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.
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....
I bet property owners still have to rent to unmarried couples, gays, etc.
Interesting question. There are housing discrimination laws on the books to prevent that. Do we need laws that prevent discrimination against gun owners? You won't find a more ardent 2a proponent than me, but I also believe in property rights. The 2a restricts congress not private property owners.
From a properties right perspective, I really don't have a problem with "No Blacks Allowed", "No Muslims Allowed", or anything else not allowed. Property owners just need to live with consequences of their decision. I will take that any day over a law imposed by government.
If you look at this from a for profit business perspective (like a store operating in a community), the question would be , can a business restrict firearms on it’s property. From what I understand of the laws in Colorado, that is permissible under the current law.
However, if you look at this from a providing a publicly available service, you could no more deny gun owners than Christians, or Latinos, or other sub-group.
This should be an interesting legal argument / precedent. If gun owners play this right, it could set a legal precedence that gun owners are no different than any other group or class of people. And it could work to limit the restrictions on people legally exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
HOWEVER, it is also possible that the precedence works against gun owners in that it would allow any business that has any type of “interest” to deny service to gun owners. Examples might include insurance companies denying health coverage; auto insurance policies that disclaim coverage while you have a firearm in the car; Doctors able to refuse patients because they are a gun owner; etc.
This will need to be watched closely.
not when it comes to certain fundamental rights. For example, a private newspaper can not publish a ccw permit list even though it is private.
As the USSC stands now, a private bedroom activity can not be prohibited by a landlord.
A landlord can not discriminate based on religious belief or matters of conscious.
You can’t fall into the left wing “privledge not right” trap. Heller REestablished the second as a fundamental right. It is no different than the landlord MANDATING waiver of fourth amendment rights by apartment dwellers.
I am a supporter of private property and contract rights, so I must support the owner of the property with this decision. However, I don’t like it and I think that they should simply write it into new leases after the expiration of current leases.
That said, under the currently established civil rights laws that don’t allow for private property owners to discriminate based on other civil protections, I have to wonder why some civil rights are acceptable for discrimination while others are not.
It depends on what’s in the lease.
Both times in my life where I’ve had apartments there were clauses in the leases where mgmt could make certain policy changes at their discretion. They just had to give a defined amount of notice. I remember that there were some, one prohibiting transportation of bicycles in anything other than the freight elevator.
Plaintiff’s lawyers are entitled to attorney fees. The landlord is going to make an expensive discovery because he listend to a left wing nutjob lawyer.
That is the single most brilliant idea I've read on the internet today.
The ACLJ refuses 2nd Am cases, dealing only with 1st Am issues.
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 and not racist?
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.