CO apartment bans gun owners

[buckshot24]

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?

I was talking about just the homosexual acts. Banning those. (not like its possible to monitor, just as a hypothetical.)

 

[SpatiallyAware]

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.

Aww look at eski getting all upset and slinging insults at people because he's frustrated. And, as is typical for eski's elitist posts, he is mostly incorrect in his assumptions.


Depending on the state a rental lease does not hold much weight.

State law supercedes anything agreed upon in a lease. I have seen judges literally destroy a landlord who thought they could write in a bunch of BS and would stick... For example, "landlord is not responsible for toxic mold, toxic mold is not grounds to break a lease" type of crap.

 

[fskimospy]

I was talking about just the homosexual acts. Banning those. (not like its possible to monitor, just as a hypothetical.)

Yes, they could most likely legally ban those as well. I'm not aware of any law (at least in a number of states) that would prohibit them from banning that as well.

Sure it would be scummy and reprehensible, but I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit that. Housing law has a lot of particulars though, so maybe there is something.

 

[fskimospy]

Aww look at eski getting all upset and slinging insults at people because he's frustrated. And, as is typical for eski's elitist posts, he is mostly incorrect in his assumptions.


Depending on the state a rental lease does not hold much weight.

State law supercedes anything agreed upon in a lease. I have seen judges literally destroy a landlord who thought they could write in a bunch of BS and would stick... For example, "landlord is not responsible for toxic mold, toxic mold is not grounds to break a lease" type of crap.

Do you ever read posts before commenting? It was one sentence and one paragraph, is that so hard?

Of course state law would supersede such a thing, of course that's why I specifically stated that I was aware of no such law that would prohibit such a restriction and that if he knew of one he should link it.

 

[Guurn]

I know that doing this to renters is prohibited in some states. It is a pretty odd thing when you think about it. Could you also ban them from voting (not a constitutional right) or praying?

 

[fskimospy]

I know that doing this to renters is prohibited in some states. It is a pretty odd thing when you think about it. Could you also ban them from voting (not a constitutional right) or praying?

Voting doesn't take place on your property and religion is a class protected by anti-discrimination law.

So...no.

 

[Wreckem]

Most states have Apartment Associations that offer form leases and other forms.

The following is in almost every form lease.

"We may make reasonable changes to written rules, effective immediately, if they are distributed and applicable to all units in the apartment community and do not change dollar amounts on page 1 of this Lease Contract."


The question is reasonableness. If this goes to court I doubt the landlord wins because it is not reasonable to ban all guns from someones leased domicile mid lease. Apartments already ban criminals from being occupants. Why is the banning the guns mid term of law abiding citizens necessary.

The land lord can certainly ban guns on all new leases, but to make the change for current leases, it has to be reasonable. I seriously doubt it will be found reasonable. Landlord should have banned guns in all new leases and then declined to renew leases of previous tenants who had guns and weren't willing to get rid of them. The landlords shortsightedness is going to incur him a lot of legal fees.

That said landlords(well at least their property managers) do shady and illegal shit all the time. Most of the time they get away with it because most people don't have the money to deal with it/ignorant of their rights.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Do you ever read posts before commenting? It was one sentence and one paragraph, is that so hard?

Of course state law would supersede such a thing, of course that's why I specifically stated that I was aware of no such law that would prohibit such a restriction and that if he knew of one he should link it.

 

[fskimospy]

 

[xBiffx]

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.

I think the key word in your description is restrict. No one is saying restrictions of rights aren't a problem. The issue is that this effectively eliminates rights.

You are right about God, however.

 

[Doppel]

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.

Would have been epically retarded.

"Come rob all of our tenants, none of them have guns or "weapons", including house knives."

 

[woolfe9998]

I think the key word in your description is restrict. No one is saying restrictions of rights aren't a problem. The issue is that this effectively eliminates rights.

You are right about God, however.

According to the Constitution, these "rights" exist only relative to government, i.e. as in government cannot take them away. The Constitution is unconcerned about individuals taking them away from other individuals, except in the case of slavery. This makes perfect sense because in reality, people usually can't take away the rights of others unless the "others" are on or are using their property. The right to control one's own property is also a fundamental right, which cannot be taken away without due process of law.

There may be other opportunities for private citizens to infringe on the rights of other private citizens aside from situations involving one's own property, but those tend to be curtailed by various criminal and civil laws. If someone tries to tackle you to prevent you from speaking freely in public, that's called a battery. If someone takes away your gun, that's called theft. Rights of people vis-a-vis others tend to be governed by statute.

What I find interesting about your topic is that a libertarian typically dislikes laws which disallow discrimination in renting property, i.e. on the basis of race, creed, sexual preference, whatever. In theory one could add "gun ownership" to that list, in which case it would be illegal to not allow renters to possess firearms. But that is actually an infringement of private property rights, no less so that disallowing other kinds of discrimination. Yet libertarians support the general principle of gun rights. Nonetheless, I suspect the correct analysis for a libertarian would be to not support such a law.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

I could see an apartment forbidding guns on the property.

First, it's private property and I think the owner should be able to make such a restriction if they so choose.

Secondly, while I don't know for sure I can imagine some reduced liability, and therefore cheaper insurance, from a 'no gun' policy.

But changing the rules for existing tenants is BS.

Fern

 

[brycejones]

Solution to the problem is simple. Don't move there let the free market work its magic. The building owner is completely within his rights to forbid guns in the complex as leases are renewed or new tenants move in.

Gun outrage of the day not found.

 

[chucky2]

While it's their property and thus their right to make rules for new contracts, I can't imagine why anyone would want to have this as a rule. Effectively, you've just told every criminal that this entire complex is a gun free zone. That seems incredibly stupid...

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, they could most likely legally ban those as well. I'm not aware of any law (at least in a number of states) that would prohibit them from banning that as well.

Sure it would be scummy and reprehensible, but I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit that. Housing law has a lot of particulars though, so maybe there is something.

Would it be scummy and reprehensible if they banned legally owned firearms?

The sticky part as far as I'm concerned is the fact that these places are people's home. I get not allowing legal guns in a public privately owned building (although I think it's fucking stupid). There are no federally protected rights to own dogs or cats.

Oh and what state allows a property owner to not rent to a gay person? I honestly have no idea so it's not a "gotcha" question.

 

[jleach1]

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.

This is not only common, but nearly universal in the Midwest, among other unconstitutional laws and practices. You'd figure that being a lawmaker, that our representatives would understand (like all others with an IQ over 20) that the constitution trumps all other law....apparently saying that our lawmakers have an IQ over 20 was being hopeful.

What we should really be discussing, is why our Judicial branch hasn't arrested lawmakers, and why the FBI hasn't arrested state and local police for violating our constitutional rights.

Lastly, why hasnt the national guard detained the judges, and the rest of justice department officials?

In my time, I've heard maybe 2-3 people in power actually say "no, we can't do that, it's illegal. There is 0 grounds for making an argument here, the constitution trumps your restarted interpretation".

There's no such thing as a constitutional interpretation....if you need an interpretation, what your doing is obviously legal, or illegal.

And if you don't like it, you better get on your way and start a constitutional convention.

I might have heard 2-3 people admit the limits of their own power, and argue the points of the constitution, but I have yet to see a single--even just one-- person that swore to protect and defend the constitution stand up for our rights and arrest, or hold accountable those that try to infringe upon these black and white principles that are supposed to he uninfringeable and inalienable.

 

[DominionSeraph]

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

Doubt that would legally fly. As a legal residence, the tenant gains some rights over the use of the property: for example, a landlord is not allowed to prohibit visitors. Prohibiting sex would almost certainly be seen as an unreasonable and unenforceable restriction.

Prohibiting guns is not. It's a residence, not a firing range or gun store. Just as pets are not central to human habitation and can be excepted, guns are not either.

Minnesota law doesn't allow the landlord to prohibit guns by their tenants or visitors, but the renter gains control and can prohibit firearms in his residence.

 

[buckshot24]

Doubt that would legally fly. As a legal residence, the tenant gains some rights over the use of the property: for example, a landlord is not allowed to prohibit visitors. Prohibiting sex would almost certainly be seen as an unreasonable and unenforceable restriction.

I don't think it would fly either. It is unenforceable which wasn't really a consideration when I brought it up. Having a hand gun in the apartment isn't really enforceable either. Easy to keep it hidden.

Prohibiting guns is not. It's a residence, not a firing range or gun store. Just as pets are not central to human habitation and can be excepted, guns are not either.

Owning a gun is a federally protected right. Nobody is saying that the gun owner would be firing in the apartment or selling guns to the public in the apartment. Those two things I'd agree with you on. However those two things have nothing to do with owning a gun and keeping it in your "home".

Minnesota law doesn't allow the landlord to prohibit guns by their tenants or visitors, but the renter gains control and can prohibit firearms in his residence.

That is reasonable and sensible. This sort of thing would make for an interesting supreme court case.

 

[Pocatello]

I didn't know there are so many lawyers at AT.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I don't think it would fly either. It is unenforceable which wasn't really a consideration when I brought it up. Having a hand gun in the apartment isn't really enforceable either. Easy to keep it hidden.

How stupid are you? Legal enforcement means it has the backing of the law. It's a separate issue to how practical something is to enforce.

Owning a gun is a federally protected right.

It is a restriction on the government.

This sort of thing would make for an interesting supreme court case.

It would never make it that far. Judges aren't as dumb as you and actually know basic law.

 

[WackyDan]

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....

No... A company can indeed make that decision for a place that is leased/owned for the purpose of operating a business.

These are citizen's residences even if rented and indeed are treated differently.

For example, if you carry a firearm concealed or open (depending on state laws) into a business that has a sign prohibiting that practice you can be asked to leave or charged with criminal trespass. Do so at work where they have that same policy and you can be fired.

Do that in a place that is considered your residence? Can't be charged with trespass. The ban they tried to impose wasn't even supported by state laws... Before you even get into a 2nd amendment debate. They can kick you out if they find you have a firearm.. That is it. How are they going to know?

Finally... You live there and shoot someone who breaks into your apartment, as long as it is indeed self defense, you still have broken no law... Their only recourse is to kick you out.

 

[Thebobo]

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

Or yelling Hi! to your friend Jack on an airplane.

 

[DCal430]

So you all know I do support a gun ban. However, the talk of private companies being able to ban guns on their property is irrelevant in this case. This a government owned housing, it is not a private company. A ban on gun ownership in this apartment represents a government ban on guns.

 

[DCal430]

I could see an apartment forbidding guns on the property.

First, it's private property and I think the owner should be able to make such a restriction if they so choose.

Secondly, while I don't know for sure I can imagine some reduced liability, and therefore cheaper insurance, from a 'no gun' policy.

But changing the rules for existing tenants is BS.

Fern

This isn't private property, this is government public housing. The owners are the people of the state of Colorado.