Colorado renters told to toss guns or move out

The Washington Times ^ | August 7, 2013 | Cheryl K. Chumle

[yoe]

Renters at an apartment community just south of Denver are between a rock and a hard place, ordered by their landlord to either get rid of their weapons or move out.

The manager at Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, Colo., sent a notice to renters last week advising them of the new rule banning all “firearms and weapons” from the premises, a local news station reported.

Residents have until Oct. 1 to comply. The rule has one worried — and outraged.

Art Dorsch, 77, a Marine Corps veteran and avid hunter with a concealed carry permit, said he lives on a fixed income and can’t afford to move. But he said managers gave him three options: willingly remove the guns and stay, keep the guns and move, or keep the guns and wait to be forced to leave.

“It upsets me very much,” he told the station. “They want to take them all away from me. They say I can’t live here.”

[Tenacious 1]

Typical backwards ideology. In another example, I patronized an antique store recently. There was a large "No Weapons Allowed" sign posted at the entrance along with signs warning not to steal anything and perps will be prosecuted and all that. I had to ask the manager, "Is that sign applicable to folks that have a CCW license?" She said it was NOT. "It's to deter criminals."

Huh? I chuckled and asked her how many criminals she thought would ignore the law and all the other signs they had posted but think twice about the sign that said weapons were not allowed. She just shrugged.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

They were about to get sued halfway to Hell and back!

[showme_the_Glory]

I was at a business the other day and they had what looked like a valid 30.06, no guns sign by the front door. As I was leaving, I noticed on their upcoming events board, CHL classes room # 8, or something like that. Top Golf in Allen TX.

[Tenacious 1]

First the renter's rights as per constitution but also secondly the right of the owner to control his property as per his/her standards

The law (as I know it) takes residency much differently, especially where there is a contract in place. For instance, if a couple cohabits an apartment for a certain length of time, regardless of whose name is on the lease, they have to have one or the other "evicted" legally should they decide not to live together anymore and want to contend who should leave. Same goes for squatters.

A homeless person moves into an abandon house cannot be forced to leave unless it can be proved they forced entry. Sounds easy right? Not so fast. If the bum says the door was already opened and they didn't break in, it starts to get sticky, especially if the house has been abandon for some time.

[ArcadeQuarters]

This is a great idea because intruders, rapists and murderers will be required to leave their firearms outside.

[Doctor 2Brains]

Private property is private property. In any free society (which we don’t have) I should be able to ban you from my property because your eyelashes are 2 shades darker than I like, or because you admitted to at one time having thought about the stock price of Goodyear Tire and Rubber, or because I was visited in a dream by Xyzalindru who told me to ban you. The only relevant question at this point is what’s in the rental contract.

[Beagle8U]

That is no more legal than banning blacks or Jews would be.

[IYAS9YAS]

I have a problem with both sides of the argument. First the renter's rights as per constitution but also secondly the right of the owner to control his property as per his/her standards eg Bed and Breakfast owners rightfully refuse to permit gay couples to use their facility on religious grounds. A conundrum indeed.

Here's the solution, unless it was stipulated in the lease agreement, then no go. If it was, no issue. Changing the rules mid-lease is akin to violating the lease agreement.

[Vendome]

How would they know you have any weapons that didn’t survive your being swamped when your boat was overcome with crazy sick waves?

[NonValueAdded]

Colorado: Castle Rock apartment's controversial policy banning firearms is thrown out

[Beagle8U]

I don’t even think it would be legal to put in a lease.

Would it be legal to put...no black guests... in a lease?

No difference.

[Vendome]

They need to succeed?

Would that they secede.

[Balding_Eagle]

This has been a blow to the anti-gunners, and a BIG plus for those of us who live in the vicinity, and especially the renters.

This kind of stuff should happen each and every week, ‘cuz we usually win.

[markman46]

section 8 housing it’s called

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Good news:

Colorado: Castle Rock apartment's controversial policy banning firearms is thrown out

[IamConservative]

Sounds like this property manager needs a nice squirt of skunk scent in is air handler. Perhaps some doe urine on his doormat.

[PA Engineer]

Interesting tidbit at the end of the article:

The company's owner, Debi Ross, and her husband have given $9,000, only to Democrats, since 2006.

[Mr Rogers]

In this case, it wasn’t private property. It was a private management firm hired by the government agency that owns the apartments. That agency has now overturned the private management company’s rule. It should be noted the owner of the private management company has donated money only to Democrats...

[Doctor 2Brains]

Ahhh, that changes things consideralby. I stand corrected.

[roadcat]

“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.”
So much for the idea that it is private property. Taxpayer dollars subsidize it every year.