CO Appartment Complex Bans All Firearms on Premises

[Corlissimo]

I don't see how this will ever stand, even in CO. Isn't your home, even if rented, YOUR home? Even hotel/motel rooms are generally considered to be your home, even if temporary, and your 2A rights (& 4A) still apply.

Interested in seeing the Tom foolery that might result from this one. Idiots!



http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns


~ Typos brought to you by my lazyness & in attention to detail.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I don't see how this will ever stand, even in CO. Isn't your home, even if rented, YOUR home? Even hotel/motel rooms are generally considered to be your home, even if temporary, and your 2A rights (& 4A) still apply.

Interested in seeing the Tom foolery that might result from this one. Idiots!



http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns


~ Typos brought to you by my lazyness & in attention to detail.

I see two competing issues here:

1) Private property interests - If it's not a government lease, then the land owner can set conditions as he pleases. That includes no guns as a condition of the lease.

2) Government enforcement of contracts provisions contrary to public policy - A court cannot enforce such a restriction on the sale of land, even if that is a condition of the deed under which the owner took possession of the land. See: http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm


If it ends up in court, it will be a great case.

[tremiles]

I can't see how that unless it's specifically written into the lease that this can stand. New leases with specific restrictions, sure, but existing leases, not a chance.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Lon]

1) Private property interests - If it's not a government lease, then the land owner can set conditions as he pleases. That includes no guns as a condition of the lease.

Not in Ohio. There's a provision in Ohio law that prohibits landlords from doing this. It applies to tenants and their guests.

Had to brief my guys at work about this since one of the apartments posted signs saying no weapons. Didn't want them to make an arrest when they shouldn't.

[RoyGBiv]

I can't see how that unless it's specifically written into the lease that this can stand. New leases with specific restrictions, sure, but existing leases, not a chance.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Every apartment lease I've seen has language similar to.... "and such restrictions as Landlord may add, at their sole discretion."
I went as far once as striking that language before signing a lease. The apartment manager countersigned (she was cuter than she was smart, I suppose) and it was done. This was 20+ years ago.

As I understand it... the Landlord can add whatever restrictions they want (within the law) as long as they provide notice. I never had the need to object to a new rule, but my uneducated assumption would be that if the Landlord forced a new provision on you in this manner and you objected and decided to move out, the Landlord would be obligated to release you from the lease without penalty (early termination and such)...

[TPM]

I can see a bunch of burglaries hitting the Castle Rock apartments in October...

[TGS]

If it ends up in court, it will be a great case.

I was thinking the same thing.

It'll be interesting (possibly scary) to see how the dynamics of a citizen's rights change over time, as property ownership declines due to the growing welfare state and continually crappy economy.

[Corlissimo]

I can't see how that unless it's specifically written into the lease that this can stand. New leases with specific restrictions, sure, but existing leases, not a chance.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

That's what I'm thinking too. That would mean the proposed enforcement date would likely violate the rights of anyone who is not up for a lease renewal.

Typos brought to you by my DROID... and my apathy.

[RoyGBiv]

That's what I'm thinking too. That would mean the proposed enforcement date would likely violate the rights of anyone who is not up for a lease renewal.

Typos brought to you by my DROID... and my apathy.

Here's a random lease I found on the internets... (http://www.towsonplaceapts.com/download/apps-forms/Lease.pdf) (PDF file will open... see bottom of page 7)

Resident understands that “Exhibit E Apartment Rules and Regulations” may be amended from time to time and are for the purpose of protecting the
apartment unit and providing for the safety and well being of all residents of the apartment unit, and affirms that Resident will, in all respects, comply with
the terms, conditions, covenants and provisions of this Lease.

[G60]

Policy will not go into effect:

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

[TGS]

Policy will not go into effect:

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

I have a feeling that some overzealous liberal is going to be fired.

[RoyGBiv]

Policy will not go into effect:

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

Interesting that the original article failed to mention that the complex was owned by the government, paid for with tax dollars.

At least they came up with the right answer in the end.

[RoyGBiv]

I have a feeling that some overzealous liberal is going to be promoted.

Fixed it for you.

[ToddG]

Private company in CO tries to infringe 2A rights.
Government officials in two separate jurisdictions take immediate and decisive action to stop it.


You guys can read all the doom 'n gloom you want into this. What I read was: "Colorado politicians have learned to keep their freakin' hands off Coloradans' guns." The backlash over the Bloomberg gun laws is already having a very positive effect on local politics.

[JodyH]

Hopefully the lesson learned by the liberal busybodies is, "those gov regulations you wanted, they always have unintended consequences."

[Corlissimo]

Interesting that the original article failed to mention that the complex was owned by the government, paid for with tax dollars.


And, that it is a Senior's housing complex too. That's adds a different slant to the situation as well, especially since defensive firearms have generally been recognized as a great force "equalizer" for women and the elderly & infirmed, which I'm sure that complex has plenty of all three housed there.

Typos brought to you by my DROID... and my apathy.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Interesting that the original article failed to mention that the complex was owned by the government, paid for with tax dollars.



That changes everything, as a private land owner can do as they please; but a government entity is (supposed to be) bound by the constitution, and therefore can't (supposedly) engage in actions like this.

[G60]

San Francisco Public Housing authority tried to pull this nonsense a few years ago as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Montag_Doe_v._San_Francisco_Housing_Authority

[Drang]

Private company in CO tries to infringe 2A rights.
Government officials in two separate jurisdictions take immediate and decisive action to stop it.


You guys can read all the doom 'n gloom you want into this. What I read was: "Colorado politicians have learned to keep their freakin' hands off Coloradans' guns." The backlash over the Bloomberg gun laws is already having a very positive effect on local politics.

And yet Magpul is still leaving the state.

[ToddG]

And yet Magpul is still leaving the state.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Odds are Magpul's leaving is one of the reasons why local CO politicians have learned not to screw with the Second Amendment.

[LHS]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Odds are Magpul's leaving is one of the reasons why local CO politicians have learned not to screw with the Second Amendment.

Exactly. Plus, Magpul has already made a very public commitment to leaving Colorado. They don't have much choice in the matter; the die is cast. If they backed out now, it'd be a PR nightmare for them. The gun community is fickle and easily provoked.