Colorado apartment complex bans guns

[monkeylizard]

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.

 

Certain things are protected under federal laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Gun ownership is not one of them, but religion, gender, and race are.

[Worriedman]

Certain things are protected under federal laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Gun ownership is not one of them, but religion, gender, and race are.

 

Why would firearms ownership NOT be just as protected?  Got us a Bill of rights Amendment to the Constitution that says it is pretty important.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

Certain things are protected under federal laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Gun ownership is not one of them, but religion, gender, and race are.

I'm not talking about "civil rights"...just natural rights as noted and supposedly protected by the bill of rights. There was, or at least should have been no reason/need for the civil rights act to protect such rights as freedom of religion, speech, thought, political philosophy, etc. etc. but that aside, the issue I was trying to get to above was that if this apartment complex suddenly told all its renters, for example, that they could no longer own a copy of the Qur'an I would bet that the outcry against the complex would be thunderous yet deny renters their right to keep arms and nary a peep from anyone, even on TGO.  :shrug:

[monkeylizard]

The Constitution is about what the federal gov't can and can't do. It's not about what can/can't be done on private property or between private individuals. As a society, it was determined that certain things should also be prohibited between private parties under certain circumstances, thus the CRA and the FHA. Discrimination based on other factors or during other activities between private parties has not been deemed inappropriate by society in the form of laws. As a society, we have not determined that it is in the best interest of our society to prevent discrimination in public areas or certain private transactions against firearms owners.

[charlessummers]

I guess I better not say where I work, but our House Rules state that:

 

"Neither tenants, nor their guest may use or possess firearms, bow and arrows, or fireworks on the premises at any time."

 

We are HUD Housing for Seniors, and there have been guns confiscated from residents. I got a call one day from a lady who wanted me to come up to her apartment and "get this gun out of here before I throw it in the dumpster", as my voice mail put it. Luckily I was able to call her back adn tell her I was on my way and NOT TO THROW IT IN THE DUMPSTER! She was a known alcoholic and her husband had Alzheimers. Neither one of them were mentally responsible enough to own or possess a firearm. When I got to the apartment it was still on on the shelf in the closet, although fully loaded with the safety off. I immediately emptied the gun and brought it back to my office where it stayed until the residents moved out. (I was told to keep the gun, by the way. Woo Hoo Lorcin .380!)

 

I'm not a fan of this rule... but given the mentality of our aging residents, I can accept it. I have another story of a guy that rode around with a pistol in his powered wheelchair that doens't end well, but I'll save that one for later. I do know of resident that still have firearms in their apartments too... but keep that to myself. For instance, there are a few WWII/Korean War Vets here with "bring back" weapons that I would LOVE to own. Thankfully, that trust me enough that I have gotten to hold them from time to time...

 

Meanwhile... the House Rules nor the Employee handbook says anything about employees possessing firearms. :stunned: 

[TMF]

I'm not talking about "civil rights"...just natural rights as noted and supposedly protected by the bill of rights. There was, or at least should have been no reason/need for the civil rights act to protect such rights as freedom of religion, speech, thought, political philosophy, etc. etc. but that aside, the issue I was trying to get to above was that if this apartment complex suddenly told all its renters, for example, that they could no longer own a copy of the Qur'an I would bet that the outcry against the complex would be thunderous yet deny renters their right to keep arms and nary a peep from anyone, even on TGO. :shrug:

I wouldn't care if an apartment complex said you can't live here if you're a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist or whatever. It's their property. Edited August 8, 2013 by TMF

[monkeylizard]

Maybe not, but the Fair Housing Act cares about it. It does not care about firearms owners.

[E4 No More]

I wouldn't care if an apartment complex said you can't live here if you're a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist or whatever. It's their property.

And personally I didn't care what the apartment complex thought either. If they caught me with a gun then they could throw me out.

[TMF]

Maybe not, but the Fair Housing Act cares about it. It does not care about firearms owners.

I got that. Just throwing it out there that simply because I don't care about this doesn't mean I don't equally not give a sh** if someone wants to throw a person out for believing or not believing in something.

[RobertNashville]

I wouldn't care if an apartment complex said you can't live here if you're a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist or whatever. It's their property.

That's fine...totally ignores my point but whatever.

[RobertNashville]

The Constitution is about what the federal gov't can and can't do. It's not about what can/can't be done on private property or between private individuals. As a society, it was determined that certain things should also be prohibited between private parties under certain circumstances, thus the CRA and the FHA. Discrimination based on other factors or during other activities between private parties has not been deemed inappropriate by society in the form of laws. As a society, we have not determined that it is in the best interest of our society to prevent discrimination in public areas or certain private transactions against firearms owners.

Totally ignores my point which had nothing to do with what the government can or can't do (they are happy to violate the Constitution daily so why would I care about that anyway).

 

I now return you to your previous discussion as it's obvious no one is getting what I was getting at...I'll take the blame for that so all is well.  Have a nice day.

Edited August 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

That's fine...totally ignores my point but whatever.

Easy there, killer. Best I could tell was that your "point" was the lack of outcry or something folks on TGO would show regarding this versus religious freedoms in the same scenario. I care equally as much, which is not at all. I'm more concerned with a person's property rights than I am the rights of a person to do whatever on that property. If someone got denied housing for any reason, even those reasons protected under the equal housing act, I would not care. My opinion will always favor property rights.

[Worriedman]

Have a question for the assemblage.  What is the basis for all laws that we as Tennesseans first, and Americans second, hold as the standard for their production and being sustained by the Court system?  Is it not the Constitutions of our State and Union?  When an issue is carried to the Zenith of our Judicial system, is not the finding regarding a law that it is either Constitutional or not?

 

Can we just simply murder anyone we do not like if they wander onto our private property, or do our laws, which must be couched in the Constitution deny such actions?

 

There can be no law which does not in its entirety find its foundation in the Constitutions of either the Federal Government or a State (if the Union Constitution does not directly address any given situation), or added by a ratified treaty, as per the Supremacy Clause:

 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

As I understand the system, all laws must be made in pursuance of the Constitution to be valid, that is the reason we have courts to adjudicate whether the congress can hit their ass with either hand, or the executives of the various federal and State entities understand their proper place in issuing executive orders.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

Have a question for the assemblage.  What is the basis for all laws that we as Tennesseans first, and Americans second, hold as the standard for their production and being sustained by the Court system?  Is it not the Constitutions of our State and Union?  When an issue is carried to the Zenith of our Judicial system, is not the finding regarding a law that it is either Constitutional or not?

 

Can we just simply murder anyone we do not like if they wander onto our private property, or do our laws, which must be couched in the Constitution deny such actions?

 

There can be no law which does not in its entirety find its foundation in the Constitutions of either the Federal Government or a State (if the Union Constitution does not directly address any given situation), or added by a ratified treaty, as per the Supremacy Clause:

 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

As I understand the system, all laws must be made in pursuance of the Constitution to be valid, that is the reason we have courts to adjudicate whether the congress can hit their ass with either hand, or the executives of the various federal and State entities understand their proper place in issuing executive orders.

Very well said.

 

Just be advised, that for some folks, "property rights" are the holy grail of rights even to the point that property rights trumps all others and will ignore all else.  The truth is that ALL rights are equal and exist, not consecutively but concurrently and one right should never be allowed to just trump another (which is exactly what happens when someone repeats the "property rights" mantra.

[Oh Shoot]

Directive has been thrown out.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Their attorney is probably aware of previous court decisions on firearms in gummit funded housing I mentioned earlier.

 

- OS

Edited August 8, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Jonnin]

IMHO this is breach of contract for existing customers, and the complex should be forced to deal with the same penalty that residents face for breaking the lease.   This varies, but for example I would say the complex should be unable to collect any more rent from the customers and the customers should have 90 days to move out.  I think 90 days rent free is sufficient to cover the cost of moving and any pre-paid services (cable, for example?) that may be paid for past the broken contract date.

[RobertNashville]

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.

I know what you are saying but I can't help but point out that if you really think you own a mortgaged house or a financed car just stop making payments for three or four months and I'll bet you'll find out otherwise.  ;)

 

Until you actually have a clear title in your hand and you don't owe anyone money for it you don't really own it; you just have permission to use it.  ;)

Edited August 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

...

Until you actually have a clear title in your hand and you don't owe anyone money for it you don't really own it; you just have permission to use it.  ;)

 

Well, you can take that as far a you want. Since your property will eventually be taken away if you don't pay the yearly taxes on it, you could say the city/county has an on-going lien on it forever.

 

Point is though, that you have the same rights and privileges of use whether you have paid the mortgage off or not, and those are far in excess of those you have as a renter/leaser.

 

- OS

[jphillips63]

Where does this end?

If apartment complexes say no guns when do trailer parks do the same, or better yet when you purchase a home and pay home owner association fees? Or buy a condo in a high rise?

Really we have a big fight on our hands in the future not just for gun control but also when the govt seizes our retirement funds to pay off the nations debt. Its coming folks mark my words I don't know when but it will happen. Do some searches where other governments in other countries have already done the same.

sent from my RAZR Maxx HD using Tapatalk 2

[RobertNashville]

Well, you can take that as far a you want. Since your property will eventually be taken away if you don't pay the yearly taxes on it, you could say the city/county has an on-going lien on it forever.

 

Point is though, that you have the same rights and privileges of use whether you have paid the mortgage off or not, and those are far in excess of those you have as a renter/leaser.

 

- OS

I actually thought about mentioning the tax issue as well.

[RobertNashville]

...Really we have a big fight on our hands in the future not just for gun control but also when the govt seizes our retirement funds to pay off the nations debt. Its coming folks mark my words I don't know when but it will happen....

Oh I'm sure they'll do that too although likely by the time they do whatever you have in those accounts will have been so wiped out by inflation you likely won't notice or care.

Edited August 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Sam1]

Well, looks like the apartment managers reign failed miserably, the county housing authority said FOAD, they can keep their guns and keep their apartments.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/colorado-apartment-complex-reverses-ban-guns/

[Oh Shoot]

Well, looks like the apartment managers reign failed miserably, the county housing authority said FOAD, they can keep their guns and keep their apartments.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/colorado-apartment-complex-reverses-ban-guns/

 

"The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few.”

 

I'd say that means they take Section 8 and state funding for rent, in which case it's already settled law as I understand it, and I imagine their attorney told them so.

 

- OS

[TMF]

Very well said.

Just be advised, that for some folks, "property rights" are the holy grail of rights even to the point that property rights trumps all others and will ignore all else. The truth is that ALL rights are equal and exist, not consecutively but concurrently and one right should never be allowed to just trump another (which is exactly what happens when someone repeats the "property rights" mantra.

Umm, do I have to point out that there is a big difference between committing a crime against someone on your property, such as assault or murder, and simply saying you don't want them there? I mean, really???

Property rights absolutely SHOULD trump your rights. And really, it doesn't need to trump any of your rights since the person who allows or disallows you on a property is the owner. How is it violating anyone's God given rights to tell them to leave? I can tell you how it is violating their God given rights to NOT leave when they say so. Unless there is a contract otherwise, a property owner should be able to evict anyone he wants without cause. That is simply right to property.

[midtennchip]

I guess I will jump in and try to address several issues in this thread. First, no the Constitution is not the end all be all of the law as it pertains to how private individuals deal with each other. There certainly is some relation to the Constitution, but the Constitution deals with the Government (as Monkey mentioned). The Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with actions between private individuals (unless such individual is acting under color of law, like a citizen's arrest). The reason we have things like the Civil Rights Act or Fair Housing Act is to prevent private individuals and entities from discriminating against "protected classes of people." The Constitution, by itself, does not prevent it.

No one has a First Amendment right in my house. I have the right to throw anybody out of my house because of something they say. To that end, yes, my property rights trump that person's rights in my house. He has no rights (ie: under the Bill of Rights) in my house. Private businesses have a similar right. That is why they can prevent solicitation on their property. Government has a much lower level ability on these fronts. Why the difference? Because the Constitution limits governments.

In this case, he apartment complex owner can make whatever rules it wants. You don't have to sign the lease. The only restrictions on the apartment complex are based on anti-discrimination laws, not the Constitution. However, with this particular complex, I believe it has been reported that the complex accepts some government funding, some there could be some additional restrictions on the complex owner because it accepts such funds. In any event, the actual owner (as opposed to the management company that instituted the rule) has voided the rule, so it is a moot point now at this complex.

The big difference between leasing and owning is title. An apartment is owned by the landlord and the renter is given a limited right to possession (not ownership). The landlord has rights that a mortgage company would not have, like the right to inspect the property, to come in for repairs, eviction for various reasons (beyond non-payment), etc. Mortgage company would have none of that. There is a huge difference between owning and renting to leasing. Yes, you can agree to allow someone to restrict your ownership rights (such as HOA restrictions), but that is because you agreed to it by contract. Violations, by you or the HOA, is a contract dispute, not a Constitutional issue. Edited August 9, 2013 by midtennchip