CO apartment bans gun owners

[xBiffx]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/colorado-renters-told-toss-guns-or-move-out/

I have a feeling there are going to be several issues with this at first.

I don't think the landlord has a right to kick out a tenant because they changed a policy mid contract. For that to work they would have to sign a new contract based on current policy.

The bigger discussion is whether or not a landlord can make you give up a constitutionally protected right to rent.

 

[xBiffx]

That was very fast.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out

They sided with the Constitution among other things.

Guess they dodged a bullet so to speak.

 

[Genx87]

I dont think the US constitution applies in this situation. However I think current leases will have a legal standing to tell them to shove it until their renewel.

Edit: Ok i didnt know this was a public housing project funded with federal money. I am not sure how the law would apply here. Either way it sounds like the issue has been resolved. And it was some asshole private management company to blame.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

SWEET I know exactly who to rob!

 

[fskimospy]

I dont think the US constitution applies in this situation. However I think current leases will have a legal standing to tell them to shove it until their renewel.

As a general rule this is true although there seems to be some public funding involved here so I'm not sure.

But by and large, of course a landlord can require his tenants to not have guns. That's a no-brainer.

 

[bshole]

Shit if a landlord can ban pets, they sure as hell can ban guns. My company has a ban on any weapons on the grounds. It is grounds for termination.

If you own property, you are legally allowed to control some of what goes on there. I hope you aren't saying land owners don't have the FREEDOM to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable on their own property....

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

2 things:

1) Anyone can make rules on their own private propertly AFAIK....We have a right to bear arms in public, not private. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong *shrug*

2) Show me a contract that DOESNT say "We have a right to change things as we please with no approval needed from tenant" (or something to that affect)

 

[waggy]

I dont think the US constitution applies in this situation. However I think current leases will have a legal standing to tell them to shove it until their renewel.

Edit: Ok i didnt know this was a public housing project funded with federal money. I am not sure how the law would apply here. Either way it sounds like the issue has been resolved. And it was some asshole private management company to blame.

I don't think it being a public housing project would matter> just because you rent does not mean you would give up your rights.

 

[xBiffx]

Shit if a landlord can ban pets, they sure as hell can ban guns. My company has a ban on any weapons on the grounds. It is grounds for termination.

If you own property, you are legally allowed to control some of what goes on there. I hope you aren't saying land owners don't have the FREEDOM to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable on their own property....

Pets aren't enumerated in the Constitution.

You don't have to be able take your gun to work. For you do exercise your right to bear arms, you do have to be able to have it at home. Because of this, I don't think holding a job and living somewhere are comparable. Although my company has a similar policy. They had to revise it because of carry provision law here. They used to not allow weapon in personal vehicles, they had to revise that portion of the policy.

Sure the owners get to decide what's acceptable but as you said, within the law. Seems like taking away someone's right is unlawful.

 

[fskimospy]

Pets aren't enumerated in the Constitution.

I don't think holding a job and living somewhere are comparable. Although my company has a similar policy. They had to revise it because of carry provision law here. They used to not allow weapon in personal vehicles, they had to revise that portion of the policy.

Sure they owners get to decide what's acceptable but as you said, within the law. Seems like taking away someone's right is unlawful.

The Constitution only applies to the government. I personally am perfectly free to infringe upon your right to bear arms on my property. (EDIT: And in fact, I would. I would never allow someone to bring a gun into my home.) Additionally, movie theaters and other places are free to infringe on your right to free speech and kick you out for talking during the movie. I am free to violate your right to assembly on my property and say you can't have a meeting in my house.

And so on.

 

[waggy]

The Constitution only applies to the government. I personally am perfectly free to infringe upon your right to bear arms on my property. (EDIT: And in fact, I would. I would never allow someone to bring a gun into my home.) Additionally, movie theaters and other places are free to infringe on your right to free speech and kick you out for talking during the movie. I am free to violate your right to assembly on my property and say you can't have a meeting in my house.

And so on.

hmm from what i remember reading (granted years ago) the constitution does not only apply to the governement.

BUT private residence (and business) do have rights of there own. You can ban guns, limit free speech etc.

BUt there are other laws with renting. The rented place because there residence. there castle etc. You can't kick them out for speech (unless hate speech but that's not covered), etc.

It would be interesting court case.

 

[xBiffx]

The Constitution only applies to the government. I personally am perfectly free to infringe upon your right to bear arms on my property. Additionally, movie theaters and other places are free to infringe on your right to free speech and kick you out for talking during the movie. I am free to violate your right to assembly on my property and say you can't have a meeting in my house.

And so on.

The Constitution does say what the government can or can't do but it also says that the right to bear arms is God given. So how can another person take away something that is innate?

There is a difference between reasonable restrictions to your rights, like yelling fire in a theater or taking a gun to the post office, and removal altogether. This is effectively removing your right entirely and not just reasonably restricting (you use the term violate) it as your examples are.

 

[bshole]

Here is the state of the law today:

You do have a legal right to prohibit the keeping of firearms at your properties, just as you can prohibit tenants from keeping pets or parking oversize vehicles in your parking lots.

Your manager’s concerns are a bit off the mark: The United States Constitution (specifically, the Second Amendment, which concerns the people’s "right to bear arms") is aimed at the government, not at individuals like you. So, while recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down attempts to restrict gun ownership, these cases have all involved states or localities whose laws have been found to infringe on the amendment. You are neither a state nor a locality. You are simply a business owner who has wide latitude in deciding how your run the business.

Should you instigate such a policy at your properties — more on how to do that below — you should be prepared for another argument you’re likely to hear. "That’s discrimination against gun owners!" will surely be lobbed your way. Again, nothing to fear, legally. That’s because gun owners are not a protected group under federal, state or local laws. Unlike members of a race, religion, ethnicity and so on, gun owners enjoy no protection from negative treatment aimed at them simply because they happen to own guns.

You certainly can’t target protected groups with your policy, such as applying it to members of a particular race only, but you can refuse to rent to every applicant who wants to keep guns on the property. Now you must think about how to implement your new policy. For those tenants who have leases, you’ll have to wait until the leases are up to insert your new clause. You can’t impose your new rule on tenants who are midlease, because doing so would entail a unilateral change in an important term or condition of the rental, which is exactly what a lease is intended to prohibit. But if you have month-to-month tenants, you can announce your new policy with proper notice, which is 30 days in most states. Tenants who are unhappy with the new rule will presumably refuse to sign your new lease or monthly agreement. If they don’t move out voluntarily, they’ll be candidates for eviction. - See more at: http://www.inman.com/2013/02/14/would-gun-ban-violate-tenants-rights/#sthash.gtsXilbD.dpuf

The important thing to notice is that guns are not allowed on the property. The renters can still have guns, they just cannot bring them on the property. That is the state of the law and that is the way it should be. I agree 100% with this.

 

[fskimospy]

The Constitution does say what the government can or can't do but it also says that the right to bear arms is God given. So how can another person take away something that is innate?

Actually the Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms being god given. Regardless, legally I have every right to eliminate your second amendment rights on my property. Neither you nor I are in any way bound by anything written in the Constitution.

So yes, regardless of whether or not you consider the right to bear arms to be innate, your fellow citizens can remove that right from you at any moment, so long as you are on their property. (well, they can make you being unarmed a prerequisite for entering or using their property)

There is a difference between reasonable restrictions to your rights, like yelling fire in a theater or taking a gun to the post office, and removal altogether. This is effectively removing your right entirely and not just restricting (you use the term violate) it as your examples are.

Those reasonable restrictions also only apply to the government. Private citizens are free to have as reasonable or as unreasonable restrictions as they want, so long as it isn't violating some statute. (as the Constitution is not binding on you or I) I'm not aware of any statute that requires property owners to allow guns on their premises, and if there was one I imagine it would stand a good chance of being struck down by the courts.

 

[justoh]

It should be noted that yelling fire in a crowded theater is fine if there is one.

 

[HumblePie]

The problem with the anti gunners here, is that when you are renting, that property is "owned" by the tenant with certain stipulations. A property manager can not kick me out of a rental I paid for temporary ownership during the rental period for owning a firearm unless that was a previously contracted stipulation I agreed to before moving in.

Now a property owner looking to rent out units to new renters can make such stipulations. Just like no smoking, no pets, or anything else. But for those already living there they absolutely can not do it.

 

[exdeath]

Private property owners have rights to say what goes on on their property, but things change when you are renting housing to the public. You cannot discriminate race, sex, etc, and what legally owned property a renter is allowed to have in a residence they are paying for falls under similar equal opportunity housing and civil rights protections.

 

[xBiffx]

So what happens if a lawsuit of this sort gets up to the Supreme Court? There would be no way for them to rule in favor of the landlord. Would the entire court have the recuse itself? :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

The problem with the anti gunners here, is that when you are renting, that property is "owned" by the tenant with certain stipulations. A property manager can not kick me out of a rental I paid for temporary ownership during the rental period for owning a firearm unless that was a previously contracted stipulation I agreed to before moving in.

Now a property owner looking to rent out units to new renters can make such stipulations. Just like no smoking, no pets, or anything else. But for those already living there they absolutely can not do it.

That totally depends on the terms of the lease. Under many leases they can most certainly do it.

 

[HumblePie]

That totally depends on the terms of the lease. Under many leases they can most certainly do it.

No, not at all.

Or are you trying to say in a hypothetical situation that if I was renting out to muslims, and I didn't like muslims, and found out later that I could kick them out legally by trying to change the lease to state no muslims?

Doesn't work that way. Not unless I can show harm done by that condition I'm trying to throw them out on. Mere possession of a firearm doesn't show that harm.

I highly suggest you read up on tenant laws and what they protect for in your area. There are certain basic ones that go for all 50 states though. Kicking someone out because they own a firearm, and it wasn't stipulated prior to moving in on the least that firearm ownership was prohibited, is going to be illegal in all 50 states.

 

[thraashman]

No, not at all.

Or are you trying to say in a hypothetical situation that if I was renting out to muslims, and I didn't like muslims, and found out later that I could kick them out legally by trying to change the lease to state no muslims?

Doesn't work that way. Not unless I can show harm done by that condition I'm trying to throw them out on. Mere possession of a firearm doesn't show that harm.

I highly suggest you read up on tenant laws and what they protect for in your area. There are certain basic ones that go for all 50 states though. Kicking someone out because they own a firearm, and it wasn't stipulated prior to moving in on the least that firearm ownership was prohibited, is going to be illegal in all 50 states.

But it is perfectly legal to have a lease state a "no firearms" policy. As far as existing tenants, you'd have to allow them to finish out their current lease and only allow future leases to have the "no firearms" policy. You just can't add that policy mid lease, because it is a stipulation they hadn't agreed to when they signed originally.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't know. I can see eskimo's point but these rental units are people's home as they rent them. It isn't like people are merely visiting, they are living there.

I wonder if a landlord banning homosexual acts on their units would be just as acceptable to eskimopy as banning fire arms.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know. I can see eskimo's point but these rental units are people's home as they rent them. It isn't like people are merely visiting, they are living there.

I wonder if a landlord banning homosexual acts on their units would be just as acceptable to eskimopy as banning fire arms.

Depends on the state. Sadly, there are still plenty of states in which a landlord can refuse to rent to you if you are gay. In those cases it would be acceptable under the law, even if the law is stupid and should be changed.

I mean, what did you think I would say?

 

[fskimospy]

No, not at all.

Or are you trying to say in a hypothetical situation that if I was renting out to muslims, and I didn't like muslims, and found out later that I could kick them out legally by trying to change the lease to state no muslims?

Doesn't work that way. Not unless I can show harm done by that condition I'm trying to throw them out on. Mere possession of a firearm doesn't show that harm.

I highly suggest you read up on tenant laws and what they protect for in your area. There are certain basic ones that go for all 50 states though. Kicking someone out because they own a firearm, and it wasn't stipulated prior to moving in on the least that firearm ownership was prohibited, is going to be illegal in all 50 states.

Incorrect. You don't know anything about the law as shown amply in I don't even know how many threads.

A lease is a contract. If your lease states that the landlord has the right to create/remove restrictions of this sort in mid-lease, they can most certainly do so. I am aware of no statute that would invalidate such a provision. If you are aware of a statute that prevents a property owner from having such a clause related to firearms, link it.

 

[woolfe9998]

There is only one provision in the Constitution which applies to private citizens, the 13th Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude. All others apply only to the government. People are free to restrict the rights of others who are on their property. It's why AT can ban and censor on its own discussion board.

I'm amazed that there are people who still do not understand this.

Oh, and word "God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If you do not believe this, then please go and look.