CO apartment bans gun owners

[Jhhnn]

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.

Heh. In this particular instance, a contracted management company went rogue, made demands contrary to what Douglas County wants. That does not address the issue of whether or not Douglas County or any other govt landlord could legitimately do so, particularly with new lease periods.

When some non-judicial person claims that such is unconstitutional, their opinion carries no weight. When such rulings have been "challenged" elsewhere, it just means that the issue has not been settled.

Do you believe that private landlords have the right to stipulate no firearms? If so, why would a govt landlord have less rights than a private landlord?

 

[Fern]

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

Hard to tell.

Their website is down. But it indicates nonprofit, not governmental. It's a .org, not a .gov

www.douglascountyhousingpartnership.org/‎

If they're a 501 c3 it means they couldn't qualify as governmental. Govt units automatically qualify so don't file for exempt status.

Fern

 

[DCal430]

Hard to tell.

Their website is down. But it indicates nonprofit, not governmental. It's a .org, not a .gov

www.douglascountyhousingpartnership.org/‎

If they're a 501 c3 it means they couldn't qualify as governmental. Govt units automatically qualify so don't file for exempt status.

Fern

http://www.douglascountyhousingpartnership.org/

By definition housing authorities are always part of the government.

The DCHP operates with financial support from the jurisdictions of the City of Lone Tree, the Town of Castle Rock, the Town of Parker and Douglas County as a political subdivision and public corporation of the State of Colorado.

 

[DCal430]

Heh. In this particular instance, a contracted management company went rogue, made demands contrary to what Douglas County wants. That does not address the issue of whether or not Douglas County or any other govt landlord could legitimately do so, particularly with new lease periods.

When some non-judicial person claims that such is unconstitutional, their opinion carries no weight. When such rulings have been "challenged" elsewhere, it just means that the issue has not been settled.

Do you believe that private landlords have the right to stipulate no firearms? If so, why would a govt landlord have less rights than a private landlord?

It does, because they themselves said it was unconstitutional. When head attorney for a city or state, deems a law unconditional, and decides to not enforce it, it can in fact end their. So their opinion does carry weight.

The rights of private individuals and the government is vastly different. Shame if you can't see their is a big difference.

 

[BigChickenJim]

This is an interesting case. The only legal standing that the tenants or Housing Authority had was based on the fact that the tax dollars paid for the property. Had this been an entirely private apartment complex I'm not sure that the tenants would have had any legal recourse.

I'm no housing lawyer, but I believe that the only laws in place regarding renting in entirely private situations involve discrimination against legally recognized protected classes. Gun owners do not fall into that category, so I'd expect that their hands would have been tied. After all, private owners get to decide what is or is not allowed on their property. The upside of this is that had the management group been allowed to continue pressing the agenda, they'd have likely run into so much financial trouble that it would have necessitated a policy change outside of any legal action.

It's sad that these small-time groups are attempting to press their legislative preferences through backdoor channels instead of openly advocating for them in the proper forums and using the proper legal procedures. It's even more sad that such furtive political actions will likely win praise in certain circles. This, my friends, is why we have to be vigilant.

 

[Jhhnn]

It does, because they themselves said it was unconstitutional. When head attorney for a city or state, deems a law unconditional, and decides to not enforce it, it can in fact end their. So their opinion does carry weight.

The rights of private individuals and the government is vastly different. Shame if you can't see their is a big difference.

So, when a Douglas County official declares it's unconstitutional, why, that's the final word on the subject, right?

Nice dodge wrt the other part of it, btw.

 

[DCal430]

So, when a Douglas County official declares it's unconstitutional, why, that's the final word on the subject, right?

Nice dodge wrt the other part of it, btw.

When people have no ability to challenge their interpretation. It does become the final word.

 

[TerryMathews]

So, when a Douglas County official declares it's unconstitutional, why, that's the final word on the subject, right?

Nice dodge wrt the other part of it, btw.

Since a violation of it would need to be prosecuted by the same DA's office, who else do you feel should be able to interpret the law?

 

[Jhhnn]

When people have no ability to challenge their interpretation. It does become the final word.

Since a violation of it would need to be prosecuted by the same DA's office, who else do you feel should be able to interpret the law?

Oh, please. The larger question, the one provoking so much outrage! outrage! remains unanswered, even as some claim (rather obliquely) that it's because there's a difference between private landlord rights & govt landlord rights.

I don't think there is a difference, no matter who wants to have it both ways.

Douglas County is quite conservative, btw, so it's no surprise that they smacked down their hired manager. In another jurisdiction, it could easily be the govt body as landlord making the no firearms condition to the lease, and wanting it to stay that way.

 

[Maximus758]

Hey, why not? If you can't depend on your government to keep you safe from that stuff, maybe you can depend on your landlord!

 

[fskimospy]

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

You are just wrong, people most certainly can deny housing to gay people. Your link mentions some cases where the interests of gay people may intersect with areas that the FHA does in fact cover, but the FHA does NOT prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[TerryMathews]

You are just wrong, people most certainly can deny housing to gay people. Your link mentions some cases where the interests of gay people may intersect with areas that the FHA does in fact cover, but the FHA does NOT prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

True, however in this case it likely is prohibited as the "federal" funds likely came from HUD which does prohibit against the discrimination of LBGT persons.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey, why not? If you can't depend on your government to keep you safe from that stuff, maybe you can depend on your landlord!

You can never be safe from your own irrational fear.

 

[fskimospy]

True, however in this case it likely is prohibited as the "federal" funds likely came from HUD which does prohibit against the discrimination of LBGT persons.

Yes. It appears the answer to this thread is that in most cases the landlord has pretty wide latitude to discriminate against gun ownership (and LGBT people), but since the specific property in question here is owned by a government entity, that's not really the case here.

 

[WackyDan]

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.

To be honest... Heller Vs DC probably also prevents them from banning ownership... If it went to court.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

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

LoL

Interesting. According to the site, it's legal in Virginia (and other states) to have the lease say that you can't be gay or you will be evicted.