Colorado apartment complex bans guns

[c.a.willard]

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-apartment-bans-guns-205839502.html

 

I know we've had no shortage of the debate regarding private property rights vs 2nd Amendment rights, but this one is a little different.  This is an apartment complex that has banned all possession of firearms on the premises.  Forcing individuals to choose between their rights and their home. 

 

I know the courts have generally held that apartment complexes have the right to impose reasonable restrictions, and like everything else reasonable is never defined.  I cant see though how this would be considered a reasonable policy because it will effect people who already live there and force them to pay the cost of moving or get rid of there firearms.

[TNcitizen22]

Yeah, if the apartment complex is not freely letting people out of their leases I would expect some legal repercussions to the complex.

[c.a.willard]

From reading the article it appears that they are letting them out of the lease with notice, but that would still leave you on the hook for the cost of moving.

[TMF]

I gonna come down on the side of the property owners on this one to some degree. If they don't want guns on their property, then fine. They owe each tenant 90 days to move out, and during that time those tenants should be free to keep their guns in their apartment. Otherwise it is a breach of contract on their part unless there was something in the lease agreement that said you can't have firearms.

On another note, if I was a rapist or a burglar, I would certainly know what apartment complex I'm gonna hit. Edited August 8, 2013 by TMF

[Oh Shoot]

Far as I know, the only legal precedents to bar this are those which do not allow firearm restrictions in housing which receives government payments, either state or federal.

 

I know there is at least one state out west which bans this in private housing also by state statute (guy quoted it on a forum), forget which one now though. Obviously it isn't Colorado.

 

- OS

Edited August 8, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest Razz]

Seems to me firearm owners need to be a protected class...

...oh wait.

[Tedro2022]

When I moved from Murfreesboro to Nashville several years ago the apartment complex had written into their lease agreement that there were no firearms allowed to be kept on the premises.
I didn't have near the collection back then that I do now, matter or fact I only had one Smith & Wesson pistol. It stayed locked in its case inside my dresser the entire time I lived there.
Never really thought twice about their "rule." I'd rather protect myself than die at the hands of someone who broke in and thought they were gonna just take it all and kill me in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited August 8, 2013 by Tedro2022

[rugerla1]

I'm sure crime will drop immediately  :down:

[101]

Devils advocate here.

Let's say this: apartments rented or leased are supposed to be your "home court". A contract is signed stating that they can remove a right from you if you agree to stay with them.

Cars are suppose to be your home court also. Let's say that when you purchase a car (because you are still renting anything if you make payments of any sort) they can add a phrase in the paper work stating that you can't have a firearm in your car. Let's say your house you have a mortgage on because until you pay it off the bank owns it.

Where does it stop?

I know it's far fetched but let's say the city says "hey you taxpayer, that street isn't paid for yet and you're the owner so technically you're still renting that so we can tell you what you can do, on or about said street.

Seem silly? I agree. After what we all have gone through the last 5 years (and longer if you count patriot act) I would not be surprised.

[TMF]

Devils advocate here.


Let's say this: apartments rented or leased are supposed to be your "home court". A contract is signed stating that they can remove a right from you if you agree to stay with them.


Cars are suppose to be your home court also. Let's say that when you purchase a car (because you are still renting anything if you make payments of any sort) they can add a phrase in the paper work stating that you can't have a firearm in your car. Let's say your house you have a mortgage on because until you pay it off the bank owns it.


Where does it stop?


I know it's far fetched but let's say the city says "hey you taxpayer, that street isn't paid for yet and you're the owner so technically you're still renting that so we can tell you what you can do, on or about said street.


Seem silly? I agree. After what we all have gone through the last 5 years (and longer if you count patriot act) I would not be surprised.

Well the difference here is that the complex is private property. I believe that if you rent a place out, you reserve the right to evict a person for any reason or no reason at all. It's their property, after all. Of course, when entering into a contractual agreement it is a little different. If this rule breaches the contract then the complex should go pound sand. Otherwise, the tenants should leave within 90 days. It's a crappy situation, and I sure would be pissed if I lived there, but property rights should trump the tenant.

[Oh Shoot]

Well the difference here is that the complex is private property. I believe that if you rent a place out, you reserve the right to evict a person for any reason or no reason at all. It's their property, after all. Of course, when entering into a contractual agreement it is a little different. If this rule breaches the contract then the complex should go pound sand. Otherwise, the tenants should leave within 90 days. It's a crappy situation, and I sure would be pissed if I lived there, but property rights should trump the tenant.

 

I imagine in the absence of any pertinent state statute, contract law will prevail. Not sure you could change anything significant in between contractual periods, maybe leases all run Aug to Aug there, dunno.

 

- OS

[Guest TankerHC]

Seems to me firearm owners need to be a protected class...

...oh wait.

 

 

We are "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

EDIT: Beat me to it, didnt see those bottom two words.

Edited August 8, 2013 by TankerHC

[TMF]

I imagine in the absence of any pertinent state statute, contract law will prevail. Not sure you could change anything significant in between contractual periods, maybe leases all run Aug to Aug there, dunno.

- OS

I was referring to any language in the contract which may ban firearms and making possession of such on the property voiding the contract. For all we know it could already be in the contract and they're just now enforcing it.

[Oh Shoot]

I was referring to any language in the contract which may ban firearms and making possession of such on the property voiding the contract. For all we know it could already be in the contract and they're just now enforcing it.

 

Yeah, that way, or changing contract at end of period, either way, contract law between private parties will likely be only issue, would be surprised if it got any constitutional footing, state or federal, since it never has before to my knowledge (except as I mentioned regarding gummit being involved as the "landlord").

 

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

If it is in the contract then that is what should be followed, nothing more and nothing less. The property owner cannot arbitrarily change the contract in mid contract and if they do they need to pay. But with that being said the property owner can stipulate any condition in the contract and as long as it doesn't violate laws it is perfectly legal. The property owner can mandate in the contract that all tenants wear pink and drive a Yugo. And if the tenant signs the contract they must follow those rules and if they don't they are in violation of the contract.

 

This is not a constitutional issue at all. It is a contractual issue.

 

Property owners cannot take away a person's right to protect themselves but they can mandate how a person does protect themselves while on their property. No one has a right to carry a firearm, or any other item, on someone else's property against the property owner's wishes. Just like no one has the right to say or wear what they want on someone else's property.

[Guest nra37922]

If it is in the contract then that is what should be followed, nothing more and nothing less. The property owner cannot arbitrarily change the contract in mid contract and if they do they need to pay. But with that being said the property owner can stipulate any condition in the contract and as long as it doesn't violate laws it is perfectly legal. The property owner can mandate in the contract that all tenants wear pink and drive a Yugo. And if the tenant signs the contract they must follow those rules and if they don't they are in violation of the contract.

 

This is not a constitutional issue at all. It is a contractual issue.

 

Property owners cannot take away a person's right to protect themselves but they can mandate how a person does protect themselves while on their property. No one has a right to carry a firearm, or any other item, on someone else's property against the property owner's wishes. Just like no one has the right to say or wear what they want on someone else's property.

Your right and any gun owner just needs to move out of the complex when their current lease expires.  Sucks but that is the way it is.

[E4 No More]

Nashboro Village in Nashville bans firearms from their property - or at least they did 8 years ago. Guess how well it works.

[Guest nra37922]

Nashboro Village in Nashville bans firearms from their property - or at least they did 8 years ago. Guess how well it works.

Nothing on their website or under their criteria for residency there so maybe they've changed their policy..

[E4 No More]

Nothing on their website or under their criteria for residency there so maybe they've changed their policy..

It was in the lease agreement back in the day. :shrug:

[Guest nra37922]

Anybody want to call them and ask about their policy?

[monkeylizard]

Devils advocate here.

Let's say this: apartments rented or leased are supposed to be your "home court". A contract is signed stating that they can remove a right from you if you agree to stay with them.

Cars are suppose to be your home court also. Let's say that when you purchase a car (because you are still renting anything if you make payments of any sort) they can add a phrase in the paper work stating that you can't have a firearm in your car. Let's say your house you have a mortgage on because until you pay it off the bank owns it.

Where does it stop?

I know it's far fetched but let's say the city says "hey you taxpayer, that street isn't paid for yet and you're the owner so technically you're still renting that so we can tell you what you can do, on or about said street.

Seem silly? I agree. After what we all have gone through the last 5 years (and longer if you count patriot act) I would not be surprised.

 

You're basing this on a false premise. Renting an apartment or leasing a car is NOT the same as financing a home or car. If you buy a home or a car you're the owner of that property whether you financed it or not. If you financed it, the bank holds the title because the house or car itself is the collateral for the loan, but you still own it. They simply have an outstanding claim against your property and will exercise that claim if you fail to pay the loan. But it's still your property. Renting or leasing does not transfer ownership.

Edited August 8, 2013 by monkeylizard

[Worriedman]

Directive has been thrown out.

 

http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=349123

 

 

The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

 

Seems the apartments are public housing, and as such the management company can not deny the ability to keep arms there.

[Garufa]

Now I'm astonished they ever allowed firearms in the first place.

[RobertNashville]

I wonder...what would happen if this same apartment complex suddenly dictated that no one could practice their religion (have a bible or any religious icon in their home) or dictated what political party they belonged to denied them being able to read certain material?

 

Does a lessor have the right to deny you any basic natural right like practicing your religion or do they only have the right to stop you from keeping arms?

 

Are some natural rights more important than others/more subject to infringement?

 

To be clear, I think this IS a matter of contract law but I think it's worth considering how this would go were the apartment complex trying to deny their renters any other basic right.

 

[Guest nra37922]

I wonder...what would happen if this same apartment complex suddenly dictated that no one could practice their religion (have a bible or any religious icon in their home) or dictated what political party they belonged to denied them being able to read certain material?

 

Does a lessor have the right to deny you any basic natural right like practicing your religion or do they only have the right to stop you from keeping arms?

 

Are some natural rights more important than others/more subject to infringement?

 

To be clear, I think this IS a matter of contract law but I think it's worth considering how this would go were the apartment complex trying to deny their renters any other basic right.

Sounds like another area that Voldemort should take on.