to california since it's so anti-gun, until they cease & desist all that anti-gun policy they gots in anti-gun california.
Instead gunmakers should ship more & more guns to pro gun louisiana, which has the highest murder rate of any state in the union; surely gunnuts must argue more guns needed in louisiana rather than california with it's lower murder rate.

Wonder, does that make Chrysler Corporation 'anti-car' since it's foreign owned now by fiat? or anti-american-car? oh I know, anti-freedom to tea baggers, am I right?
I think the reversal on the apartment 'complex decision' might've opened a pandora's box, wonder if other managements will do similar in future & stick by it until reversed or upheld by a court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:11 AM

129. No bullshit,

and little promise in fighting this. Tenants must do what landlord requires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #129)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:20 AM

131. Utter, total and complete bullshit.

And it has already been stopped. Deborah Ross' company only manages it, they DO NOT own the property. Ross fucked up on a cosmic scale.

http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=349123

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,"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #129)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:24 AM

134. It's already been rescinded.

 

http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=349123

"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."


Apparently Ross Management overstepped their authority by implementing a policy not approved by the the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:21 AM

132. The landlord cannot change the terms of the lease unilaterally.

If it is month-to-month, the landlord needs only provide a one month notice. In either case, I am wondering how the landlord will enforce this. They do not have the right to search tenants' apartments willy nilly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #132)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:29 AM

136. It wasn't even the landlord that did this,

 

it was the management company, Ross Management, who did this without the consent of the owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:50 PM

141. In case anyone is still interested, I found the Minnesota law that allows renters to have guns

in their apartments without restriction from their landlord.

Minnesota’s permit-to-carry law allows any homeowner or renter to prohibit firearms from being
brought into the person’s residence at any time and allows the resident to provide notice in any
manner. A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their
guests. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 17(d) and (e).

(d) This subdivision does not apply to private residences. The lawful possessor of a private residence may prohibit firearms, and provide notice thereof, in any lawful manner.
(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #141)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 12:53 PM

142. Thanks for that link.

 

Here in AZ, our restrictions are few and far between.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 01:42 PM

145. They changed their minds.

Common sense prevailed

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.

"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,"


http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread