Colorado landlord to Marine: Get rid of your guns or get out; Update: Landlord cancels policy

posted at 8:11 pm on August 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

Gut-check time for gun-loving conservatives: We’re dealing with a private landlord here, not a state actor, in which case does the Marine have any argument that his Second Amendment rights trump the owner’s property rights? Businesses can ban guns from their premises, no? Why can’t a landlord?

I can’t find a statutory reference to “reasonable regulations” mentioned in the clip; maybe it’s a common-law standard under Colorado’s landlord-tenant jurisprudence. It does make sense, though, that the landlord’s power to set the rules for his property even if they require tenants to forfeit a constitutional right or two isn’t absolute. Case in point: What if the landlord demanded that tenants sign a new rider to their lease declaring that they won’t vote in the next election? Hard to believe a court would enforce it. It would, presumably, be struck on grounds that it’s against public policy. The gun issue is different, though, because there’s a safety argument to be made. If a landlord’s jittery about being sued over a potential accidental shooting on the property, is that unreasonable?

Bottom line: The market should handle this. The Marine will, I bet, have no trouble landing a new pad once gun-rights-supporting property owners in the area hear about it. And his current landlord obviously isn’t keen on the publicity this is getting, per their no-comment to the station. If you’re going to risk the bad PR involved in a gun ban, especially with someone as sympathetic as an elderly serviceman on the other side, be sure that it’ll be good for your bottom line.

Update: That was fast.

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

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.

“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.”

So it is a state actor after all. Not only was there bad publicity afoot here, there was, potentially, a Second Amendment lawsuit in the offing. No wonder they backtracked.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

— but if you don’t occupy either, tough luck — the multi-unit rules apply here.

Again, the test is always in the courts.

unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Too bad for you. I got rid of of all my multi-unit non-commercial properties years ago because of rules (and ridiculously over priced real estate).

And most of our rules have already been upheld by the courts.

cozmo on August 7, 2013 at 9:54 PM

The gun issue is different, though, because there’s a safety argument to be made. If a landlord’s jittery about being sued over a potential accidental shooting on the property, is that unreasonable?

FAIL. This convoluted safety argument is made all the time around weapons and has no basis.

BierManVA on August 7, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Not quite. The landlord has final say up to the point where the renter signs a contract. At that point, the agreement falls under contract law. If this is a rule change, and is not specifically mentioned in the lease agreement, I would suggest the marine sue the landlord for breach of contract since he is changing the rules after the signed agreement.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I think my statement is still sound.

dominigan on August 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM

.
We had some lively discussions in my “Contract Law” classes a looooong time ago ranging over property owner rights, tenant rights, legal precedents, etc. etc. etc

It’s a toss up from a SCOTUS perspective – The same court that gave eminent domain laisse faire also ruled Washington, D.C. and other goverment entities could not absolutely abridge the Second Amendment rights in “Heller”.

What our professor said way back then is still true today:

“You can put any damn thing you WANT in a contract but that does not make it LEGAL.”

PolAgnostic on August 7, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Whether or not you have a natural right to a firearm

Timin203 on August 7, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I don’t see how you can have a “natural right” to a firearm. You have a natural right to defend your life. In a capitalist society, you would have a right to purchase a firearm. Or to manufacture and sell one.

gh on August 7, 2013 at 9:55 PM

In States with pro gun rights could a landlord write a lease requiring gun ownership?

wolly4321 on August 7, 2013 at 9:49 PM

I’m going to do devils advocate here.

I am of a religion which values peace above all things — turning the other cheek as it were. Owning a gun would be totally against the dictates of my religion.

There are many religions which hew to a policy of nonviolence, and I would expect that a court might be quite receptive to an argument made on First Amendment principles.

After all, in almost all jurisdictions (save one) in which such an argument has been made against the implementation of Obamacare, the argument has won the day. Anyone heard anything new on “Hobby Lobby” — whom I believe didn’t obtain their First Amendment right in the lower court?

unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Case in point: What if the landlord demanded that tenants sign a new rider to their lease declaring that they won’t vote in the next election? Hard to believe a court would enforce it.

That’s a bit of a sloppy comparison. Voting is not even done on property. How about the landlord saying you can’t practice your religion? I think that one is already settled.

Or to make it even cleaner. Yes, you can practice your religion but no statues or statuettes in the building. Maybe he gets to decide how much religious paraphernalia is allowed.

Dusty on August 7, 2013 at 9:57 PM

OK, thanks to gh’s mention, I looked into Stanley Kurtz’s writings “since October” 2012 at NRO…

A few interesting, informative articles that, if you’re paying attention, reveal the setup from the top that then affects the nation’s population via the federal agencies we all interact with, directly or indirectly, in our basic living requirements and activities (Energy, Housing, IRS, Transportation, HHS…):

Obama’s Plans for the Suburbs: And How to Stop Them
By Stanley Kurtz
March 18, 2013 10:01 AM

…Controversial policies like “smart growth” often operate under the public’s radar. Obama wants the energy debate to focus on benign-sounding research plans, while his administration’s interest in placing the massive power of federal funding behind urban densification strategies goes unnoticed.

The other way to block Obama’s plans is to have Congress cut funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative. In particular, future funding for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program ought to be eliminated. Although the cost of these planning grants is small, their potential impact is large, especially if the administration follows through with the built environment report’s option of conditioning a wide range of federal aid on local adherence to so-called smart-growth planning…

Obama, Suburbs, and Guns
By Stanley Kurtz
April 12, 2013 11:56 AM

There’s more…here’s a link to the full list of Kurtz’s articles on NRO.

Lourdes on August 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM

True. However the outcome in court might be different in TX and CO if their state constitutions say different things.

gh on August 7, 2013 at 9:51 PM

I would submit that, under the 14th Amendment, no state can take away the rights of a citizen.

It is the 14th that made the Federal Government the ultimate guarantor of the Bill of Rights, and forced all lesser governments to abide by them.

That’s why the City of Chicago fared so poorly with its handgun ban. Again, taking Heart of Atlanta v. United States to its logical conclusion, no local entity, including a landlord, can deny to a person their Constitutional rights.

unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Lourdes on August 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Might have been September … or July. October was just my best recollection of his first article on Obama’s plans for the suburbs. I believe he explicitly mentioned that it was the first article in a series … and I think he is working on a second book about Obama but that may already be out now.

gh on August 7, 2013 at 10:01 PM

dominigan on August 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM

.

“You can put any damn thing you WANT in a contract but that does not make it LEGAL.”

PolAgnostic on August 7, 2013 at 9:54 PM

That’s a major point in this case, that some have mentioned. The property management company apparently tried to change the rules, despite what existing leases/renatl agreements say – which you can’t do. I know you can’t in Colorado, because I had an apartment management company try to do that to me. In my case keep my entire pet deposit when there was no damage to justify it, even though the lease I signed did not allow them to do that, and Colorado law does not allow it either. I threatened to sue them for triple damages (3 times the amount they tried to keep) based on Colorado law, and they quickly backed off and refunded my money.
Rental management companies, as with HOA management companies can be total @ssholes and will often try to bully people any way they can to make an extra buck – legal or not.

dentarthurdent on August 7, 2013 at 10:03 PM

I would submit that, under the 14th Amendment, no state can take away the rights of a citizen.
unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 10:00 PM

It might not be a matter of taking rights away. The constitution also says that any powers not mentioned are up to the states and the people. In the case of a dispute, it would be up to the supreme court to decide where the balance lies.

gh on August 7, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Or to make it even cleaner. Yes, you can practice your religion but no statues or statuettes in the building. Maybe he gets to decide how much religious paraphernalia is allowed.

Dusty on August 7, 2013 at 9:57 PM

What is “reasonable accomodation”? Suppose your religion involves wailing loudly four times every night — and the wailing must wake your neighbors.

Where does your right to practice your faith end and your neighbors’ privacy rights begin?

My neighbor is Jewish. He holds minyan in his back yard every Friday evening. How accomodating must I be to his freedoms? Am I allowed to splash holy water on his kids — to baptize them, as it were?

This hits at the reasons laws come into being. My view: Every law is the result of either a liberal attempting to prevent something he or she doesn’t like before it happens, or the result of a libertarian having done something which he or she views as an inalienable right — but which annoys the hell out of the neighbors.

And no, I do not splash holy water on my neighbor’s kids, and his minyan doesn’t bother me.

unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 10:06 PM

gh on August 7, 2013 at 10:01 PM

For reference:
Kurtz’s book,

Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities
Hardcover – August 2, 2012
by Stanley Kurtz (Author)

…Obama is definitely using the federal government to workaround the Constitution under ruse of what he wants being deemed (by him) as “fair”.

His florid speeches may sound hypothetical in most cases but he’s been steadily involved in using federal agencies to “change” conditions without regard for what is actually legitimate and what isn’t, per his job and what governs his job, the Constitution.

The effects are being felt nationwide and in very personal ways, such as this veteran in Colorado experienced.

Lourdes on August 7, 2013 at 10:08 PM

It might not be a matter of taking rights away. The constitution also says that any powers not mentioned are up to the states and the people. In the case of a dispute, it would be up to the supreme court to decide where the balance lies.

gh on August 7, 2013 at 10:04 PM

That Tenth Amendment seems to be a sleeper nowadays. I think it lost to the Fourteenth with respect to the Bill of Rights. Originally, the Bill of Rights were restrictions on the Federal Government. States were free to have state religions, to regulate speech, printing, assembly, etc. They were free to deny their citizens the equal protection of the law based on race, religion, sex, national origin….

Nowadays, they can’t.

unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 10:09 PM

I would submit that, under the 14th Amendment, no state can take away the rights of a citizen.
unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 10:00 PM

It might not be a matter of taking rights away. The constitution also says that any powers not mentioned are up to the states and the people. In the case of a dispute, it would be up to the supreme court to decide where the balance lies.

gh on August 7, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Back to the specifics of this story of this post, however: when rights are impinged in the case of a renter, especially one who is handicapped and of low income, there’s no where to go for a resolution except to try and relocate: something also very difficult for such a person.

I guess in this particular case of this veteran, the media and the media exposure did the right thing for the guy and for others in his similar circumstances. I wonder how many other Americans go through such, though, and are put out on the curb. That idea depresses me.

Lourdes on August 7, 2013 at 10:12 PM

The 2nd Amendment right is exercised via property right. This is a no-brainer: landlord wins.

EddieC on August 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM

If you are intellectually honest, you have to decry the actions of this property owner.

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 8:16 PM

That’s pretty funny that you expect libs to be intellectually honest.

Kafir on August 7, 2013 at 8:19 PM

See ‘IF’

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 10:16 PM

So landlords can ban pro-Obama signs but permit pro-GOP signs. Interesting.

CW on August 7, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Political speech on private property is not usually protected under law. Political ideology isn’t either except in nirvanas like Washington DC.

In most jurisdictions, you can fire a Prog if you want…unless there is a contract preventing it.

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Gut-check time for gun-loving conservatives: We’re dealing with a private landlord here, not a state actor, in which case does the Marine have any argument that his Second Amendment rights trump the owner’s property rights? Businesses can ban guns from their premises, no? Why can’t a landlord?

Hey, RINO, is the landlord allowed to ban owning books?

Businesses can ban guns from their premises. I can go someplace else. If I live there, then it is completely different. Now we are into discrimination against constitutional rights.

patch on August 7, 2013 at 10:30 PM

What is “reasonable accomodation”?

[unclesmrgol on August 7, 2013 at 10:06 PM]

Does reasonable accommodation apply in landlord-tenant contracts? I don’t know, I’m just asking.

Anyway, I didn’t make the comment intent on leaning one way or the other. I just threw up an alternative to AP’s because his was left field-ish.

Dusty on August 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM

If I own property in the backwoods where bears den, can I defang and declaw them?

Natural law.

wolly4321 on August 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM

If I own property in the backwoods where bears den, can I defang and declaw them?

Natural law.

wolly4321 on August 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Probably not – but luckily if they sucker punch you and try to beat your head in, you can still shoot them….

Sorry all – I’m really not trying to turn this into a GZ thread….

dentarthurdent on August 7, 2013 at 10:36 PM

The 2nd Amendment right is exercised via property right. This is a no-brainer: landlord wins.

[EddieC on August 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM]

Would you mind explaining that.

Dusty on August 7, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Not if I lived under this landlord.

wolly4321 on August 7, 2013 at 10:39 PM

So… if the landlord bars the tenant from personally keeping/bearing firearms, does the responsibility of protecting the tenant (from intruders wishing to maim/kill the tenant) now shift to the landlord?

Sorry if this has been broached before… too lazy (or tired) to read all of the previous posts.

E-R

electric-rascal on August 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Of course, much of this depends upon whether or not the Land Lord included it in his lease agreement or not. If the no guns clause is not in the lease agreement, guess what… the tenant is perfectly within his rights to tell the landlord to pound sand.

Flyovercountry on August 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Dusty- it’s part of the commerce clause/

wolly4321 on August 7, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Sorry if this has been broached before… too lazy (or tired) to read all of the previous posts.

Yeah, it’s been asked several times on page 1… sorry gang.

E-R

electric-rascal on August 7, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Apparently the decision to forbid residents from having firearms was reversed today after being subjected to some adverse publicity. . .

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123

Narniaman on August 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Can he ban black people?

I guess you could ask why does one constitutional protection apply, but the other does not?

sharrukin on August 7, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Many people here would say that a private concern has the choice of allowing you to do this or that, or not. I’ve never been comfortable that a condition of employment is that you abrogate your rights, nor a condition of occupying a property. How about HOAs even though you know that’s a condition of buying a property? Can you really be expected to “sign away your rights” under any condition?

What if 100% of businesses disallowed concealed weapons, all employers, and 100% of vehicle insurers? You could see that if this were the case, the carrying of a concealed weapon would be impractical.

What if 100% of property insurers disallowed any weapons? Now your second amendment rights would be nonexistent for the vast majority of Americans.

Don’t think that all this can’t happen. There are already many Americans that cannot carry at their place of employment.

And, if you think about it, the same scenario could apply to your other rights. We’ve long accepted the fact that we do not have freedom of speech at work. Can’t tell your boss what you think of them without consequences for example. LOL

As employment options continue to diminish, it will be harder to make the argument that if you don’t like X, you can just go find a job somewhere else.

This is how Socialism advances. They don’t need jackbooted thugs kicking down your door. They just “nudge” and slowly strangle us with an ever-tightening social/economic noose.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 7, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Can a landlord give ultimatums like:

Get rid of your Coffee Maker or get out.
Get rid of your bicycle or get out.
Get rid of your Computer or get out.

Because owning a gun is as legal as owning a coffee maker,bicycle or computer.

portlandon on August 7, 2013 at 11:12 PM

I’m not sure of the landlord-tenant laws in the US, but here in Canada it depends on the province. Nevertheless each province assigns property rights to the tenant insofar as the landlord can only get access to the property with 24 hours written notice and can’t prevent a tenant from engaging in perfectly legal activities. Example: Even if your lease agreement states that you can’t own a dog/cat, you can sign that agreement, buy a dog and the landlord can’t kick you out because it’s perfectly legal to own a pet. Similarly it’s perfectly legal to own a firearm, assuming you have the licenses and permits.

Johndakota on August 7, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Can a landlord give ultimatums like:

Get rid of your Coffee Maker or get out.
Get rid of your bicycle or get out.
Get rid of your Computer or get out.

Because owning a gun is as legal as owning a coffee maker,bicycle or computer.

portlandon on August 7, 2013 at 11:12 PM

If you think about it, the coffee maker and the computer could catch on fire…so…

The bicycle could be construed as a tripping hazard.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM

The gun issue is different, though, because there’s a safety argument to be made. If a landlord’s jittery about being sued over a potential accidental shooting on the property, is that unreasonable?

Yes, it is unreasonable to think you can take away a constitution right.

HopeHeFails on August 7, 2013 at 11:24 PM

This was a great thread. Knock on wood. No trolls.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 11:25 PM

The landlord, or the business for that matter would not be allowed to discriminate against a Negro, a Muslim, a lesbian or gay person, probably not even against a pedophile.

If one takes the premise that living in a civilized society means that a Southerner can’t discriminate against a Negro, or a Christian business owner discriminate against a Muslim, or a landlord forbid a gay to rent his property what pray tell would justify any of those people discriminating against a person who is simply exercising a Constitutionally protected individual right?

Answer – there is NO REASON that should be allowed.

And the laws now that let privately owned “public” businesses forbid entry to a legally carrying firearms owner are just as repugnant as would be allowing the above instances to occur.

Its time to allow gun-owners the SAME FREEDOM as any Negro, Muslim, or Gay person.

Equal Rights means EQUAL RIGHTS!

robscottw on August 7, 2013 at 11:29 PM

AP, owner has had a change of heart.

Castle Rock apartment’s controversial policy banning firearms is thrown out

rukiddingme on August 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM

From the article you linked:

The Denver Housing Authority wants to know if Ross Management Group is trying to pull similar rogue gun bans in the city.

The company manages properties in Aurora, Arvada, Denver and Greeley.

“It’s unconstitutional to prohibit the legal possession of a gun or a firearm on public housing property,” a DHA spokesperson said.

The company wouldn’t talk about the gun ban via phone or in person. So it’s not clear the motivation behind the company’s decision.

The company’s owner, Debi Ross, and her husband have given $9,000, only to Democrats, since 2006.

This bunch is getting Alinskied and it must be very ungood. Rogue gun bans. Incredible to see these lawless termites get a dose of what they love to dish out!

RushBaby on August 7, 2013 at 11:36 PM

That’s why you own your land, home, transportation and protection. I can clean my personal-carry in the nude if when I want to. (Don’t act like you haven’t.) I can put guns in one of two safes, or underground, or in a collectibles case, on a rack (because rifles are prettier than paintings) or I can leave my Grandpa’s relic in the damn umbrella stand if I so desire.

I don’t have an umbrella. So something has to go there, right?

Guns are every gun-owners’ favorite asset…depending on the cars or truck they own. Nobody is going to take this guy’s guns. That would be newsworthy. But this story is not.

The way we can tell who has the law on their side in this case is in the headline — “ex-marine.” There is no reason for us to know that except to garner (well-warranted) sympathy.

I don’t think the guy will have a problem finding a place. I know the landowner won’t have a problem renting his place again. This grandpa is in the same category as the Jeopardy kid.

Shut up and follow the rules. If you don’t like the rules buy your own stuff and make up your own rules.

Capitalist Hog on August 7, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Capitalist Hog on August 7, 2013 at 11:41 PM

AP didn’t update. The complex was acquired with federal funds and managed with taxpayers’ dough. The board did change the rule and no one has to move out. The manager asked the Marine to move out without the board’s knowledge.

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Sorry, here’s the link.

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM

The way we can tell who has the law on their side in this case is in the headline — “ex-marine.” There is no reason for us to know that except to garner (well-warranted) sympathy.

Capitalist Hog on August 7, 2013 at 11:41 PM

True. We know that this man is an “ex-marine” with as much evidence backing that notion as we know Obama is an American Citizen.

Actually, “ex-marine” is not a good description. One a Marine always a Marine. “Former Marine” would have been better, though.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 8, 2013 at 12:08 AM

The gun issue is different, though, because there’s a safety argument to be made. If a landlord’s jittery about being sued over a potential accidental shooting on the property, is that unreasonable?

No, a simple waiver is usually included in lease agreements indemnifying the landlord from acts of the tenant which violate any laws or anyone’s rights. That doesn’t stop anyone from suing, you can sue anyone for any reason, but it does settle the matter between the parties to the contract.

The landlord could prohibit carrying the weapon in the community areas (except for ingress and egress of the property).

Adjoran on August 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM

Consider this apartment rental clause:

NO FOOD ALLOWED

Let the market decide.

Shy Guy on August 8, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Apparently the decision to forbid residents from having firearms was reversed today after being subjected to some adverse publicity. . .

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123

Narniaman on August 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Heh!

Capitalist Hog on August 7, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Although your post was hilarious, nyah, nyah!

Vince on August 8, 2013 at 12:39 AM

By demonizing gun ownership with the up and coming generation in ten or fifteen years you will see guns outlawed and nobody complain.

That is how the Maoists work.

archer52 on August 8, 2013 at 12:49 AM

The manager asked the Marine to move out without the board’s knowledge.

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM

You’re pretty patient with me considering I ride your arse so hard. Thanks.

The manager is an un-American a-hole and should apparently be out of a job. Thanks for update and cordial tone.

Capitalist Hog on August 8, 2013 at 12:55 AM

Actually, “ex-marine” is not a good description. One a Marine always a Marine. “Former Marine” would have been better, though.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 8, 2013 at 12:08 AM

That would have made it a decent read in spite of the raised ire.

Capitalist Hog on August 8, 2013 at 12:56 AM

If I own property in the backwoods where bears den, can I defang and declaw them?

Natural law.

wolly4321 on August 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM

I’d pay good money to watch you do that – without tranquilizing the bears first.

;-)

Solaratov on August 8, 2013 at 1:19 AM

Alternate headline: “Apartment Complex advertises to thieves and murderers: our residents are sitting ducks, come and get them!”

Theophile on August 8, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Shut up and follow the rules. If you don’t like the rules buy your own stuff and make up your own rules.

Capitalist Hogbreath on August 7, 2013 at 11:41 PM

So, hogbreath, you would say, then, that a contract has no meaning and is not legally binding – and can be altered at any time by one or the other of the parties to the contract?

If the restriction on guns was not in the contract that both parties signed, then that restriction CANNOT be added at a later date unless BOTH parties agree to it and add it to the contract.

Solaratov on August 8, 2013 at 1:29 AM

What was in the lease? If the lease didn’t ban guns then the landlord is wrong.

Axion on August 8, 2013 at 1:43 AM

By demonizing gun ownership with the up and coming generation in ten or fifteen years you will see guns outlawed and nobody complain.

That is how the Maoists work.

archer52 on August 8, 2013 at 12:49 AM

It is up to all of us to make that impossible… We must all take a role in educating the youth of this country and teach them about gun rights, gun handling, and why it is important.

The times, they are a changin’… When I was in high school in the late 70′s, gun racks in pickups driven by students were common. A good friend had a part time job after school working at a trap and skeet range, and routinely went to school with 2 or 3 shotguns in the trunk of his Olds Cutlass. To the best of my knowledge, there was never a gun-related incident at my school. Can you imagine the SWAT and police response to a report of a student with three pump action shotguns on campus today?

I was talking to another driver at work about listening to Armed American Radio, after an interview with a guest who is an activist working for concealed carry on college campuses, and my co-worker said that armed college students is a crazy idea. I asked why he thought so; they are adults, they have passed the requirements of their state to carry a weapon, so what is the problem?

He kept saying I was crazy, but couldn’t really give me a good reason why this is a bad idea. Finally exasperated with the discussion, he resorted to hyperbole and asked if I supported arming kindergarteners, too…

I said, “Dude… My daughter is three, and she has a gun…” He was incredulous, but it is true. My Punkin’s first gun is my father’s virgin lever-action Henry 22 LR. I lost him to a very aggressive case of lymphoma… He never got to fire the Henry, and he passed just two or three months shy of getting to hold his granddaughter. I want to have his initials professionally carved into the stock, which are my Punkin’s initials as well. She’s never fired her rifle, or even seen it yet, but when she is old enough, I will take her out shooting, and explain what this gun means, what it represents, and why it is important…

Needless to say, Jim at work thinks I am completely batsh*t crazy… But I am something of an absolutist on the matter…

Here’s a little something I wrote on the topic of guns and gun control…

Let’s Advance The Discussion

PointnClick on August 8, 2013 at 4:51 AM

Thats easy. Dont rent there.

TX-96 on August 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM

I’m sure it’s been mentioned earlier, but any new tenant in the place is a sitting duck for an illegal entrée. Just put up a sign that says;
“Undocumented burglars, thieves, and rapists are welcome!”

Don L on August 8, 2013 at 6:05 AM

On second thought the landlord does have some rights–and so does the government if they decide to Kelo his property.

Don L on August 8, 2013 at 6:09 AM

I hope the property owner puts up a ‘Gun Free Zone’ sign and then one that says: My tenants are unarmed and can’t resist criminal trespass.

Or maybe some graffiti artist will do that for his buildings.

He obviously doesn’t want a better class of customers… I guess he is just trying to be a slumlord and figuring out the fastest way to get a slum.

ajacksonian on August 8, 2013 at 7:18 AM

By demonizing gun ownership with the up and coming generation in ten or fifteen years you will see guns outlawed and nobody complain.

That is how the Maoists work.

archer52 on August 8, 2013 at 12:49 AM

That is the purpose of the zero tolerance policies in schools and other organizations.

Dr. Frank Enstine on August 8, 2013 at 8:42 AM

So he takes government money to but the slum then pisses on the foundation of that government?

Liberalism is a disease.

crash72 on August 8, 2013 at 8:44 AM

I’m glad to see they backed down, albeit in the face of public outcry but in this case a victory is a victory.

But i’m interested in this question:

The gun issue is different, though, because there’s a safety argument to be made. If a landlord’s jittery about being sued over a potential accidental shooting on the property, is that unreasonable?

I the same not true of an automobile? If someone is hit in the parking lot is the property owner just as much at risk of suit? What makes a 9mm pistol so different than a 2500 pound automobile; other than liberal-induced perception that is?

clippermiami on August 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Here’s one for the constitutional lawyers out there. I once rented an apartment in a complex that didn’t allow motorcycles. I discovered that going back and forth to work was costly, and had the opportunity to pick up a 50cc Yamaha motorcycle cheap. I always parked it on the public street, and never brought it on to their private property. They told me I had to get out because I owned a motorcycle. I didn’t want to get into a major contest, so I found a place closer to work, but weren’t they violating my constitutional rights?

Longhorn Six on August 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM

The constitution also says that any powers not mentioned are up to the states and the people. In the case of a dispute, it would be up to the supreme court to decide where the balance lies.

gh on August 7, 2013 at 10:04 PM

The Court has been fairly consistent over the last few decades in stating that the 14th trumps the 10th. I don’t agree, but the precedent has been set and has far too much weight behind it now to be overcome.

Chris of Rights on August 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM

In reality, they had no idea that their firearms prohibition would become a national issue. When it went national, they backed off withoug hesitation.

skspls on August 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Timin203 on August 7, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Read much?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

…and on and on

Nutstuyu on August 8, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Here’s one for the constitutional lawyers out there. I once rented an apartment in a complex that didn’t allow motorcycles. I discovered that going back and forth to work was costly, and had the opportunity to pick up a 50cc Yamaha motorcycle cheap. I always parked it on the public street, and never brought it on to their private property. They told me I had to get out because I owned a motorcycle. I didn’t want to get into a major contest, so I found a place closer to work, but weren’t they violating my constitutional rights?

Longhorn Six on August 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM

In short, no. They might have been violating your contractual rights, however, if the lease did not distinguish between placing a motorcycle on the property and simply owning one. You probably would have had grounds for breach of contract.

Nutstuyu on August 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM

The Court has been fairly consistent over the last few decades in stating that the 14th trumps the 10th. I don’t agree, but the precedent has been set and has far too much weight behind it now to be overcome.

Chris of Rights on August 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM

It’s not that the 14th trumps the 10th so much that the 14th mandates that the States are required to act, individually, as if their State Constitutions incorporated by reference the Bill of Rights.

With enactment of the 14th, the rights left to the States in essence went away. About the only things the States can do now is to discriminate in favor of their own citizens over citizens of other States. But a State, for example, cannot establish religion. Prior to the 14th, that was allowable, for in that era the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment applied only to the Federal Government.

unclesmrgol on August 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Hey folks in Colorado who want to split off from the state and form North Colorado as the 51st state. Here’s your sign. Go ahead and split, I know I would.

neyney on August 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Capitalist Hog on August 8, 2013 at 12:55 AM

Cheers!

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I live in Castle Rock and I believe the county when they say they were not aware of what the management company was doing. It is a conservative county which supports school vouchers, 2nd amendment issues, prohibits the new pot businesses, etc… So I am going to give them the benefit of doubt and let this fall on the shoulders of the management company.

tommer74 on August 8, 2013 at 11:36 AM

I have no problem with an individual requiring no guns on their own property. You should be able to do with your property as you see fit (with reasonable caveats regarding creating a nuisance, harming the value of neighboring property, etc.).

The marine is free to find another apartment (if this was not explicit in the lease, then the marine should be able to leave with no repercussions for “breaking the lease” – if this was explicit in the lease and the marine knew about it, that is his fault).

On the flip side, I have no problem with people expressing their outrage and causing him to change his mind (as long as they don’t violate his rights in the process – no violence or threats of violence or anything like that).

The state shouldn’t be involved.

Monkeytoe on August 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Ha. Does anyone believe that this Marine was the only one who had a gun on the premises? I’m sure there are plenty tenants who have guns for hunting purposes as well as protection.

lea on August 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM

he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

…and on and on

Nutstuyu on August 8, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The constitution only prohibits the gov’t from infringing on those rights. It does not prohibit individuals from doing so.

And, it would be totally unworkable otherwise. If it truly worked as you believe, then no person, company, etc. could prohibit any other person from doing anything on their property.

You want to come on my property to give a speech? I have to let you because I cannot infringe on your right to speech. You want to come on my property and hold Islamic rituals? Gotta let you because of freedom of religion.

the same would hold true for private employers. Hey everyone, come work at wallmart and carry your gun around all day while you work. Walmart can’t stop you from carrying your gun.

See how that could not work?

Just because you have a right in general, does not mean you get to exercise that right on someone else’s property or to deprive someone else of their rights through the exercise of your own.

Monkeytoe on August 8, 2013 at 11:54 AM

And yet, many years ago the “court” ruled that a small landlord in Phoenix could NOT advertise their home/property as a “Christian Environment”. They were ordered to cease and desist. And yet, homosexers are free to advertise “gay-friendly” housing for rent.
What’s wrong with this picture?
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on August 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Seems to me that an OWNER should have the right to ban guns on THEIR property.

Of course, I seem to remember that the law holds that there is some duty of care or some such which might kick in if there was a home invasion and you had been prevented from providing for your own defense as a tenant. I mean, wouldn’t a complex where thieves know there are no guns make an ideal hunting ground? I may not own a gun but I would not want to live in a building where I( and everyone else) knew no one could. I would feel like I had painted a target on my butt.

I wonder if I missed this in the flood of comments.

OBQuiet on August 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM

“Businesses can ban guns from their premises, no? ” In Florida…no they cannot. They may post a sign on the door, but it carries no legal weight. If they somehow determine that you are carrying a weapon, they can ask you to leave, then you leave. You have committed no crime. Please note, I am not talking about no carry zones as enumerated in the law.

rjh on August 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Seems to me that an OWNER should have the right to ban guns on THEIR property…

OBQuiet on August 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Read the update to the thread. It’s not “theri property”. It was acquired with federal funds and managed with taxpayers’ dough.

The board reversed the manager’s rogue demand too.

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 1:08 PM

The state shouldn’t be involved.

Monkeytoe on August 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

It’s public housing. Of course the state is involved.

alwaysfiredup on August 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Kind of moot now that the policy has been rescinded, but let’s just suppose the owner of the complex was an evangelical Christian and decided, based on the numerous terrorist acts associated with it, that Islam is dangerous and therefore Korans would not be allowed in renter’s apartments. The outcry, up to and including our fine POTUS, would be ear-splitting.

wkh on August 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Seems to me that an OWNER should have the right to ban guns on THEIR property…

OBQuiet on August 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Read the update to the thread. It’s not “theri property”. It was acquired with federal funds and managed with taxpayers’ dough.

The board reversed the manager’s rogue demand too.

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I Understand that is the case in this instance. I was speaking to the more general one. If I own a property, I should be able to decide how it is used including what is allowed on it.

And who I rent to but that is an entirely different matter.

OBQuiet on August 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Update: That was fast.

Lol! Can’t understand why you didn’t time stamp the update Allah. ; ) Lol!

Bmore on August 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

owning a gun is as legal as owning a coffee maker,bicycle or computer.

portlandon on August 7, 2013 at 11:12 PM

I have all these things and more.

Statistically speaking, my most potentially dangerous possession is a Buick. ;)

S. D. on August 10, 2013 at 12:52 AM

Cancelled policy? Now the criminals will need to find a different gun free zone!

kregg on August 10, 2013 at 8:41 AM

None of us really have true property rights at all.
It’s not even your property. It is owned by the state and rented by you.
To say anything else is a lie.
See, I realize it’s wrong to deny people to use/come into your establishment bcs of race and such, but what if you have two applicants for your apartment, Hispanic gang banger type and a white person?
Most of the time, an individual renting an apartment won’t be ran after by the law if they deny based on race. But companies will.
In the end, we have determined that real property rights are trumped by political correctness.
I’m not saying it’s right that someone be denied bcs they are black, etc. But if it’s your property, shouldn’t you be allowed to do that if you wish?
The consequences for something like that should come from society itself, not laws designed to reduced the freedoms of all.

Badger40 on August 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I’m not saying it’s right that someone be denied bcs they are black, etc. But if it’s your property, shouldn’t you be allowed to do that if you wish?
The consequences for something like that should come from society itself, not laws designed to reduced the freedoms of all.

Badger40 on August 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Now let’s see if I get any bites from uberhysterical pu$$ie$.

Badger40 on August 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Kind of moot now that the policy has been rescinded, but let’s just suppose the owner of the complex was an evangelical Christian and decided, based on the numerous terrorist acts associated with it, that Islam is dangerous and therefore Korans would not be allowed in renter’s apartments. The outcry, up to and including our fine POTUS, would be ear-splitting.

wkh on August 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Exactly. This forced gun ban and every other like it are wanton intrusions upon inalienable rights by hand-wringing pu$$ies and wannabe “petty nobility” libtards.

But were a property owner to filter, say, Democrat voters because of their propensity to steal, cheat, lie, and vote for imbeciles who give them welfare money taken from HIS (increased) taxes, the outcry could be heard on Mars.

I mean, heaven forbid that he not be required to shelter D-grade Communist retards, right? Seriously, imagine a world where voting for the “Free Stuff and Surrender” Party actually had consequences like businesses telling you “you outright hate free enterprise, we won’t hire you”?

MelonCollie on August 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3