Sweet! I just emailed him. I'll keep the thread updated if I hear anything.
Printable View
Sweet! I just emailed him. I'll keep the thread updated if I hear anything.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
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.
So an HOA did something ridiculous?
I knew my email to them this morning would shake them up....lol
Read the comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
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.
Sorry. Not quite true. You cannot violate anothers civil rights just because they are on your property.Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
It was the management company not an HOA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Oh snap.Quote:
Originally Posted by asmo
[LS]
You've never experienced a truly free market. If there was such a thing there would far fewer renters and more land owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmleadr03
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.
Withdrawn misread articleQuote:
Originally Posted by newracer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3beansalad
The emergency session with the housing took place this afternoon, pretty fast for government. Probably because of all the press.
9News update
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;
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,"
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/...0807_00001.jpg
I treat them one in the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
...........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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
or
re-quote;
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,"
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.
I know. I'm trying to rag on the management company. The bigger management companies get, the more crappy they seem to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skully
You were being farcastic, didn't catch it, you forgot the smiley. [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
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.
Yikes, yeah, LARGE management companies. Lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
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
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?
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]Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
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.
Yes, I know ...sorry in advance [offtopic]Quote:
Originally Posted by Skully
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skully
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.
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
$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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skully
Ross is a private firm that manages state-owned housing units under contract - it is not itself a state agency or subdivision thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalobo
If you think about it since they have a contract with the county for managing the complex they "are" receiving tax payer dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Circuits
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by asmo
Which ruling, by either SCOTUS or any appellate court, says that the Constitution restrains private citizens, in really any instance at all?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
The 14th ammendment goes a long way here - case law goes the rest of the way.Quote:
Which ruling, by either SCOTUS or any appellate court, says that the Constitution restrains private citizens, in really any instance at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
It's in the leases not posted-your okay [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by CapLock
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by muddywings