You can't have guns here... (Apartment Leases)

[Fast 0]

http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/222/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-guns

Here's a new one to me....

Quote

CASTLE ROCK - Retired Marine Art Dorsch says his Second Amendment rights are in danger.

His apartment complex, the Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, sent out a notice telling all residents to get rid of their guns.

The 77-year-old retired US Marine Corps veteran sent a newstip to 9Wants to Know saying he's afraid he'll be homeless if he doesn't comply.

The letter went out to residents on August 1 and says they have until October 1 to comply with updated "community policies."

On page 2 is a brand new provision saying "firearms and weapons are prohibited."

"It upsets me very much," Dorsch said.

As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property.

"I'm a hunter. I'm a licensed conceal and carry person," Dorsch said.

Dorsch says the guns, which he keeps securely locked in a safe, make him feel secure in his home.

"They want to take them all away from me. They say I can't live here," he said.

Dorsh says apartment managers told him to give up the guns and stay, give notice and move out voluntarily, or be forced to move out if he doesn't comply with the new policy.

Nobody answered the door at the apartment office on Tuesday afternoon.

When reached by phone, Brooke Young, Ross Management Group regional manager, said "It's our policy not to comment to the news media," before hanging up.

"The best thing this tenant can do is either move out or get rid of the guns," 9NEWS legal analyst Scott Robinson said.

Robinson says, in most cases, courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants.

"The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" Robinson said.

Dorsch says the issue goes beyond the Second Amendment.

"I'm vulnerable. I'm not safe," Dorsch said.

If he loses his guns, Dorsch says he loses so much more.

"My freedom," Dorsch said. "Yeah it's emotional. Because I don't think it's fair."

Dorsch says he barely has enough money to live, never mind hire a lawyer.

So, if he's not able to fight the new rules, he says he'll have no choice but to leave his guns with a friend who lives 30 miles away.

He hopes he'll still be able to go hunting, as he has every year since 1953.

(KUSA-TV © 2013 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[kelpdiver 2]

I don't think that would stand to legal scrutiny, despite what a news station legal analyst writes. The Heller decision should protect him.

But he could find himself in a situation where it doesn't protect him for a few years, or even after death, should the landlord be able to evict him before a decision is rendered.

[quade 3]

Second Amendment rights don't apply on leasing agreements. Same as an apartment that says you can't have a dog or smoke. A lease is a voluntary contract, that's why they're called "agreements." If he doesn't agree with the new terms of the lease, that's his problem,.

Being a gun owner is not a "protected class" under the Fair Housing statutes.

That said, he might be able to buy a bit of extra time to comply by entering into some sort of lawsuit that he'll ultimately lose money on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bignugget 0]

I missed where they are "taking his guns".

Sounds like they are telling him he can't keep them on property. Not that they have any interest in his shit.


"So, if he's not able to fight the new rules, he says he'll have no choice but to leave his guns with a friend who lives 30 miles away.

He hopes he'll still be able to go hunting, as he has every year since 1953. "


Lol. Yea I think its gonna be OK. Have your friend (who you probably hunt with) bring your guns with him when he comes to get you so you can go blast bambis face off.

"Dorsch says the guns, which he keeps securely locked in a safe, make him feel secure in his home. "

This has always puzzled me about gun ownership, I have heard this reasoning before.....Do gun owners who keep guns 'securely locked in a safe' believe they will be able to access the safe, prepare the weapons, and defend themselves and family against an armed home invader....before the invader has time to close the distance? Seems counter productive to lock the things you need to defend yourself up in a hard to access spot.



It will be interesting to see if this gets challenged in court though, at my old job they had all sorts of restrictions on what you could/couldn't do/have if you wanted to live in the complex.

This article would be much better if they left out the hysterical nonsense and focused on whether restriction of something defined in the constitution is reasonable.

[normiss 643]

^This.

Buy your own home. It's good for you.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Buy your own home. It's good for you.

And make sure it's one without an HOA.

- Dan G

[Darius11 12]

I think that’s unconstitutional, so I don’t think it would stand up in any court.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[champu 1]

Darius11

I think that’s unconstitutional, so I don’t think it would stand up in any court.

I don't think you understand what the constitution is.

Also, people got off into the firearm debate pretty quickly (surprise surprise) but this stuck out to me...

Quote

...weapons of any kind...

This would probably not be considered a "reasonable" regulation.

[oldwomanc6 38]

Seems to me, this apartment complex will be the first place the crooks come "knocking." Reminds me of this. Whose house are you going to choose, if you're a bad guy?

Easy pickin's!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I don't think you understand what the constitution is.

Its the highest law of the land.

So how can you write a contract that voids the highest law of the land?

Quote

weapons of any kind...

Yea i mean i can kill you with a pencil so does that mean you just not allowd to protect your self with anything?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[quade 3]

Darius11

So how can you write a contract that voids the highest law of the land?

Simple. It doesn't apply to PRIVATE land with some very limited exceptions. I'm nearly certain you'd want it that way too if you thought about it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bignugget 0]

Bignugget

"Dorsch says the guns, which he keeps securely locked in a safe, make him feel secure in his home. "

This has always puzzled me about gun ownership, I have heard this reasoning before.....Do gun owners who keep guns 'securely locked in a safe' believe they will be able to access the safe, prepare the weapons, and defend themselves and family against an armed home invader....before the invader has time to close the distance? Seems counter productive to lock the things you need to defend yourself up in a hard to access spot.

To expand on my own thought after a nice glass of blueberry lemonade...

I don't own firearms, just not my thing. But I do want my home to be secure, both while I am home and while I am away. I also love animals. My solution is simple, I have several big ass dogs.

But I don't lock the dogs into a kennel when I am sleeping or not home.....

And I am under no illusion that if they were kenneled when my home was invaded with me asleep, I would have time to go release them to assist me while being assaulted/murdered etc.

So I honestly wonder how the thought process works with gun owners who say they use the guns to provide a secure home, but have them in an inaccessible place in a time of need.

Isn't that like kenneling your big ass dogs? (I know plenty of people who do kennel their big ass dogs....also making no sense for home protection)

[Boomerdog 0]

Unfortunately, his civil rights are guranteed with respect what the government cannot do versus private property owners form which he rents. But now that guns have been banned in his apartment complex he ought to get the hell out of there. Those apartments are now a target for burglars, crack dealers, robbers, rapists and other "pillars" of society.

[Darius11 12]

Isn't housing under a different jurisdiction?

Privet land you could say No Mexicans will be allowed to buy or rent in this privet development, or no blacks, but I am pretty sure you can't.

Not claiming to know about this that’s why I am asking.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Bignugget 0]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fair+Housing+Act+of+1968

The act explicitly defines a list of prohibited practices involving housing, including sales, rentals, advertising, and financing. Its primary prohibition makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent to, or negotiate with any person because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, familial status, handicap, or national origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 added extensive provisions that apply to discrimination against disabled persons and families with children 18 years of age and under."


Gun owners aren't listed unfortunately but thats why you can't do what you were proposing.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Isn't housing under a different jurisdiction?

Privet land you could say No Mexicans will be allowed to buy or rent in this privet development, or no blacks, but I am pretty sure you can't.

Not claiming to know about this that’s why I am asking.

There are protected classes with regard to housing. I know race, gender, religion, national origin, and veterans status are protected. There may be others. Gun ownership is not a specifically protected class of person.

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Its the highest law of the land.

So how can you write a contract that voids the highest law of the land?

Because the Constitution was written to protect citizens from the Federal *Government*. Most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to the States, meaning the State *Governments* can't pass laws against them.

The Bill of Rights are restrictions on the *Government*, not on private people or organizations.

So legally, an HOA or apartment complex could outlaw firearms... the 2nd would have nothing to do with it. The Federal Govt could not, the State govt could not, even a City govt could not.... But I could flat out ban you from having a firearm in my home, or on my property.

That being said... The rule is stupid and short sighted. Criminals are going to own guns anyway and they are only preventing this man from owning them.... And only because he opened his mouth.

I lived in a Condo and one day coming back from the range on the elevator a guy saw my rifle bag and got upset that I was allowed to own a firearm in the building. He tried to pass some rule saying no firearms allowed. They laughed at him.

[champu 1]

Darius11

Quote

I don't think you understand what the constitution is.

Its the highest law of the land.

True, but it's really just a framework that says what the government is, what it can do and how, and what it cannot do.

If the only law in existence was the federal constitution as amended, then the entire government would be a bunch of people standing around in a field at least once a year. I suppose if a couple people from different states showed up to settle a controversy, they could hold a trial, but otherwise it would be de facto anarchy.

All the stuff that people aren't allowed to do (under penalty of the government) comes from laws passed/enforced/adjudicated within the framework of the federal and/or state constitutions. So unless some government with jurisdiction over the area in question passes a law that says "You can't prohibit tenents from possessing firearms on the premesis." Then you can go ahead and prohibit it if you want.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

This has always puzzled me about gun ownership, I have heard this reasoning before.....Do gun owners who keep guns 'securely locked in a safe' believe they will be able to access the safe, prepare the weapons, and defend themselves and family against an armed home invader....before the invader has time to close the distance?

I have several firearms.... Most are 'securely locked in a safe'. What that does not tell you is that I have my carry weapon normally on a table near me or on my nightstand at night... So does my wife.

When I am not at home, I have the gun with me.... So does my wife. So my guns are 'securely locked in a safe'.

Or that while I have a safe, some of those weapons in the safe are loaded and I can enter the combination faster that most people can break in.

Or a person can buy a quick action safe and still have guns 'securely locked in a safe' and that are easy to get.... It should take less than 3 seconds to open this safe.

http://www.thefirestore.com/store/product.aspx/productId/11182/GunVault-1000-Series-Mini-Vault-Digital-Safe/?gclid=CImenJ6p7LgCFbDm7AoddVAAMw

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

Quote

This has always puzzled me about gun ownership, I have heard this reasoning before.....Do gun owners who keep guns 'securely locked in a safe' believe they will be able to access the safe, prepare the weapons, and defend themselves and family against an armed home invader....before the invader has time to close the distance?

I have several firearms.... Most are 'securely locked in a safe'. What that does not tell you is that I have my carry weapon normally on a table near me or on my nightstand at night... So does my wife.

When I am not at home, I have the gun with me.... So does my wife. So my guns are 'securely locked in a safe'.

Or that while I have a safe, some of those weapons in the safe are loaded and I can enter the combination faster that most people can break in.

Or a person can buy a quick action safe and still have guns 'securely locked in a safe' and that are easy to get.... It should take less than 3 seconds to open this safe.

http://www.thefirestore.com/store/product.aspx/productId/11182/GunVault-1000-Series-Mini-Vault-Digital-Safe/?gclid=CImenJ6p7LgCFbDm7AoddVAAMw

Nice, I like that link. That would be accessible I would think if it was located near your bed while you slept. From my front door to my bed is about 25 feet, it would be pretty tough for me to open a combination safe before being bashed about the head with a club I think, but one like that might be doable.

If that is the kind of secure safe people are generally referring to that makes a bit more sense.


Dogs by the nightstand just seems more my style.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]So how can you write a contract that voids the highest law of the land?

[devildog 0]

Fast

http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/222/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-guns

Here's a new one to me....

Quote

CASTLE ROCK - Retired Marine Art Dorsch says his Second Amendment rights are in danger.

His apartment complex, the Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, sent out a notice telling all residents to get rid of their guns.

The 77-year-old retired US Marine Corps veteran sent a newstip to 9Wants to Know saying he's afraid he'll be homeless if he doesn't comply.

The letter went out to residents on August 1 and says they have until October 1 to comply with updated "community policies."

On page 2 is a brand new provision saying "firearms and weapons are prohibited."

"It upsets me very much," Dorsch said.

As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property.

"I'm a hunter. I'm a licensed conceal and carry person," Dorsch said.

Dorsch says the guns, which he keeps securely locked in a safe, make him feel secure in his home.

"They want to take them all away from me. They say I can't live here," he said.

Dorsh says apartment managers told him to give up the guns and stay, give notice and move out voluntarily, or be forced to move out if he doesn't comply with the new policy.

Nobody answered the door at the apartment office on Tuesday afternoon.

When reached by phone, Brooke Young, Ross Management Group regional manager, said "It's our policy not to comment to the news media," before hanging up.

"The best thing this tenant can do is either move out or get rid of the guns," 9NEWS legal analyst Scott Robinson said.

Robinson says, in most cases, courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants.

"The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" Robinson said.

Dorsch says the issue goes beyond the Second Amendment.

"I'm vulnerable. I'm not safe," Dorsch said.

If he loses his guns, Dorsch says he loses so much more.

"My freedom," Dorsch said. "Yeah it's emotional. Because I don't think it's fair."

Dorsch says he barely has enough money to live, never mind hire a lawyer.

So, if he's not able to fight the new rules, he says he'll have no choice but to leave his guns with a friend who lives 30 miles away.

He hopes he'll still be able to go hunting, as he has every year since 1953.

(KUSA-TV © 2013 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)

October 2: Crime jumps 30% in Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. Experts baffled. More at 11.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Oh, that was fast. They threw it out / reversed themselves already.

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

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Rick 67]

lawrocket

[Reply]So how can you write a contract that voids the highest law of the land?

One can waive rights. I was in the military. Trust me - we waived a lot of them.

This is not a Constitutional action since it's not a governmental action. However, it may constitute an unbargained for change to the terms of a lease agreement. Thus, the rule may be unenforceable against the current tenants. That'd probably be the closest he could get.

[wolfriverjoe 1,368]

devildog

Oh, that was fast. They threw it out / reversed themselves already.

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

Well, they didn't actually "reverse themselves."

The policy was put in place by a private management company.
When the actual owners (the county) found out that the managers were putting this policy in place without consulting with the owners, the county told the management company "You can't do that."

Given that it is public housing, county owned and (partially) federally funded, it stops being a "private property" issue. The Constitution and the rights it ensures most definitely apply here.
They wouldn't if it was privately owned.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo