Colorado apartment complex bans guns

[Dolomite_supafly]

A property owner cannot keep you from protecting yourself, that is the "God given right". The ability to use a firearm to protect yourself is not a "God given right". That is a privilege given to you by the owner of the property you are on. It is the same as the freedom of speech.

 

I can set whatever conditions I want for guests. I can mandate that no one can have a $20 bill in their pocket and that I can search you if you want to be on my property. You can either comply or leave. Freedon of speech is also another right that people seem to think they have a right to excercise anywhere but they do not. No one has the right to continue to say what they want on my property if I don't want you to. You can either leave of your own will or be forcibly removed.

 

Personally I think all property owners should be able to choose who they allow on their property even if they are a business open to the public. They should be able to tell anyone, for any reason, to leave or refuse to do business with them.

[Worriedman]

 

Personally I think all property owners should be able to choose who they allow on their property even if they are a business open to the public. They should be able to tell anyone, for any reason, to leave or refuse to do business with them.

I realize that you said "personally I think" and "they should be able", but what do you believe the chances are that if "they" put up a sign that said "No Mexicans, Midgets or Muslims Allowed" on any business open to the public that it would last the full first day?

[Worriedman]

 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.

How does Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins which I believe was a SCOTUS ruling, relate to this assertion?  Do I wrongly understand that a State Constitution can give more Rights to an individual than the Union one does, and if so, as in the referenced case, private property owners can be required to allow freedom of speech even on their privately held premises, including solicitation?

[TMF]

I realize that you said "personally I think" and "they should be able", but what do you believe the chances are that if "they" put up a sign that said "No Mexicans, Midgets or Muslims Allowed" on any business open to the public that it would last the full first day?

You're delving into anti-discrimination laws there. A business owner still has the right to refuse service to anyone they want and restrict them from entering the property. If someone feels they were illegally discriminated against they would have to prove it. Regardless, firearms owners are not a protected class from discrimination.

In my opinion, anti-discrimination laws are BS. Your house, your rules. The gov trying to legislate morality is more wrong than someone who refuses service to someone based on the color of their skin.

[Worriedman]

You're delving into anti-discrimination laws there. A business owner still has the right to refuse service to anyone they want and restrict them from entering the property. If someone feels they were illegally discriminated against they would have to prove it. Regardless, firearms owners are not a protected class from discrimination.

In my opinion, anti-discrimination laws are BS. Your house, your rules. The gov trying to legislate morality is more wrong than someone who refuses service to someone based on the color of their skin.

Actually I was asking a simple question, as to how long the poster thought the sign would be allowed by law to stay up on a business.  I did not "delve" into anything.

Fact is, in Tennessee anyway, an individual can, for whatever reason (good or bad), contest the boundaries of your property, erect a fence on your land with impunity, and be protected by LE while doing it.  When you hire a licensed surveyor to prove that you own the land you say you do and hire an attorney to file the appropriate papers to vouchsafe your claim, said interloper can threaten violent sexual harm to you, in writing on a large sign set up next to your property again with impunity.  Years after the activity is started, you will still be paying attorneys (thousands of dollars) to 'fight" for your legal "Rights", while LE will tell you that constant harassment of an elderly couple who owns the land they said they did is simply protected speech.

If the Constitution is such a worthless piece of rag, why is every public servant caused to swear to uphold it:

§ 1. Oath of office

Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust or profit under this Constitution, or any law made in pursuance thereof, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States, and an oath of office.

§ 2. Oath of office; general assembly

Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall before they proceed to business take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States and also the following oath: I .......... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State.
 

If the Constitution has only the strength to limit what government does, and has no effect on the interaction of the general populace with each other, seems to be kind of useless.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Worriedman

[frankmako]

if you lived there and can not get out of your lease, then it is "don't ask, don't tell".  if you are looking for a place to moved to, then it is to keep on looking.   sometimes it is best just to keep your mouth shut and do what you need to do to protect yourself and your family.  you can not change the minds of fools.  

[TMF]

Actually I was asking a simple question, as to how long the poster thought the sign would be allowed by law to stay up on a business. I did not "delve" into anything.

Okay, if you want to play technicality game, the sign can stay up there as long as they like. It is a freedom of speech issue. So, I can out up any sign at my business that says anything I want so long as it isn't a copyright infringement. So, then yes, such a sign could last until it it illegible due to weathering from sunlight and ambient moisture.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I realize that you said "personally I think" and "they should be able", but what do you believe the chances are that if "they" put up a sign that said "No Mexicans, Midgets or Muslims Allowed" on any business open to the public that it would last the full first day?

Since when did midgets become a protected class? Handicapped yes but not midgets. Just because someone is "vertcally challenged" doesn't mean they are or should be a protected class.

 

I am handicapped, and will be for the rest of my life, and I feel that 99% of the laws written to protect me do nothing for me or the handicap community. Most put an undo burden on small businesses and it has nothing to do with making life better for the handicapped. I can guarantee that if one business was not handicap friendly another business would pop up to fill that need that was handicap friendly. Right now we have no way of knowing which businesses actually support the handicap community because every business has to be handicap friendly. I say let businesses choose what they want to support and let the customers decide whether they stay in business or not. If it were a choice for them to follow the law I would only support those businesses that are actually handicap friendly, kind of like how we only support those businesses that support our priviledge to carry a firearm. When every business has to support our priviledge to carry a firearm then we have no way of knowing which businesses do not support the firearm community and we will mistakenly spend money with those businesses that actually hate us.

 

I said nothing about putting up a sign. I have refused to sell stuff to people based on where they live, used to do it all the time. Even here in the US I have refused to sell to people based on where they live. Anyone who is selling something should have a right to choose who they sell to. When we get to a point where a seller is forced to sell to someone they do not want to we may as well put a lit match to the Constitution because we have lost. I should have the right to refuse to sell to anyone and should not have to give a reason. But if the reason is because they are a certain race or religion so be it. I mean how many of us would sell a firearm to a Mexican along the border, especially after it broke out in the news about the cartel investigations. Or how many would sell fertilizer and fuel oil to a Muslim using a U-Haul to transport it? I know I wouldn't in either case and that should be my right to refuse but there are some who think I should be forced to sell it to them and that is wrong.

[Worriedman]

Since when did midgets become a protected class? Handicapped yes but not midgets. Just because someone is "vertcally challenged" doesn't mean they are or should be a protected class.

My point exactly.  Not a protected class as far as I know, but if you are, for arguments sake, the owner of a fast food restaurant, and you just can't stand midgets, (they bother you), can you hang a sign up on your open to the public restaurant that says no midgets allowed?

 

I am handicapped, and will be for the rest of my life, and I feel that 99% of the laws written to protect me do nothing for me or the handicap community. Most put an undo burden on small businesses and it has nothing to do with making life better for the handicapped. I can guarantee that if one business was not handicap friendly another business would pop up to fill that need that was handicap friendly. Right now we have no way of knowing which businesses actually support the handicap community because every business has to be handicap friendly. I say let businesses choose what they want to support and let the customers decide whether they stay in business or not. If it were a choice for them to follow the law I would only support those businesses that are actually handicap friendly, kind of like how we only support those businesses that support our priviledge to carry a firearm. When every business has to support our priviledge to carry a firearm then we have no way of knowing which businesses do not support the firearm community and we will mistakenly spend money with those businesses that actually hate us.

 

I said nothing about putting up a sign. (I know you did not, that was my question. just to see if you thought that you COULD do such a thing, not if you thought you SHOULD be able to, you have made it completely clear that you feel that should be your prerogative) I have refused to sell stuff to people based on where they live, used to do it all the time. Even here in the US I have refused to sell to people based on where they live. Anyone who is selling something should have a right to choose who they sell to. When we get to a point where a seller is forced to sell to someone they do not want to we may as well put a lit match to the Constitution because we have lost. I should have the right to refuse to sell to anyone and should not have to give a reason. But if the reason is because they are a certain race or religion so be it. I mean how many of us would sell a firearm to a Mexican along the border, especially after it broke out in the news about the cartel investigations. Or how many would sell fertilizer and fuel oil to a Muslim using a U-Haul to transport it? I know I wouldn't in either case and that should be my right to refuse but there are some who think I should be forced to sell it to them and that is wrong.

Would you support a vendor who thinks they should be able to sell that weapon to a Mexican along the border, should be his choice correct? Should the individual vendor be allowed to sell that fertilizer and fuel oil to the Muslim with the U-haul, being an independent, sentient being it should be their choice?

Edited August 9, 2013 by Worriedman

[midtennchip]

How does Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins which I believe was a SCOTUS ruling, relate to this assertion?  Do I wrongly understand that a State Constitution can give more Rights to an individual than the Union one does, and if so, as in the referenced case, private property owners can be required to allow freedom of speech even on their privately held premises, including solicitation?

First, that was a decision regarding the California Constitution and the California Supreme Court had already ruled that the shopping center had to allow the solicitation under the California Constitution.  The SCOTUS was not willing to say that the California Supreme Court could have interpret its own Constitution. 

 

Further, many states (13 at last count) with a constitutional free speech provision have declined to follow Pruneyard.  In fact, California itself refused to apply the Pruneyard decision to apartment complexes (pretty important to the discussion in this thread).  Further, the Pruneyard decision is VERY narrow in scope and has been held (even in California) to only apply to the parking lot and then only in a lot shared by multiple businesses.  Costco has stopped solicitors in their parking lots in California (ie:  single store parking lot) and been successful.  So, that case is not helpful in the issue being discussed here and probably not helpful at all except for very limited circumstances in California.

 

Commercial entities (like shopping centers) have more limited ability to prohibit individual's rights because they are engaged in commerce.  Because of that, many laws (like the federal anti-discrimination laws) can be applied to them under the Commerce Clause.  However, that only applies (in most cases) to public areas and only if the prohibition violates a specific statute (ie:  the Constitution alone doesn't do it).  Because the issue here (ie:  the Colorado apartment complex) does not apply to a public area (ie:  the inside of an apartment), the constitutional issues do not arise. 

[mikegideon]

It's been nearly 20 years since I rented. Before I owned a home, I was a renter. I don't recall any of their gun policies, because I didn't CARE. I had nothing invested in the place. All they can do is make you move, right?

[monkeylizard]

And maybe charge fines for early termination if those are spelled out in the lease.

[Dolomite_supafly]

 

Since when did midgets become a protected class? Handicapped yes but not midgets. Just because someone is "vertcally challenged" doesn't mean they are or should be a protected class.

My point exactly.  Not a protected class as far as I know, but if you are, for arguments sake, the owner of a fast food restaurant, and you just can't stand midgets, (they bother you), can you hang a sign up on your open to the public restaurant that says no midgets allowed?

 

I am handicapped, and will be for the rest of my life, and I feel that 99% of the laws written to protect me do nothing for me or the handicap community. Most put an undo burden on small businesses and it has nothing to do with making life better for the handicapped. I can guarantee that if one business was not handicap friendly another business would pop up to fill that need that was handicap friendly. Right now we have no way of knowing which businesses actually support the handicap community because every business has to be handicap friendly. I say let businesses choose what they want to support and let the customers decide whether they stay in business or not. If it were a choice for them to follow the law I would only support those businesses that are actually handicap friendly, kind of like how we only support those businesses that support our priviledge to carry a firearm. When every business has to support our priviledge to carry a firearm then we have no way of knowing which businesses do not support the firearm community and we will mistakenly spend money with those businesses that actually hate us.

 

I said nothing about putting up a sign. (I know you did not, that was my question. just to see if you thought that you COULD do such a thing, not if you thought you SHOULD be able to, you have made it completely clear that you feel that should be your prerogative) I have refused to sell stuff to people based on where they live, used to do it all the time. Even here in the US I have refused to sell to people based on where they live. Anyone who is selling something should have a right to choose who they sell to. When we get to a point where a seller is forced to sell to someone they do not want to we may as well put a lit match to the Constitution because we have lost. I should have the right to refuse to sell to anyone and should not have to give a reason. But if the reason is because they are a certain race or religion so be it. I mean how many of us would sell a firearm to a Mexican along the border, especially after it broke out in the news about the cartel investigations. Or how many would sell fertilizer and fuel oil to a Muslim using a U-Haul to transport it? I know I wouldn't in either case and that should be my right to refuse but there are some who think I should be forced to sell it to them and that is wrong.

Would you support a vendor who thinks they should be able to sell that weapon to a Mexican along the border, should be his choice correct? Should the individual vendor be allowed to sell that fertilizer and fuel oil to the Muslim with the U-haul, being an independent, sentient being it should be their choice?

 

A vendor, or anyone else, should be able to sell to anyone they want to or refuse to sell to anyone they want to. And the reason, any reason, shouldn't matter or even be brought up. If I refuse because of who they are that should also be my decision and not someone elses. If I refuse to sell to someone because they are Canadian then that should be my decision. No one else, including the government, should tell me I have to sell to Canadians. It is not discrimination when I refuse to sell to a Canadian, it is just a business deal I do not want to complete.

 

I can and should be able to hang a sign that says "No Canadians allowed" if I do not want them on my property. Why should I be forced to sell to someone, or have them on my property, that I do not want to just because of who they are? And honestly why would someone want to be in a place where they are not welcome.

 

I would support a vendor who sells to anyone they choose even if it is not my choice. My choice should never come into play in a deal that doesn't involve me. So yes I support them and their decision to sell to those in my example.

[TMF]

This makes me think of the dozens of establishments in Clarksville that whites aren't allowed in. No, there isn't any sign saying so, but I know my cracker a$$ ain't welcome, and I'm cool with that for several reasons.

[midtennchip]

As with any situation, I would encourage everyone to view things from both angles.  There was case up in Michigan several years ago where a woman had posted an ad for a roommate on the bulletin board of her church looking for a "Christian roommate."  She was charged under the Fair Housing Act because it discriminated against people of other faiths.  Had the ad said she was looking for a "Christian female roommate," presumably she would have been charged because of both the religion and gender issue.  Should she be required to accept a roommate who is a _______ (insert preferred religion here) or a male?

 

Assume you own a rental house and someone who is a member of the Santeria religion wants to rent the house.  They also want to conduct animal sacrifices in the backyard (which is not otherwise prohibited by zoning or health ordinances).  Do you have to rent your property to them?  Their religious practices are protected under the 1st Amendment, right?

 

Take it a step further and say the Santeria member wants to perform animal sacrifices in the backyard of your residence.  Does that person's freedom of religion trump your property rights?

 

In another situation (that is admittedly a little more realistic), what if your neighbors are exercising their Constitutionally protected rights (like conducting worship services, shooting guns, operating a printing press, etc.) but those activities invade your quiet enjoyment of your property because of the noise, pollution, etc.  Should they be allowed to do whatever they want because their activities are Constitutionally protected?

 

Yes, these examples could go on and on.  In fact, every one of these examples has been tried in court.  By in large, the courts recognize property rights above the Constitutional rights.  Why?  Because those people can always go somewhere else.  They are not prohibited from exercising their Constitutional rights in total.  They are prohibited (or stopped) from exercising their rights in a particular place because those rights violate the property rights of someone else.  Find a place where you are not violating someone's property rights and the problem is solved.  That's about the best explanation I can give for why property rights are held so highly by the courts.