Apartment residents told they cant own guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridge

$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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buffalobo

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Circuits

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.

SA Friday:

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by asmo

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centrarchidae

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centrarchidae

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapLock

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddywings

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.