Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by gonefishinagain, Aug 7, 2013.
Colorado Apartment Building Tells Tenants They Have to Get Rid of Their Guns Or Leave « Pat Dollard
Not a 'reasonable' regulation given recent supreme court decisions pertaining to the second amendment and the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms in your home for self defense.
The NRA or SAF should step in and file for an immediate injunction so this vet can keep his guns and stay in his apartment.
if the courts do back the owners it would be a show of force by government acknowledging you are not entitled to rights unless you own property.
I see I'm not the only one that follows Pat Dollard...
Have to comment...courts state that owners can make "reasonable regulations". However, what is reasonable about "disarm or leave" notices?
Private businesses can prohibit guns on their grounds. If you are found carrying, you can be asked to leave or face trespassing charges. If the courts determine that the apartment complex is a private business and can prohibit certain "things" as they do certain pets, then that's one thing. Or will they determine that the apartment you rent is your home and your rights cannot be infringed in your home. What if the complex makes it a condition of renting the apartment? They make other restrictions, what's to say they can't restrict ownership of guns in the apartment as a condition of renting? It remember reading that guns were prohibited in some government housing. Is this still the case?
If they can prohibit other "things", what about prohibiting certain people? Whites, blacks, native Americans, gays, Hispanics, Asians, Baptists, buddhists, people with tattoos, people with purple hair, or whatever else they can come up with?
Heck, if a state, county or city can take away Our 2nd Amendment rights so easily, why not a apartment buildings manager or owner? Why even need God given Constitutional rights.
The Bill Of Rights that are regulated away are useless. Just ask the non-CHL holder in Multnomah county and other cities, counties and states.
All it boils down to now it seems is if a person has his/her rights OK'ed by the government, then they still get to exercise them. Free country? Inalienably rights? Not! Unless a court said so.
Maybe the NRA should take up his legal defense as a test case.
Since this has already started there will be no end to the elimination of rights once we stop going after the constitutional abuser. Sort of like What Hitler did to the Jews O it won't happen he is just making us safe. Until he has the power to distroy without consquence. 6 million times.
This prohibition seems unlikely to survive a court challenge.
Now hold up, it more seams like they changed the rules on these guys- noticed that their was a CCL tag on his on file driver's license, then said "no guns or leave".
Wouldn't this be the same as animals? If you signed the lease and animals were permitted, then after a few years said "no animals or leave" wouldn't that be kind of the same thing here?
A couple of similar cases have already survived court challenges. SAF filed one last year which I believe they won, but that was public housing. It could go either way. It's constitutional rights versus private property rights.
Judge rules in favor of U of I in gun lawsuit | KTVB.COM Boise
SAF Wins Permanent Injunction v. Public Housing Gun Ban In Illinois - WSJ.com
You cant trust the courts. A jury, sure. A judge or group of judges, no way.
All it takes is 5-4 to rule it either way. Trust the odds?
I thought Oprah got her own network.
Are apartments semi-public? For example, if you have a room for rent in your home you can specify one gender is OK and all the others are not. But you cannot do so in an apartment rental. Could you state for religious reasons you don't want people of other faiths in your building?
Anyway, seems likely to head to court.
Each state has their own version of Landlord Tenant laws. In Oregon, I can legally discriminate as long as I do not discriminate against someone in a protected group, i.e, race, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc. In my rentals I routinely discriminate against pet owners with more than one small dog or two cats or people that insist on smoking indoors. I don't think that there is a case here, at least in Oregon, because gun owners are not a protected group under either federal or state anti-discrimination laws. As a landlord I understand the position the management is taking. As a landlord I also understand what a stupid thing they are doing considering the whole complex will be unarmed and the open invitation that presents to the lower levels of our society. But if sheeple are the type of tenant you want, so be it.
In my rentals I don't address firearms at all. My leases however have a provision that if as a tenant you do something that endangers the safety of other tenants, you're gone. Have an AD/ND and put a round through the wall, you're gone. Be safe and responsible, no issues.
Only wish this gentleman was closer...I'd offer him a unit and make an exception and help with Section 8.
You can only count to 1?
Apartments can be either publically owned or privately owned. This one appears to be privately owned because of the management company logo that was shown in the news story. I don't think this will go to court, but if it does I think the tenant will lose. There is one mitigating factor that may be an interesting twist that could change this story. The story said this guy was low income and didn't have much money. If that is the case and he is in Section 8 (government subsidised) housing, could it be argued that it is similar to public housing and therefor affect any ruling.
Will be interesting to watch.
So help me do the math.
I'll assume the landlord's policy is legal.
If I could move I would. If I couldn't, I would tell them I don't own/got rid of my firearms. The safe in my place is for documents and some personal items. No, I won't open it.