View Full Version : Apartment residents told they cant own guns.
battle_sight_zero
08-06-2013, 20:57
http://m.9news.com/topstory/article?a=348974&f=1272
battle_sight_zero
08-06-2013, 20:58
Wow Castlerock of all places at that. I guess the criminals will know where to go.
well.. a landowner as well as a private business has the right to prohibit anything they want other than deny someone a lease based on color. If the landlord is going this far it is likely that the complex has a lot of problems or they suck as a management company anyway and having to move might be the best thing to happen to these people.
Not only that, he said he was going to be forced ..... to leave his guns at a friends 30 miles away, not according to the new "Universal background check."
They probably already consulted a lawyer before making the notice, but I think it could be challenged in court. Only if he had a lawyer to knock them down.
battle_sight_zero
08-06-2013, 21:08
well.. a landowner as well as a private business has the right to prohibit anything they want other than deny someone a lease based on color. If the landlord is going this far it is likely that the complex has a lot of problems or they suck as a management company anyway and having to move might be the best thing to happen to these people.
I would lean towards liberal ass sucking management company. Not alot of lowlifes in that area. Perhaps Rap Sheet Rhonda bought the place with her Bloomberg dollars? Make some gun owners go homeless because of the sicknesses in their soul.
Either way another big reason to own not rent. According to my buddy who lives down the street their are some military folks living in the complex.
well.. a landowner as well as a private business has the right to prohibit anything they want other than deny someone a lease based on color. If the landlord is going this far it is likely that the complex has a lot of problems or they suck as a management company anyway and having to move might be the best thing to happen to these people.
A landlord and a business owner are two different things, landlords do not have unlimited control, they are still bound by housing rules, the man is paying them for the space from this date to this date. They cant move his stuff or touch his stuff. Try to get someone kicked out of a house.................. the due process is intense.
Could be the landlords or management company is a Anti-2A owned business, but I do agree there has got to be someplace similar he could move to. Bet you some people will step up to help.
We had a member go through something similar just in the last two years or so. There are other ways to run residents that you don't want out, but this management company is misguided in which residents they don't want.
UrbanWolf
08-06-2013, 21:13
My old apartment had that policy too, i left them because of that, they would kick me out anyways, a repair guy came into my room and saw my rifle case and ammo case I had at the time. And noticed the office.
muddywings
08-06-2013, 21:14
well.. a landowner as well as a private business has the right to prohibit anything they want other than deny someone a lease based on color. If the landlord is going this far it is likely that the complex has a lot of problems or they suck as a management company anyway and having to move might be the best thing to happen to these people.
I agree on the landlord angle but I would be curious what his lease said, when his lease ended, if he is month to month etc etc. Can a landlord change the lease parameters in an apartment complex or can he be 'grandfathered' in or at least be given a reasonable amount of time to move? Guess what I'm getting at is, 1. what does his lease say, 2. when does the lease end/come for renewal.
Overall, just stupid. It would be on par with putting a sign on your lawn that says "gun free zone."
battle_sight_zero
08-06-2013, 21:18
We had a member go through something similar just in the last two years or so. There are other ways to run residents that you don't want out, but this management company is misguided in which residents they don't want.
Agree misguided, the complex is located smack right in the middle of a very quiet and safe part of town. Douglas County is pretty conservative and does have alot of Conceal Carry holders. Heck when I first saw the article I expected Boulder or Manitou Springs as the location.
Either way we need to make sure that when someone runs a Internet Search for apartment rental that it shows this complex does not respect the 2nd amendment and a tenants right to protect themselves. It also tells the bad guys where to go. Sure no firearms may attract some tenants buy many people wont want to live in Bloomberg estates.
Doesn't matter until someone has the money to fight it. There's an apt complex that won't allow visible tattoos that has withstood 2 legal challenges.
stoner01
08-06-2013, 22:11
Where is this. A place that you cant be an inkie? WTF
Where is this. A place that you cant be an inkie? WTF
Denver. It makes the news and apt industry stuff quite a bit. The industry term would be "protected class" Race religion age sexual orientation.
I had the opportunity to challenge this myself but it was cheaper to move. I also worked at the place and quit shortly after the move.
BushMasterBoy
08-06-2013, 22:38
Call or email them and tell them what you think... http://www.ross-management.com/ross-community/colorado/castle-rock/oakwood-apartments/?type=community
While I agree that "gun free zones" are more of a target, I also believe that MOST criminals that would break into a low income apt. complex wouldn't even consider if they might be armed or not. The low life's that do break-ins on places like that, are to stupid and uneducated to do that research.
Doesn't matter until someone has the money to fight it. There's an apt complex that won't allow visible tattoos that has withstood 2 legal challenges.
If it is in the rental agreement signed by the renter it is technically legal . . . but if they suddenly presented a longterm renter with a new revised rental agreement giving him 2 months to have his tattoos surgically removed or face eviction that would be a bit different.
BlasterBob
08-07-2013, 08:08
well.. a landowner as well as a private business has the right to prohibit anything they want .
This makes it sound like a land owner and/or private business owners can prohibit ANYONE from bringing any firearms on his/her property even LEO's? Think the LEO's would comply with that prohibition??
StagLefty
08-07-2013, 08:46
Some of you may remember when I posted that the mobile home park I live in has the same firearm policy. Apparently they have the right to do it even though I own the home I live in. I ignored the request to sign the lease agreement even though it states that not signing it doesn't exempt me from it. I still don't know how it can be enforced in my case since they can't come into the home I own without my permission.
This makes it sound like a land owner and/or private business owners can prohibit ANYONE from bringing any firearms on his/her property even LEO's? Think the LEO's would comply with that prohibition??
I think they should... That would be fitting... "I'm sorry sir, but my officers are not allowed on your property- it says so right there in your guidelines, and since police are no different from your residents then we have to follow the rules you put in place." [LOL]
stoner01
08-07-2013, 08:50
Aint never gonna happen. But I would laugh my ass off if it did.
tmleadr03
08-07-2013, 08:54
well.. a landowner as well as a private business has the right to prohibit anything they want other than deny someone a lease based on color. If the landlord is going this far it is likely that the complex has a lot of problems or they suck as a management company anyway and having to move might be the best thing to happen to these people.
His house, his rules. Don't like it move to another place.
Damn. I know this guy. He's one of my old customers. He's an awesome dude. He goes gold panning, turkey hunting, etc.
StagLefty
08-07-2013, 09:41
His house, his rules. Don't like it move to another place.
Guys in the same situation I am-retired-fixed income. Moving isn't always an option.
Kraven251
08-07-2013, 10:00
DISOBEY.
...and do your best to find somewhere else to live.
If the resident was being asked to move out because he was in a same sex relationship, would it still be "His house, his rules. Don't like it, move"? What is the difference besides one is a constitutional right.
newracer
08-07-2013, 10:16
I can see how this would be legal if you were entering into a new lease or renewing an existing one. However if you are in the middle of a lease I do not think it would be legal unless the lease states they can change the conditions at any time.
His house, his rules. Don't like it move to another place.
So could the owner say he won't rent to blacks? His rules, right? Or tell folks what they can't say in their apartments? Or tell them they have to go to church on Sunday?
It's interesting how some Constitutionally protected rights are more equal than others.
*yawn* this issue has been going around for awhile and is the subject of several current lawsuits. A private entity cannot make another give up its rights (neither can the government without due process). End of story.
The National Rifle Association has won a round in federal court in its fight with the Wilmington Housing Authority over allowing guns in common spaces in public housing.
The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to send a ruling that barred weapons from these public spaces back to the state so the Delaware Supreme Court can weigh in on, and possibly overturn, the restriction.
...
Specifically, the Delaware justices will consider whether the WHA has the authority under the Delaware Constitution to limit the possession of firearms in its buildings and if it has the authority to demand that residents produce documents related to the weapons, like a state-issued concealed carry permit.
Legal briefing in the case is expected to be completed by November, likely followed by oral arguments sometime around the end of the year, according to attorneys.
Once the Delaware Supreme Court rules, the case will return to the U.S. 3rd Circuit for a final decision.
The phrase SMD comes to mind.....
tmleadr03
08-07-2013, 12:00
So could the owner say he won't rent to blacks? His rules, right? Or tell folks what they can't say in their apartments? Or tell them they have to go to church on Sunday?
It's interesting how some Constitutionally protected rights are more equal than others.
Honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. He wants to do that he can go right ahead. Then word gets out and his business dies due to lack of participation in the form of renters.
Free market, how does that work?
I can see how this would be legal if you were entering into a new lease or renewing an existing one. However if you are in the middle of a lease I do not think it would be legal unless the lease states they can change the conditions at any time.Tom Martino was saying this very thing this morning, and he also said he wants to sue the apartment landlord. He seemed very serious about getting precedent set and disallowing this type of bs.
RblDiver
08-07-2013, 12:11
Free market, how does that work?
This. I am of the mind that people should be allowed to do business with whomever they like for whatever reason. Particularly in the modern era with instant reviews of everyplace imaginable, word would get out that "He doesn't serve <insert whatever group here>" and would either suffer for it or succeed through like-minded people.
stoner01
08-07-2013, 12:17
Colion Noir picked up the story. Said He'd either help pay for the lawyer or the move. Personally, Id move.
BushMasterBoy
08-07-2013, 13:29
I bet no LEO's live there...yeah I wrote their management a little email!
generalmeow
08-07-2013, 13:42
If the resident was being asked to move out because he was in a same sex relationship, would it still be "His house, his rules. Don't like it, move"? What is the difference besides one is a constitutional right.
Well put.
People are talking about how the "free market" might permit a landlord from discriminating against blacks or gays, but there are specific federal and state laws to prevent that sort of discrimination, with agencies to enforce it.
tmleadr03
08-07-2013, 14:37
People are talking about how the "free market" might permit a landlord from discriminating against blacks or gays, but there are specific federal and state laws to prevent that sort of discrimination, with agencies to enforce it.
Which I disagree with. At one time they were appropriate but no more.
People are talking about how the "free market" might permit a landlord from discriminating against blacks or gays, but there are specific federal and state laws to prevent that sort of discrimination, with agencies to enforce it.
Last I checked, the US Constitution trumps "federal and state laws."
RblDiver
08-07-2013, 16:55
On Michael Brown just now, a commissioner from that area just said the policy has been rescinded (the parent company wasn't aware of it or something I think is what they said). Will look for another source on this.
Edit: A Douglas County commissioner. The Housing Authority didn't know about it, and told the management company they wouldn't enact it.
3beansalad
08-07-2013, 17:23
Damn. I know this guy. He's one of my old customers. He's an awesome dude. He goes gold panning, turkey hunting, etc.
You should make the hook up and see if this goes anywhere.
"I posted this story on my site and it's pissing me off. I want to help pay for his legal fees to fight this or help pay to help find somewhere he can live and still protect himself and hunt. So, if anyone has a direct line to this guy or a way I can get in touch with him please send me an email at mrcolionnoir@gmail.com
http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/news/colorado-apartment-tenants-told-to-get-rid-of-guns/ "
Sweet! I just emailed him. I'll keep the thread updated if I hear anything.
centrarchidae
08-07-2013, 17:42
The Constitution restrains governments, not private actors.
Nobody but me has the right to free speech in my house. I decide for myself who gets to be armed in my house. The other two or three members here who've been in my place, I'm just fine with them being armed, but it's my house. Or if I think someone needs to be searched before he comes in, then if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to come in. And the "right to travel" described in (I think it was) the Lemuel Penn case doesn't give anybody the right to jump my fence and cross my backyard.
BTW, asmo's post immediately below yours does not describe a private landlord. The Wilmington Housing Authority is a part of city government.
So could the owner say he won't rent to blacks? His rules, right? Or tell folks what they can't say in their apartments? Or tell them they have to go to church on Sunday?
It's interesting how some Constitutionally protected rights are more equal than others.
JM Ver. 2.0
08-07-2013, 17:54
Anyone see on the news that the apartment complex is publicly owned and the policy has been thrown out?
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
newracer
08-07-2013, 18:14
http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out
So an HOA did something ridiculous?
BushMasterBoy
08-07-2013, 19:35
I knew my email to them this morning would shake them up....lol
UrbanWolf
08-07-2013, 19:43
http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out
Read the comments.
BTW, asmo's post immediately below yours does not describe a private landlord. The Wilmington Housing Authority is a part of city government.
The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.
SA Friday
08-07-2013, 20:35
The Constitution restrains governments, not private actors.
Nobody but me has the right to free speech in my house. I decide for myself who gets to be armed in my house. The other two or three members here who've been in my place, I'm just fine with them being armed, but it's my house. Or if I think someone needs to be searched before he comes in, then if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to come in. And the "right to travel" described in (I think it was) the Lemuel Penn case doesn't give anybody the right to jump my fence and cross my backyard.
BTW, asmo's post immediately below yours does not describe a private landlord. The Wilmington Housing Authority is a part of city government.
The constitution restricts private parties actions all the time... Individual rights have been protected on many occasions from private entities stopping one form of discrimination or another. In this case, the entity in question is a company in the business of renting living spaces. Living spaces are afforded more restrictive constitutional rights. One cannot simply toss a guy out on his ear that is renting an apartment even if he's a month behind on the rent. They have to be evicted, 90 days if it's fast. You cannot shut off their power or water to get them to leave. You cannot change the locks or remove their private possessions. These have all been held up in court. Both of my parents were property managers my whole life and managed apartments. No way this would stick. A new contract, probably grounds for beginning an eviction but still none of the above until the eviction is completed.
Ultimately, I would like to see a court rule on something like this ban. After DC v Heller established 2a as an individual right, I think any challenge of this type of policy would be found unconstitutional, much like any other individual right barring someone from living there legitimately. This smells like allowing someone to live there and then telling them they can't have any visitors darker than a paper bag at their residence. I just don't see it surviving legal challenge of any muster.
The Constitution restrains governments, not private actors.
Nobody but me has the right to free speech in my house.
Sorry. Not quite true. You cannot violate anothers civil rights just because they are on your property.
newracer
08-07-2013, 20:37
So an HOA did something ridiculous?
It was the management company not an HOA.
SA Friday
08-07-2013, 20:46
The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.
Oh snap.
[LS]
Honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. He wants to do that he can go right ahead. Then word gets out and his business dies due to lack of participation in the form of renters.
Free market, how does that work?
You've never experienced a truly free market. If there was such a thing there would far fewer renters and more land owners.
Tell me what free market forces are at work here? The owner bought that property with taxpayer money not his own labor/property. He gets tenets because the artificial economy keeps people from saving.
3beansalad
08-07-2013, 20:50
It was the management company not an HOA.
Withdrawn misread article
Damn this touchscreen.
Too bad the management company is partly made up of the county
Damn this touchscreen.
The property management company Was "Ross Management Group" which is contracted by the Hosing Authority, two separate entities. The property is owned by the Douglas County housing authority which was purchased by Federal and tax payer funds for low income seniors etc. The Property management company was the one trying to enforce the "No guns" policy.
The emergency session with the housing took place this afternoon, pretty fast for government. Probably because of all the press.
9News update (http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out)
Ross Property management Group are the "anti gun" dirt-bags.
This was a SNAP! in your face remark to Ross Property Management, glad the housing Authority still believes in Rights;
"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few,"
This explains a lot of why Ross Property Management came up with the "Anti gun" Policy. The company's owner, Debi Ross, and her husband have given $9,000, only to Democrats, since 2006.
This picture makes me laugh, when 9 news went to Ross Managements Group office they shut the door in their face.
http://www.9news.com/images/300/169/2/assetpool/images/130807071826_Still0807_00001.jpg
It was the management company not an HOA.
I treat them one in the same.
I treat them one in the same.
...........but in this case the Owners "Douglas County Housing Authority" are actually the good guys, they were unaware of this "Policy" being implemented and said basically NO WAY, infringes the tenants rights. (Read my post above yours)
or
re-quote;
"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few,"
3beansalad
08-07-2013, 21:34
At least the board of directors of the housing authority are the good guys. Who knows about the rest of the employees of the authority and their specific involvement. At least when the board got word of this they acted swiftly.
Damn this touchscreen.
...........but in this case the Owners "Douglas County Housing Authority" are actually the good guys, they were unaware of this "Policy" being implemented and said basically NO WAY, infringes the tenants rights. (Read my post above yours)
or
re-quote;
I know. I'm trying to rag on the management company. The bigger management companies get, the more crappy they seem to get.
I know. I'm trying to rag on the management company. The bigger management companies get, the more crappy they seem to get.
You were being farcastic, didn't catch it, you forgot the smiley. [Coffee]
Ross knows they f'dup, I glanced at their background and Ross is big with the whole Federal/State HUD thing, Section 8, Tax credit, low income, seniors apartment programs. They dont appear to be really HUGE. I see the typical "Political" Social engineering with some of these programs, such as section 8, but I bet Ross was following the agenda of "anti-gun" as other businesses have done in the last 8 months.
I just remember at our apartment complex, having to call about an emergency leak that I was worried was going to flood our crawl space. I had to call California.
I just remember at our apartment complex, having to call about an emergency leak that I was worried was going to flood our crawl space. I had to call California.
Yikes, yeah, LARGE management companies. Lame.
10mm-man
08-07-2013, 22:46
Edit: Couple pages late! OOPS....
Common sense WINS!!
COMMON SENSE WINS! ** LIKE & SHARE **
CASTLE ROCK - A controversial gun policy at an apartment complex for seniors has been thrown out after a 9Wants to Know report.
The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon. Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.
"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. "
FULL STORY & VIDEO HERE:http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=34912 (http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123)
I saw this on another forum:
Update From: Robert B. Wareham The Law Center P.C.
From Robert B. Wareham
"BULLETIN: The Oakwood Apartments are not owned by a private property owner, but by the Douglas County Housing Partnership (DCHP) which on its own website admits that it is a "political subdivision and public corporation of the State of Colorado." That's right, the landlord is a state actor. Article II Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution expressly prohibits this conduct. I spoke with the Executive Director of DCHP this afternoon and she assured me the new policies were distributed by the property manager, Ross Management Group, without being vetted through the DCHP Board. She asked us to refrain from filing a lawsuit until the Board could meet. She assured me that she has called a Board meeting for this afternoon to address the firestorm created by this new policy. Because we want to save the taxpayers money, we agreed to give the the opportunity to rescind this unconstitutional policy.
I also spoke with Douglas Count Commission Jack Hilbert whos is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter and friend of mine. He was equally outraged and working behind the scenes to put pressure on the DCHP Board. (The County Commissioners appoint several of the Board members including the current Chair.)
For the armchair lawyers who were arguing that nothing could be done if this had been a private property owner, I direct you to Stanley v. Creighton Company, 911 P.2d 705 (Colo.App. 1996) which stands for the proposition that a provision in a residential lease that violates public policy is void. A strong argument could be made that a unilaterally imposed ban on a constitutional right not contracted for at the inception of the contract is void on its face. Section 3 of Article II gives you the inalienable right to defend yourself. Section 13 give you the right to keep and bear arms in defense of your home--sounds like public policy to me! At any rate, you should never jump to the conclusion that nothing can be done when it comes to defending your 2nd Amendment and CO Article II rights."
Robert B. Wareham
The Law Center P.C.
Hmmmmm....wonder if that had any part in the resolution of this?
BlasterBob
08-08-2013, 07:34
Nobody but me has the right to free speech in my house. I decide for myself who gets to be armed in my house. The other two or three members here who've been in my place, I'm just fine with them being armed, but it's my house.
.
Can you prevent or not allow even LEO's into your house with their duty weapons if you forbid their entry while they are armed?? Interesting!. Yeah, I know --![beatdeadhorse]
buffalobo
08-08-2013, 07:48
Ross Management Group is paid by Colorado taxpayer, they need to be dragged into the public light and made to explain and immediately fired.
Sent from my electronic ball and chain.
james_bond_007
08-08-2013, 08:54
Not only that, he said he was going to be forced ..... to leave his guns at a friends 30 miles away, not according to the new "Universal background check."...
Yes, I know ...sorry in advance [offtopic]
I believe he can do this under the new law a few different ways:
1) "loan" the items to the friend for up to 72 hours and stop by the friend's apt. at least every 72 hours and "regain possession", only to immediately "loan" them out again for another 72 hours (assuming he has no key to the friend's apt.).
2) Store the items in a lockable container (safe/closet/locker) at the friend's apt.to which only he, and not the friend, has the key. The law does not say "where" you are allowed to keep them...just that they remain in your possession and are not transferred. It does not say the items have to be stored at your home.
EX: One can store them in a rented bay at "Public Storage" and other such facilities
EX: One can store them in a safety deposit box
9News update (http://www.9news.com/news/article/349123/339/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out)
Ross Property management Group are the "anti gun" dirt-bags.
This was a SNAP! in your face remark to Ross Property Management, glad the housing Authority still believes in Rights;
This explains a lot of why Ross Property Management came up with the "Anti gun" Policy. The company's owner, Debi Ross, and her husband have given $9,000, only to Democrats, since 2006.
This pisses me off. In arguablely the most conservative county in the state, our republican commissioners don't do their due diligence, too concerned with being part of the ruling class, to notice such a thing and refuse to do business with leftists.
I guarantee you that Denver, Adams, Boulder or any other left leaning county would award you a contract if you exclusively donated to republicans, and you would be disqualified if you donated a dime to a tea party or conservative cause.
Byte Stryke
08-08-2013, 11:29
I, for one, am trying to figure out how a welfare manageme.. I mean "state housing management" agency can donate to the Dems and not be seen as a conflict of interest
The company's owner, Debi Ross, and her husband have given $9,000, only to Democrats, since 2006.
$9,000 over 6 and a half years is really a pittance. That's $115 a month. Most of us will spend more than that on lunch.
Circuits
08-08-2013, 13:36
I, for one, am trying to figure out how a welfare manageme.. I mean "state housing management" agency can donate to the Dems and not be seen as a conflict of interest
Ross is a private firm that manages state-owned housing units under contract - it is not itself a state agency or subdivision thereof.
whoops Stag looks like I unintentionally broke that rule everyday when I was building those columns in the front. I never seen a sign nobody told me.
Not that I listen or read to good.
$9,000 over 6 and a half years is really a pittance. That's $115 a month. Most of us will spend more than that on lunch.
I am not one to religiously / or can afford to donate every month to an organization. ROSS does not appear to be that Wealthy based upon there office and their amount of managed homes. U doubt they are multi-millionaires. If they donated once a year for a tax right off that would be $1500 a year.
Ross Management Group is paid by Colorado taxpayer, they need to be dragged into the public light and made to explain and immediately fired.
Sent from my electronic ball and chain.
Ross is a private firm that manages state-owned housing units under contract - it is not itself a state agency or subdivision thereof.
If you think about it since they have a contract with the county for managing the complex they "are" receiving tax payer dollars.
Just glad the Housing Authority said; "NO! you cant enforce that rule." Now maybe they should look for another Management company once Ross's runs out.
centrarchidae
08-08-2013, 19:24
SA Friday:
The constitution restricts private parties actions all the time... Individual rights have been protected on many occasions from private entities stopping one form of discrimination or another. In this case, the entity in question is a company in the business of renting living spaces. Living spaces are afforded more restrictive constitutional rights.
Apart from quartering of soldiers and security in one's home from unreasonable search and seizure, where does housing appear in the US Constitution?
Sorry. Not quite true. You cannot violate anothers civil rights just because they are on your property.
Which civil rights are those? How can I, as a private citizen, subject someone to cruel and unusual punishment or keep them from having a jury trial?
Which ruling, by either SCOTUS or any appellate court, says that the Constitution restrains private citizens, in really any instance at all?
Apart from quartering of soldiers and security in one's home from unreasonable search and seizure, where does housing appear in the US Constitution?
Which civil rights are those? How can I, as a private citizen, subject someone to cruel and unusual punishment or keep them from having a jury trial?
Let me know if slavery is legal in your house - the real kind, not just having teenagers. Torturing a gay guy perhaps.. After all - your house, your rules, right?
Which ruling, by either SCOTUS or any appellate court, says that the Constitution restrains private citizens, in really any instance at all?
The 14th ammendment goes a long way here - case law goes the rest of the way.
SA Friday
08-08-2013, 21:05
SA Friday:
Apart from quartering of soldiers and security in one's home from unreasonable search and seizure, where does housing appear in the US Constitution?
It's not a direct sentence in the constitution... It's multiple court rulings supporting that constitutional rights afforded to an individual cannot be simply overlooked in the name of 'private'. There were multiple examples in the rest of my (not reposted) original post. There have been supporting rulings by others after my previous post. Seriously, this isn't rocket science but it does require some basic research on your part and the ability to see beyond the initial layer of information. As much as you are afforded additional protection within your home, you still cannot violate another person's constitutional rights and then claim "private property" or "contract". Neither could this apartment complex.
Which civil rights are those? How can I, as a private citizen, subject someone to cruel and unusual punishment or keep them from having a jury trial?
Which ruling, by either SCOTUS or any appellate court, says that the Constitution restrains private citizens, in really any instance at all?
StagLefty
08-09-2013, 08:39
whoops Stag looks like I unintentionally broke that rule everyday when I was building those columns in the front. I never seen a sign nobody told me.
It's in the leases not posted-your okay [Beer]
I agree on the landlord angle but I would be curious what his lease said, when his lease ended, if he is month to month etc etc. Can a landlord change the lease parameters in an apartment complex or can he be 'grandfathered' in or at least be given a reasonable amount of time to move? Guess what I'm getting at is, 1. what does his lease say, 2. when does the lease end/come for renewal.
Overall, just stupid. It would be on par with putting a sign on your lawn that says "gun free zone."
If your contract is for a specified term and then allowed to go month to month after then the terms of the original contract carry over from month to month and the only thing that changes are the date and in most cases verbiage for notice is added and that's it. They don't have the right to make changes between months w/o requiring you to sign a whole new contract. It should also be noted that the lease agreements themselves are closely regulated and you can't just write up whatever you want and try to force the tenant to do things that you want regardless of legality but these sort of things will make a lease agreement contract voidable by the tenant. I can tell you that Landlord/Tenant law in this state weighs VERY heavily in the favor of the tenant. I can tell you from personal experience that you don't want to end up in court over a rental matter if you're the landlord in said situation because you're pretty much boned regardless of what 'proof' or 'facts' you present. This property management company doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of in this situation as long as his firearms conform to local, state and federal laws and his ownership of said firearms isn't restricted by the same entities.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.