Skip to comments.Colorado Apartment Building Tells Tenants They Have to Get Rid of Their Guns — or Leave
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 hell 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 hes afraid hell lose his home if he doesnt go along with the new rule. Hes a hunter and has a concealed carry permit.
Dorsch, whos 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 cant 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.
I hope they like their new Section 8 tenants.
And the NRA should jump in. The little Nazis in the management office cannot force you to give up your rights to stay there.
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.
Somebody should put a big sign in the yard: BUILDING WILL BE GUN-FREE SOON! NO GUNS WILL BE HERE AT ALL!
This will explode in this management company’s face. Lawyer fest coming soon.
Or an even simpler sign: TENANTS UNARMED!
Pretty sure the US Constitution trumps the management company handbook and lease document.
How would that benefit the residents who are being forced to give up their guns.
Be a pretty good lawsuit if someone is raped/robbed and had no way to protect themself.
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.
Sounds like a great opportunity for another landlord to announce he WELCOMES ONLY gun-permit holders.
guess which place gets robbed first?
Armed home invasions are rare compared to no one at home burglaries.
How is this different than “No blacks allowed?”
I would only say your last three words.
Having veterans, police officers, and good solid citizens - living in any complex - is a good situation.
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??
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.)
“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.
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.
This is going to get interesting. State law forbids governments from trampling firearms rights but it says nothing about private contracts and property.
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.
Burglars and home invaders take notice.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm amazed at how many people on this thread do not realize the Bill of Rights applies only to the Government.
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.”
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.
Yep. They have. The landlord just rang the dinner bell for the predators.
"The Oakwood Apartments of Castle Rock: Burglars Welcome!"
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?
Holy cow, I can't tell you how glad I am that no one was in my office when I read that. Bwahahahahahaha!!!
It’s a private company, not the government.
This is probably a month-to-month lease.
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.
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
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....
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.