Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Colorado Apartment Building Tells Tenants They Have to Get Rid of Their Guns or Leave
The Blaze ^ | 8/7/13 | Madeleine Morgenstern

Posted on 08/07/2013 9:07:17 AM PDT by MissTed

An apartment complex in Colorado has news for tenants: get rid of your guns, or get out. Colorado Apartment Building Tells Tenants They Have to Get Rid of Their Guns or Leave

Art Dorsch said he’ll either have to give up his guns or move out of his apartment. (Image source: KUSA-TV)

The Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, Colo. sent notice to residents last week of a new provision banning all “firearms and weapons” from the premises, KUSA-TV reported. Tenants have until Oct. 1 to comply.

Art Dorsch, a 77-year-old retired Marine Corps veteran, told KUSA he’s afraid he’ll lose his home if he doesn’t go along with the new rule. He’s a hunter and has a concealed carry permit.

Dorsch, who’s living on a fixed income, said managers told him he has three options: get rid of his guns and stay, keep his guns and move out voluntarily, or keep his guns and be forced out.

“It upsets me very much,” Dorsch told the station.

He said he keeps his guns secured in a safe and that having them makes him feel secure in his home.

“They want to take them all away from me, they say I can’t live here,” he said. Colorado Apartment Building Tells Tenants They Have to Get Rid of Their Guns or Leave

The Oakwood Apartments in Colorado sent notice to residents last week. (Image source: KUSA-TV)

KUSA legal analyst Scott Robinson said courts have generally supported landlords’ rights to impose “reasonable regulations” on their tenants.

“The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the U.S. Constitution?” Robinson told KUSA.

The Ross Management Group, which manages the Oakwood Apartments, declined to comment to KUSA. Castle Rock is just south of Denver.

As the debate over gun control raged through the country, Colorado this year passed controversial new legislation limiting ammunition magazines and imposing universal background checks on all gun buyers.

July 20 marked the one-year anniversary since a shooter massacred 12 people and injured 70 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: banglist; blackkk; colorado; florida; georgezimmerman; guncontrol; secondamendment; trayvonmartin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last
Would be a good case for the ACLJ
1 posted on 08/07/2013 9:07:17 AM PDT by MissTed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MissTed

I hope they like their new Section 8 tenants.


2 posted on 08/07/2013 9:09:10 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

And the NRA should jump in. The little Nazis in the management office cannot force you to give up your rights to stay there.


3 posted on 08/07/2013 9:10:00 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

I don’t think their rule would pass muster. They might be able to regulate shooting, carrying weapons in common areas, but once a lease is signed, that domicile becomes personal property, a home. If I had an existing lease with them, I’d tell them to go f@ck themselves.


4 posted on 08/07/2013 9:10:02 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Somebody should put a big sign in the yard: BUILDING WILL BE GUN-FREE SOON! NO GUNS WILL BE HERE AT ALL!


5 posted on 08/07/2013 9:10:15 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

This will explode in this management company’s face. Lawyer fest coming soon.


6 posted on 08/07/2013 9:10:41 AM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Or an even simpler sign: TENANTS UNARMED!


7 posted on 08/07/2013 9:10:56 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Pretty sure the US Constitution trumps the management company handbook and lease document.


8 posted on 08/07/2013 9:11:01 AM PDT by ilgipper (Obama is proving that very bad ideas can be wrapped up in pretty words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

How would that benefit the residents who are being forced to give up their guns.


9 posted on 08/07/2013 9:11:17 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Lawsuit,obviously


10 posted on 08/07/2013 9:11:43 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama Had A City It Would Look Like Detroit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Be a pretty good lawsuit if someone is raped/robbed and had no way to protect themself.


11 posted on 08/07/2013 9:12:08 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Apartment owners are required to make written contracts. If this isn’t in the written contract, the landlord cannot enforce it. I don’t think the landlord wins this one.

On the other hand, if the landlord starts putting it in writing as a term in future leases, they can do that. It’s their building.


12 posted on 08/07/2013 9:12:41 AM PDT by henkster (The 0bama regime isn't a train wreck, it's a B 17 raid on the rail yard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Sounds like a great opportunity for another landlord to announce he WELCOMES ONLY gun-permit holders.

guess which place gets robbed first?


13 posted on 08/07/2013 9:13:08 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Ping.


14 posted on 08/07/2013 9:13:38 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Armed home invasions are rare compared to no one at home burglaries.


15 posted on 08/07/2013 9:14:17 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

How is this different than “No blacks allowed?”


16 posted on 08/07/2013 9:14:32 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to thoe tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I would only say your last three words.


17 posted on 08/07/2013 9:14:51 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: george76; laplata

Ping


18 posted on 08/07/2013 9:15:40 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Having veterans, police officers, and good solid citizens - living in any complex - is a good situation.


19 posted on 08/07/2013 9:15:43 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Lie.

Lying is good.

After all, Smegmalips Obamadork has turned it into a religion.

The owner can most certainly come into the apartment, but he/she/it cannot force the owner to open locked boxes.

And the NRA should indeed get involved. If it’s OK for owners to ban guns within their buildings, then all govt owned apartments in Obama voter territory can also be banned, right?

And we all know how successful that ban would be.

How would rap stars get their toys??


20 posted on 08/07/2013 9:16:53 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Sounds like a great opportunity for another landlord to announce he WELCOMES ONLY gun-permit holders.

I'd offer a 5% rent discount to gun permit holders! (Because they would need to be squeaky-clean to pass the background checks. Probably much more likely than the average apartment renter.)

21 posted on 08/07/2013 9:18:36 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“How would that benefit the residents who are being forced to give up their guns.”

Because it would show the silliness and the danger of the proposal. It would wake up the tenants to contact the board or whatever that passed such a silly ordinance. Make them realize the actual ramifications of their new “law”: that the tenants in that building will be ripe and ready for robberies and crime etc.


22 posted on 08/07/2013 9:18:43 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
And the NRA should jump in.

I'm not sure the NRA is a good organization; it's been pushing for limited rulings when it was clear the broad rulings were very, or even more, more likely.
They don't get involved in no-profile/proactive state legal issues.
Plus the constant, consistent give us money letters.

I'm almost inclined to believe that they're the Gun Rights equivalent of the Republican Party: and everyone knows the Republican party is all talk and no action.

23 posted on 08/07/2013 9:19:05 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

This is going to get interesting. State law forbids governments from trampling firearms rights but it says nothing about private contracts and property.


24 posted on 08/07/2013 9:20:44 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

I would not want to live there. It has all the makings of a “come rob, rape and/or kill me” aura about it.

Even before I owned a gun, just living in a neighborhood where it was known that random/numerous homeowners were armed made me feel safer. I would not want to live in a building/neighborhood where it had gun free zone signs at the entrance.

I hope someone steps up to find these tenants a new home.


25 posted on 08/07/2013 9:21:00 AM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

BULLS-EYE!

KYPD


26 posted on 08/07/2013 9:21:35 AM PDT by petro45acp (It's a fabian thing.....how do you boil a frog? How's that water feelin right about now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Burglars and home invaders take notice.


27 posted on 08/07/2013 9:21:48 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

wanna bet the owners of Ross Management are gated community members.. that don’t make residents live gun free?

Colorado has faded into a smoky gunpowder free zone, not fit for man or beast to endure..


28 posted on 08/07/2013 9:21:56 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster
On the other hand, if the landlord starts putting it in writing as a term in future leases, they can do that. It’s their building.

However the law doesn't treat it that way for many other situations. Can the landlord refuse to rent to blacks, Hispanisc, Asians, unmarried women, families with children (narrow legal exception for seniors only communities), homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, communists, democrats or even ex-convicts? I think they would have a hard time excluding people for exercising an explicit Constitutional right.

29 posted on 08/07/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (This message has been recorded but not approved by Obama's StasiNet. Read it at your peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
Pretty sure the US Constitution trumps the management company handbook and lease document.

Actually it doesn't. The Constitution prohibits the government from abridging your right to keep and bear arms, but does not prohibit a property owner from infringing on said rights on their tenants. Now if it wasn't in the existing lease, they can't change the terms of the lease until it comes up for renewal. But on all new leases they can impose such a restrictions.

Frankly I would ignore such an idiotic provision if I lived there. Their only recourse if they find out you have guns is to evict you. And how are they going to find the guns if you don't tell them you have them?

This is just a publicity stunt and it is going to give them a lot of publicity. Bad publicity. They will lose a lot of good tenants over this and they will exchange them for really really really bad tenants.

30 posted on 08/07/2013 9:22:59 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

They PREFER Section 8 tenants. If you’re a working stiff, you could lose your job and stop paying. But the gov’t check is guaranteed.


31 posted on 08/07/2013 9:23:30 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

In my apartment complex, people are buying guns. WE live in a very good part of town, the complex is very attractive, beautifully landscaped, but gangs are trying to muscle into the neighborhoods on either side of us. As recently as last week, there was a gunfight in our parking lot at 2:30 a.m.

I called the police, they arrived 20 minutes later. Swell.

Next morning I learned that one woman had someone banging at her door trying to get in while the fight was going on. An elderly woman, a real sweetie, had to call the ambulance, as it threw her into shock. She did not even consider calling the police or asking that fingerprints be taken from her door.


32 posted on 08/07/2013 9:24:46 AM PDT by Veto! (Opinions freely expressed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Unconstitutional. Fight.


33 posted on 08/07/2013 9:25:22 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

The case law is mostly pre-heller.

The education process is to teach these landlords we are discussing a fundamental right. Secure in ones property includes the “property of rights”. It also flows to quiet enjoyment.

This is akin to saying no unmarried adults, no mixed race persons, no people of a certain religion, no religious displays INSIDE appartments etc.

The second amendment is no different than the other first nine amendments or the body of the constitution.


34 posted on 08/07/2013 9:26:48 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Didn’t we used to have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights in the USA? Seem to remember them from an American History class.


35 posted on 08/07/2013 9:26:50 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1Jn4:15;5:4-5,11-13;Mt27:50-54;Mk15:33-34;Jn3:17-18,6:69,11:25,14:6,20:31;Ro10:8-11;1Tm2:5-6;Ti3:4-7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

not just a good lawsuit, due to the fundamental right nature of the case the landlord must pay for opposing counsel fees DURING THE LAWSUIT even if he wins in the end.

His lawyer should be sued for malpractice.


36 posted on 08/07/2013 9:27:58 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

In 1989, I moved into an apartment in Charlotte, NC. When my roommate and I went to sign the lease agreement, we also were required to sign a form stating if we got pregnant, we would be required to move out within three months of the birth. I asked if the father lived in the complex would he have to leave as well and was told no. We both signed as we were to start our careers as flight attendants with the next few days and didn’t have the time to find another safe, acceptable place. While we didn’t plan on getting pregnant, it was just terrible to ‘suck it up’ and sign something that just felt so incredibly abusive against women. I wished I had fought it.


37 posted on 08/07/2013 9:28:29 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The Constitution prohibits the government from abridging your right to keep and bear arms, but does not prohibit a property owner from infringing on said rights on their tenants.

I'm amazed at how many people on this thread do not realize the Bill of Rights applies only to the Government.

38 posted on 08/07/2013 9:29:06 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

I would think current leases rule.

At the end of the current lease, depending on state law, the tenant could automatically go into a month-to-montuh lease without doing any paperwork (new lease contract), with 7 to 30 day notice from either party to terminate the m2m. Would depend on state law though.

The other possibility is to just lie.

“No ma’am...no guns here. Guns are evil.”


39 posted on 08/07/2013 9:29:36 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

I’m not for suing at the drop of a hat but this is one case that needs to be taken to court. Sue that guy until the building belongs to the tennants.


40 posted on 08/07/2013 9:29:46 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Yep. They have. The landlord just rang the dinner bell for the predators.


41 posted on 08/07/2013 9:29:53 AM PDT by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MissTed
New advertising slogan:

"The Oakwood Apartments of Castle Rock: Burglars Welcome!"

42 posted on 08/07/2013 9:30:25 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

My question is... was that on the lease contract both the tenant and P.O. signed? If not, how does the P.O. think an unsigned contractual change is enforceable?


43 posted on 08/07/2013 9:33:17 AM PDT by ScottinVA (If you don't care about Antonio Santiago, sure as hell don't whine about Trayvon Martin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
After all, Smegmalips Obamadork has turned it into a religion.

Holy cow, I can't tell you how glad I am that no one was in my office when I read that. Bwahahahahahaha!!!

44 posted on 08/07/2013 9:33:41 AM PDT by MissTed ( Private Tagline - Do Not Read!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

It’s a private company, not the government.


45 posted on 08/07/2013 9:33:51 AM PDT by wastedyears (One nation, under wub. Saints Row IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

This is probably a month-to-month lease.


46 posted on 08/07/2013 9:34:59 AM PDT by The Unknown Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Unconstitutional. Fight.

Wrong. A private property owner can do whatever they like via a lease in these circumstances.
47 posted on 08/07/2013 9:35:06 AM PDT by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Well my my my, thanks for gathering all of the unarmed little ducks into the same pond. Makes for happy hunting for the bad guys knowing they have an entire unarmed complex at their disposal.


48 posted on 08/07/2013 9:35:27 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Audentis Fortuna Iuvat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

That’s a good idea too

Good tenants are a jewel to find! They will easily make up for the 5% loss

The worst tenants I ever had were the libtard idiots


49 posted on 08/07/2013 9:37:07 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

RE: How is this different than “No blacks allowed?”

Here’s the constitutional issue....

Do individuals PRIVATELY doing business or forming clubs or organizations still have FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION? That is — Freedom to do business and associate with people we want to be associated with?

Is it the government’s job to IMPOSE ITS will on individuals and force them to do things they don’t want to do?

For instance, an individual is cruel, unkind and mean ( and even racist ). Is it the government’s job to FORCE the person to be kind and nice?

I think that’s the basic question....


50 posted on 08/07/2013 9:37:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson