CO Apt. Complex Bans Guns.

[silicosys4]

It is an evil and immoral position to disarm someone merely because it is their property and they wish to exert their limited authority. A person's life is more important than "authority" and certainly more important than anything relating to money.

Actually, that is one of the great benefits of being a property owner...having the authority to do what you please within legal boundaries, while on your own property.
I personally feel the right to bar someone from entering your private property for WHATEVER reason is just as important as RKBA.
the statement "a person's life is more important than "authority""... I completely disagree with, and is simply a scary proposition....smacks of "if it will save just one child's life"....and we all know how logically thought out that argument is.

 

[Old Fuff]

A public housing project outside of Chicago tried to prohibit tenants from keeping firearms, but lost in a federal court suit and gave up. It is unclear if this particular apartment complex has any connection to government grants or other support or not, but if they do they might be wide open.

Also, changing the terms of a lease without permission of the tenants can be shaky; Unless they’re a clause that expressly gives them that authority. When the lease expires that would be different.

 

[dogtown tom]

Queen_of_Thunder ......Once you open your property to the public like an apartment complex or business it really is no longer "private".

Really?
Wow. Just. Wow.

 

[dogtown tom]

Old Fuff A public housing project outside of Chicago tried to prohibit tenants from keeping firearms, but lost in a federal court suit and gave up....

They lost because the complex was public property, ie "publically owned".
The apartment property in the OP is clearly not a public housing project, but a well know private business.

 

[dogtown tom]

doc2rn Gentleman and Ladies if the company takes federal money they are bound by federal statutes not state. So US code Title 42 would apply to them.....

Absolute nonsense.
Title 42 is clear about who it applies too................and unless the business is operating "under color of law" it does not apply.

The ignorance of private property rights in this thread is appalling.

 

[silicosys4]

Really?
Wow. Just. Wow.

True, in a sense. You can no longer discriminate in certain ways when you are a business, regardless if you are located on private property.
As a property owner on private property, I can tell anybody to go pound sand, and bar people from coming onto my property..... just because I am a racist, or a bigot, or don't like Jehova's witnesses, or the disabled...truly despicable imo, but I can do it.

Try barring someone from your business on your "private" property because they are in a wheelchair
or catholic
or are a particular race
and see how long that lasts

 

[Arbo]

Then enlighten me.

I am not here to educate you, that is up to you.

 

[ngnrd]

Gun owners are not a protected class..

I don't understand this... Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected individual right. How is it possible that gun owners are not a 'protected class'?

I would expect that a landlord would not be able to ban the possession of firearms any more than they could ban Bibles, the Book of Mormon, or the Quran. Maybe my expectations are wrong. But, if I were in that position (which I - thankfully - am not), I would think seriously about pressing the issue and taking it to court. Regardless, I would consult with a Constitutional attorney - maybe a few.

 

[dogtown tom]

Arbo

Quote:
Then enlighten me.

I am not here to educate you, that is up to you.

So...........you really have no argument do you?

You posted a statute that is irrelevant to the situation.

 

[Grassman]

If I live there I'm moving quickly. Not for the anti gun stance, but for the publicity this story has gotten, every crook and thief within 50 miles will have this place in their sights.

 

[gym]

Thank You for contacting us. We will be in touch with you shortly.

Ross Management

I got the above response from them.

When I said if someone gets killed you have to understand that my realtor allowed dogs, and my dog bites if you enter my apartment without my being there, "There is no reason that makes any sense why they would need to enter an apartment with one or more dogs in it without notice. In fact it would not be for an outside contractor "like an exterminator" which was given as a reason in my case.
What exterminator would go into an apartment with a large dog alone?
Also if I have firearms in my dwelling, "allowed by the lease" I want someone to be responsible should whoever went in without my being there, broke in my safe, took a gun and killed someone with it.
Once presented with this, they just backed down and allowed me to change my locks and not give them the key. They also renewed my lease, although I had purchased a house by then.
Unless you stand up for yourself, you can end up in more trouble than before, either my dog get's lost, bites someone or possibly something gets stolen, If you want access to my dwelling you either get it by making an appointment, or you sign off on being responsible for anything that happens as a result of your entering when I am not there.
Many times it is an onsite Mgr. who makes up a rule to make his or her life easier. When you write a letter and someone has to take responsibility for the action they took, suddenly things change. Many of these developments are owned by large corporations who are not aware of what is happening unless brought to their attention.
I am not saying that this is the case with this one, but when people start to question the politics of why the notice was given, it might just not be worth their while to continue on with the new policy.
I never give my keys to anyone, it defeats the purpose of having a lock, or alarm.
Aside form the fact that if anyone came into my apartment while I was there sleeping or anything else, I could easily shoot them, as I have an expectation of privacy, who the heck has a right to enter my dwelling without first asking permission.

 

[grubbylabs]

Except they have access to your place 24/7 without a need to inform.......

How do you know this? Have you read up on what the land lords rights are, they vary from state to state. I know in my state I have to give 24 hour notice before entering. I cannot just walk in on my tenant.

And for those of you who think you loose property rights just because you are open to the public need to do a little research on private property rights as well. Business owners do have rights as to who they allow on property. I can't say for Co, but in Idaho if they have a no guns sign posted at the entrance they can have you removed and cited for trespass. I don't know how Co would handle something like that with an apartment complex.

The simple truth of the matter is that even if you do not agree with them, you still have to respect their rights as property owners. As has been said, no one is making any one live there.

 

[dogtown tom]

ngnrd

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneounceload
Gun owners are not a protected class..

I don't understand this... Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected individual right. How is it possible that gun owners are not a 'protected class'?

I would expect that a landlord would not be able to ban the possession of firearms any more than they could ban Bibles, the Book of Mormon, or the Quran. Maybe my expectations are wrong. But, if I were in that position (which I - thankfully - am not), I would think seriously about pressing the issue and taking it to court. Regardless, I would consult with a Constitutional attorney - maybe a few.

Because Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, physical or mental disability and religion.

 

[larryh1108]

It would seem that any lease that expires would have the new clause in it. Any current lease that does not state it cannot be amended without consent of both parties unless there is a clause that states the landlord can change the lease at any time for any reason without permission from the renter. I doubt many leases have that provision. However, know that when it comes time to renew your lease that the new firearm ban will be written into the lease and would be enforcable. Until then you have a valid lease that does not say they are banned.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

You DO understand that when you ALLOW others to LIVE on your property, under a lease, that that is their DOMICILE now, and they RETAIN certain rights, possibly even the right to defend themselves and to keep and bear arms for that purpose. To deny them the ability to defend themselves is a very touchy area. If you are providing adequate security, i.e. armed guards, then you might be able to restrict weapons. Otherwise, failing to adequately protect or secure such property while denying residents THEIR ability to do so could get real expensive real quick. And would it be worth it? Risking lives all in the name of a distrust or distaste for fireams?

 

[oneounceload]

How do you know this? Have you read up on what the land lords rights are, they vary from state to state. I know in my state I have to give 24 hour notice before entering. I cannot just walk in on my tenant.

Under normal conditions, that is true in many places; HOWEVER, in the case of an emergency a landlord has the right to enter. It might be a major plumbing leak while you are at work; an elderly person that hasn't been seen for a few days, or, in this case, the potential threat (in their view) that a gun owner might "go postal" (to use an old term); they can enter to see if you are in violation of various codes or doing illegal things like making meth or growing dope without a day's notice. add in natural disasters, etc., and a crafty mgr can gain access without your knowledge or consent

 

[grubbylabs]

or, in this case, the potential threat (in their view) that a gun owner might "go postal" (to use an old term);

You don't rent out property do you? I will guarantee you that if a land lord went into a property with such a week excuse they would loose in court and most all know and understand this. In most states a renters rights are fairly well protected and enforced.

 

[oneounceload]

To deny them the ability to defend themselves is a very touchy area. If you are providing adequate security, i.e. armed guards, then you might be able to restrict weapons. Otherwise, failing to adequately protect or secure such property while denying residents THEIR ability to do so could get real expensive real quick

Not really, cities with strict gun control do it all the time and the police, per SCOTUS, are under no obligation to protect you, merely try to apprehend after the fact. Remember, you CHOSE to live there and signed a contractual document stating you agree to the terms of that document - you are free to walk away, not enter into that agreement or decide to stay and accept those terms

 

[oneounceload]

I have before, and I have been a tenant before as well

 

[Stress_Test]

Most places the management can enter any time if necessary (for reasons given).

But really, are you leaving your guns lying around in plain sight when you leave your home?

(if so... DON'T)

Assuming your gun stuff is stashed away, then it's no big deal if the management comes in and looks around. If they start rooting through your stuff then that's a whole 'nother issue!

And on the leases I've signed, the owner can make changes to the contract if they give you notice and you agree. If you don't agree, then you settle up and part ways.

 

[martymcfly]

The policy will not be going into effect. Turns out the property was bought with the help of county and federal tax dollars. As a result the county stepped in and said the property management company can not implement the policy.

Probably more to come here, but at least for now folks can keep their firearms and "weapons" in their apartment. Weapons is a pretty broad term these days, wonder what all would have been covered here.

 

[oneounceload]

Probably things like pepper spray/mace, brass knuckles or similar, martial arts weapons, large hunting knives, etc.

Good news on not being implemented

 

[Stress_Test]

Here we just have a rule to the effect that we can't carry or display in a threatening manner in the common areas. Open carry might be dicey, but otherwise no issues.

 

[Arbo]

So...........you really have no argument do you?

You have confused refusing to do your homework for you as something else.

 

[Arbo]

The policy will not be going into effect. Turns out the property was bought with the help of county and federal tax dollars. As a result the county stepped in and said the property management company can not implement the policy.

Probably more to come here, but at least for now folks can keep their firearms and "weapons" in their apartment. Weapons is a pretty broad term these days, wonder what all would have been covered here.

Do you have a link to a story showing this? I can not find one.