CO apartment bans gun owners

[Bowfinger]

You are a f*cking idiot, and totally illiterate

What you quoted and commented on, referred EXCLUSIVELY to private housing. I merely stated that is not relevant because this is not private housing. You really are illiterate.

Yet you continue to fail to support that claim by citing credible evidence, which is the one and only thing I challenged you to do. That was my point from the beginning. While people like you pontificate based on your beliefs, Bshole actually cited specific, well-informed sources. This made his one post far more valuable than all of yours combined. When you claimed it was irrelevant, I challenged you to cite something just as credible supporting your claim. That shot you off into a string if non-responsive dung pies that avoided my challenge.

 

[DCal430]

Yet you continue to fail to support that claim by citing credible evidence, which is the one and only thing I challenged you to do. That was my point from the beginning. While people like you pontificate based on your beliefs, Bshole actually cited specific, well-informed sources. This made his one post far more valuable than all of yours combined. When you claimed it was irrelevant, I challenged you to cite something just as credible supporting your claim. That shot you off into a string if non-responsive dung pies that avoided my challenge.

I am done with you, you are clearly illiterate, as I demonstrated multiple times how it was irrelevant.

 

[buckshot24]

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.

First, go fuck yourself. Now that we have that out of the way, you're a prick. You brought up enforceability, not me. Since you brought up enforceability do you think restricting guns is really enforceable? Why do you think it is "reasonable" to restrict guns but not something like gay sex? If both are unenforceable.

It is a restriction on the government.

Perhaps the founders called the first ten amendments the bill of rights in error.:whiste:

Do women have the "right" to choose?

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

Dipshit, I didn't say it WOULD make it that far. I'm saying it would be interesting if it did. Maybe I don't understand law, but I'm not proposing any law I'm just having a discussion on something I find interesting. Namely, can private entities force people from keeping legally obtained guns from their homes?

Now, will you address my response to your idiotic firing range and gun store comments?

 

[DCal430]

One last time for you

here is bshole quote:

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/woul....gtsXilbD.dpuf

THE QUOTE IS ONLY ABOUT A PRIVATE OWNER.

 

[DCal430]

I do not question, that some may say it is constitutional, and some say it is not. I NEVER questioned this.

What I stated was citing sources saying private companies/individuals can ban guns on their property is NOT relevant to case at hand, because it isn't

 

[xBiffx]

One last time for you

here is bshole quote:



THE QUOTE IS ONLY ABOUT A PRIVATE OWNER.

Then why have you been arguing with him when he clearly stated public housing. He clearly stated that what bshole linked didn't apply to public housing. His whole point was that private housing concerns are irrelevant in this case. Yet you argue with him.

 

[Bowfinger]

I am done with you, you are clearly illiterate, as I demonstrated multiple times how it was irrelevant.

Without once citing anything other than your own opinions. . Buh bye.

 

[xBiffx]

Without once citing anything other than your own opinions. . Buh bye.

He cited the links in the OP and second post. YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED. Illiterate isn't the word.

 

[Bowfinger]

He cited the links in the OP and second post. YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED. Illiterate isn't the word.

More irony. The things he cite state that it's public housing, but that was never the question (except in his own reading-impaired mind). The question was whether there are different restrictions on public property landlords than private. His "cites" do not address that question at all.

 

[DCal430]

More irony. The things he cite state that it's public housing, but that was never the question (except in his own reading-impaired mind). The question was whether there are different restrictions on public property landlords than private. His "cites" do not address that question at all.

What you quoted said it was specifically for private housing. Therefore it is irrelevant, but you are just too stupid to see that. So it seems you are the one who is badly reading-impaired.

 

[xBiffx]

More irony. The things he cite state that it's public housing, but that was never the question (except in his own reading-impaired mind). The question was whether there are different restrictions on public property landlords than private. His "cites" do not address that question at all.

RETARD. Read the link in the second post just like DCal said several posts back. IT DOES address that question, as he told you before.

"It's unconstitutional to prohibit the legal possession of a gun or a firearm on public housing property," a DHA spokesperson said.

The Housing Authority says its unconstitutional, as per the link. So obviously it does show a difference to what bshole quoted, and you requoted to state that everyone ignored the most informative post in the thread. Irony is right.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Not in my opinion. I think the available evidence shows that guns are not particularly useful for protecting oneself and generally present a danger to your neighbors. It's hard to make such a statement about a gay couple. (I'm not particularly interested in arguing that right now, but that's the basis for my opinion)

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.

Texas, for one. Quite a few more as well if I'm not mistaken. The Fair Housing Act (federal) doesn't cover sexual orientation and as far as I can tell neither does Texas' housing law. If it's not a class that is specifically protected like race, gender, etc, you can be discriminated on by that trait.

 

[brycejones]

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.

Correct they can't charge the tenant with a crime but they can evict their ass for breaking the lease. Its a violation of a civil contract (the lease) so of course the recourse isn't to use the criminal justice system but the enforcement mechanism in the contract which is eviction.

I still don't find outrage at this one. Let the market decide.

 

[xBiffx]

I still don't find outrage at this one.

Neither did anyone else. :|

 

[Fern]

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.

The govt bans firearms all the time.

Try walking yours into a courthouse.

It was only n 2009 Congress voted to allow carry loaded firearms in national parks.

Amtrak had a ban on guns for many years. IIRC, that was only recently overturned allowing guns to be transported in luggage. The reason I saw cited was to allow hunters to use Amtrak.

Many state parks have had ban on guns.

Seems to be the federal govt can ban/restrict guns in many places. Not sure why the apartment would be different.

Not sure if it matters under law, but the govt doesn't own the apartment. It appears to be held by a non-profit corporation that receives various govt funding in addition to rent revenue. Many non-profit hospitals and clinics etc receive federal funding (some existing soley on govt funds) and you can't carry a gun in there either.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Federal, state, and local governments cannot prevent you from owning a firearm.

Since public housing falls under those, you cannot be prevented from owning a firearm in public housing.

Your conclusion does not follow your premises. Ownership is not at issue, possession in certain locations is. When acting as a landlord, govt has the same rights & obligations as private landlords.

If you wanted to argue that private landlords & businesses don't have the right to ban firearms on their properties, you'd have a consistent argument.

 

[DCal430]

The govt bans firearms all the time.

Try walking yours into a courthouse.

It was only n 2009 Congress voted to allow carry loaded firearms in national parks.

Amtrak had a ban on guns for many years. IIRC, that was only recently overturned allowing guns to be transported in luggage. The reason I saw cited was to allow hunters to use Amtrak.

Many state parks have had ban on guns.

Seems to be the federal govt can ban/restrict guns in many places. Not sure why the apartment would be different.

Not sure if it matters under law, but the govt doesn't own the apartment. It appears to be held by a non-profit corporation that receives various govt funding in addition to rent revenue. Many non-profit hospitals and clinics etc receive federal funding (some existing soley on govt funds) and you can't carry a gun in there either.

Fern

It isn't held by a non profit corporation, it is held by a housing authority, a unit of the state of Colorado.

 

[Jhhnn]

It isn't held by a non profit corporation, it is held by a housing authority, a unit of the state of Colorado.

You're still trying to make the immaterial material.

 

[DCal430]

You're still trying to make the immaterial material.

It isn't immaterial, but keep thinking you know more than the legal experts, and authorities in Colorado.

You need to stop ignoring what is the most important fact.

 

[DCal430]

Your conclusion does not follow your premises. Ownership is not at issue, possession in certain locations is. When acting as a landlord, govt has the same rights & obligations as private landlords.

If you wanted to argue that private landlords & businesses don't have the right to ban firearms on their properties, you'd have a consistent argument.

You are wrong, FACT is those who authority it is to enforce these laws in Colorado, say you are wrong. In the end their opinion maters, NOT yours.

 

[BoberFett]

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....

So a landlord can choose to ban homosexual activity on their property?

Edit: Nevermind, I see it was covered, I should have kept reading....

 

[fskimospy]

So a landlord can choose to ban homosexual activity on their property?

Pretty sure that's the case, yes. They can definitely ban gay people in general in quite a few states.

 

[OCGuy]

The ban was over-turned, as it should be. People who cower in fear over an inanimate object need to stay home so they don't crap their diapers.

The gun-grabbers only have hope in California, NY, and Jersey. The rest of the county will remain sane.

 

[shortylickens]

 

[OCGuy]

Holy crap there is a ton of misinformation in this thread. Nobody is openly denying the LGBT community housing, unless they want the government in their ass.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD...housing_equal_opp/LGBT_Housing_Discrimination