The Second Amendment Foundation has fought—and overturned—government housing bans against legal gun possession. In this case, Marine Art Dorsch lives in an apartment complex owned by the Douglas County [CO] Housing partnership, overseen by the Ross Management Group. Ross is wired-in to Colorado’s left-leaning politicians’ aspirations. The company’s website touts its “deep and long-lasting relationships with government officials, community leaders and other key players in the affordable housing industry.” So one imagines this was their idea. Question: does Dorsch have to surrender his Second Amendment protections on someone else’s property? I’m thinking yes. Watch this space.
Someone needs a good hard asskicking in that company.
So someones Constitutional Rights can be violated if they are on private property? News to me…
It’s no different than you telling a person to leave your property because he’s saying things you disagree with or carrying a gun. Or you requiring that a person submit to an unwarranted search before entering your property. Businesses and individuals have always had the right to put any restrictions they wish on visitors. Think of it as the property owners’ rights superseding the visitors’ rights.
Additionally, the Constitutional limitations in the Bill of Rights apply to governments only; not to individuals or corporations.
Exactly. If a private company or a individual does not want you to carry on their property then they have the right to make that a condition of your entry or residence.
Of course it can. That’s why it’s private property.
This is not quite private property.
I’ll expand. A grocery store parking lot is, for the most part, “private property, premises open to the public”.
An apartment, barring any contractual issues, has a tenant. The apartment then is the domicile of the renter who then exercises dominion and control over the interior of the unit. As long as laws are obeyed, (no meth labs, no holding kidnapped children inside), you are free to be you and engage in any lawful activity. (naked twister, watching the kardashians, etc).
Again, unless the prohibition of firearms was in place when you signed the lease/rental agreement, I’m not so sure they can change things on you willy nilly.
This will be very interesting to watch. They tried this stuff in Portland in a real dive and found they couldn’t get away with it.
Leases are for a period of time. Your current lease may allow you to own guns, but your next lease of the same premises may not.
News to me…
@Roll, it shouldn’t be news to you. You need to arm yourself with the knowledge that you need to have.
2A regulates government action, not private action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor
^^^^^^^^^ anyone bringing up the constitution should read this before commenting
A private rental company cannot put up a sign that says “No Coloreds or Jews Allowed”. The 2A is a civil rights issue.
No it’s not. A person still has the right to (mostly) do with their property as they see fit, so long as they don’t interfere with the rights of their neighbors. The government can’t forbid you from having guns on my property, but I can. Saying it’s a “civil right” case is hyperbole at best. I don’t have the right to freely exercise my first amendment rights on other people’s properties’, do I? I mean, do I get to stand in people’s yards waving protest signs without the property owners permission? Do I get to put political or religious magnetic bumper stickers on their cars? Do I get to have church services in an apartment with 50 people or hang whatever political signs I want out the window? No, of course not, not if the property owner forbids it in the lease.
So if I don’t have the right to protest or rally on your property without your permission, why am I entitled to carry a loaded weapon onto it?
I can carry my loaded weapon because it’s my home. If people publicly offer housing to rent, they cannot discriminate based on things that are civil rights.
It’s the same with parking lot storage laws at work. Thank goodness Kentucky understands that the compromise between the employer’s property right and my civil right to carry meet in the middle in my car in the parking lot.
I’m wondering if a resident could legally hold the owners of the apartment complex liable if there was some kind of attack on them inside their apartment
I was wondering this same thing, but since residency here is, I assume, voluntary I doubt you could hold the owners liable for something you agreed to do. On the other hand, unless the prohibition is PROMINANTLY displayed at every possible entryway to the property I suspect a visitor and/or their surviving relatives would have a strong civil case.
Still, can the property owners demand you give up your other constitutional rights as a requirement to live there? Can they tell you what channels you can get on cable, what newspapers can be delivered, allow police or other government agents to enter and search your apartment without a warrant, etc.? Seems unlikely that would stand up in any court.
Nope. Read the lease template that virtually every company uses in the US. They are not liable for the actions of other residents, guests, or intruders.
True, but the liability laws of the jurisdiction may say otherwise. If the landlord allows a known, dangerous condition to persist (bad locks, inadequate lighting), then in many jurisdictions they may have breached a statutory duty and will be liable for the resulting damages from criminal conduct of third parties no matter what the lease says.
However, I don’t know of a case — and can’t imagine one — where a “no guns” clause constituted a breach of the landlord’s duty.
They could certainly file a lawsuit over it. And that’s what these tenants need to do: ask a judge for a restraining order and sue the pants off these morpher-forkers.
If the 4th Amendment applies to rented property, I see no reason the 2nd doesn’t.
Also….is there a link to this specific case?
The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by governments and its agents. It does not apply to landlords. There are other laws that regulate landlord conduct, but the Constitution does not.
Those two amendments, along with the other eight, restrict the actions of government agents; not the property owner. As long as there’s no state law restricting it, the property owner can put any sort of privacy violating clause in the lease it chooses to.
It’s no different than the employee agreement that most of us sign that says we can’t have guns in the company parking lot. That restriction is perfectly legal here in WA, but would be illegal in AZ.
If you are renting the apartment, is it not your property?
If not, should the landlord be arrested if they find something illegal, say drugs, on HIS property?
Honestly do not know how those laws works, my guess is, common sense does not apply.
In a paralegal class I took many years ago I remember the case of a rental contract – if you put money in a parking meter you have the right to conduct any legal activity within that space for the duration of your agreed rental. There was no requirement that this activity be limited to parking a vehicle. (This related, as I recall, to a man who had paid the meter, then sat in a lawn chair on the spot to ensure a friend could find parking when he arrived.)
Unless you have specifically agreed in the terms of the lease (and shame on you) that prohibit firearms in the apartment it seems a stretch for the owners to be able to deny you the right to a legal possession of firearms.
Agreed. Leases are complicated as shit. Most allow warrantless entry for maintenance/safety inspections, but I BELIEVE the law says that the SPACE inside a rented property is the property of the renter, and is subject to the 4th Amendment protections.
A clever lawyer might be able to make the case that a firearm in a high density complex represents a potential danger to his property and the safety of the other residents. The same reasoning applies to bans on pet ownership and/or breed limitations.
However, my also loose familiarity with lease law is that if it was not in the original lease, changes to the lease would require moving mountains, and should provide the option to terminate the lease without consequence.
I KNOW we have a contract lawyer amongst us so I can stop speculating. HELPPPP
Lease law provisions vary widely from state to state.
http://www.landlord.com/landlord_right_of_entry_by_state.htm
At the end of the day, until they get sued on ‘2A as a civil right’ grounds, the landlord can pretty much put any limits they want on the tenants. Besides, there is always a legal way to turn down “unwanted” tenants, and if you think the folks running big complexes won’t be able to figure out if you own guns – you have a lot of catching up to do.
The renter is legally in control of the rental property. So the landlord cannot, for example, allow the police to enter and search without a warrant. But legal protections like the fourth amendment apply to the government, not to individuals and businesses. Laws restrict the rest of us.
If I enter your property without your permission, it’s not a warrantless search, it’s trespassing or potentially breaking and entering.
I had read elsewhere that he already had a lease which did not contain this anti-gun language…I believe he has the right to break his lease without penalty,receive all deposits back, and move out. Of course moving would incur costs. Any TTAG readers in CO know of any fund to help get this guy into a more gun friendly apartment, and help with his moving costs?
It depends on the state laws and the wording of the lease. The restriction might not apply to him until the end of his current lease, because both parties are usually prevented from changing the terms of the contract during the contract’s effective period. Just like they’re prevented from raising his rent or changing the pet policy mid lease, they’re probably prevented from forcing this on him. They could always offer to buy him out of the lease, if they want to get rid of him sooner.
Go on, tell us all about ‘free markets’ and ‘voluntary contracts’.
This company should be boycotted into bankruptcy.
I’m sure they’ve set it up so their customers have next to zero market power to boycott or negotiate terms, and some jerk is going to call this capitalism.
Insanity.
How is this not capitalism? Most rental properties don’t negotiate terms. They make an offer and expect a yes or no response. It would be no different than an apartment complex banning smoking, pets, kids, etc. And there are many complexes that do one or more of those.
I don’t see how the company can prevent the residents from having the power to boycott or negotiate. The apartment complex probably refuses to negotiate, but you’d be hard pressed to find one that will negotiate terms. But a boycott, or even an email campaign threatening one, would be very effective, particularly if directed at all Oakwood properties. It might motivate them to replace the management company at this property, or force them to revert the policy.
I’d sign up.
Having your rights infringed by oligopolists and collusive monopolists is not, in any way, more ok than having your rights infringed by the government.
Why are conservatives always fumbling over themselves to trade government tyranny for economic tyranny?
Because there is a world of difference between the enforcement power of the state and the enforcement power of a rental property owner. No one ever forces you to live in a specific apartment complex. If you don’t like a term of the lease, you simply don’t have to move in there in the first place. You move in of your own free will, often with dozens of alternatives. If you don’t like a law, simply moving down the street isn’t going to free you of that law.
Break a term of the lease, they kick you out. Refuse move out, they change the locks. Break a law, they throw you in jail. Refuse to go to jail, they arrest you using physical violence (or at least the threat of violence).
I’m with Matt.
In California, state law allows a person to possess a gun at their place of residence or on any property owned or legally possessed by that person. I would be willing to bet that the property owners ban would not stand, there. Unless, of course, there is a signed lease agreement.
I’d not only move, i’d burn the dump down!
Uhhmmm, Do you realize that you said that out loud?
Twitter: Douglas County GOP @DougCOGOP
Oakwood Apts: owned by DougCo Housing Partnership; Ross Management did NOT come to DCHP about gun ban
Changes at Oakwood Apts require DCHP Board approval; Ross Mgmt did not come to DCHP. Emergency DCHP mtg 8/8.
Look at reviews here: https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d3485!2d-104.857433!3d39.386164!4m25!2m11!1m10!1s0x0%3A0xe17938b803a1b514!3m8!1m3!1d196282!2d-104.8551115!3d39.7643389!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5m12!1m11!1sOakwood+Apartments+near+Castle+Rock%2C+CO!4m8!1m3!1d196282!2d-104.8551115!3d39.7643389!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!17b1
Huh, isn’t that a Government agency? I know in Frisco the court stated the Gub’ment couldn’t ban guns on their property..So I wonder how this is going to play out, aside from the negative publicity this place will get.
If you go to the above link you can add your own review of Oakwood.
And you would do that why? You don’t live there, and the management company’s edict has already been slapped down by the property owners. What exactly is the point?
I had to give that place a 5 star review and rating:
I was going to give it one star for crapping on their residents constitutional rights but then I realized nobody is accounting for those unfortunate criminals who need to steal from people…
So I digress:
This place is wonderful. 6 pin security locks are VERY easy to get into. If you don’t have a pick set, the thin doors are a BREEZE! to break down. The single pane glass make window entry super easy. Better than that, there is a 100% chance that if you encounter a resident; they will be unarmed!! how cool is that!! The types that will actually sign a lease that forfeits their right to bear arms is EXACTLY the type of people to rob!!
So… This place gets:
One star for ease of access.
One star for eazy-cheezy roll-over residents.
THREE stars for guaranteed unarmed victims.
And the last star is for Oakwood graciously letting the criminals know about these bountiful fish in a barrel!!
This is almost certainly entirely legal barring some sort of state law specifically addressing it. A homeowner’s association can keep you from flying a flag or displaying a political sign on your lawn (ie the first amendment) and that’s where you actually own the property. A landlord can certainly make “no guns” a term of a lease just as a business owner can make “no guns” a requirement if you’re going to enter his store.
It wasnt in the original lease he signed…they flipped the script on him, so to speak
So the restriction shouldn’t apply to him for the duration of his current lease. Once it is up, however, he should look into moving.
You’re of course correct, but in each of those cases a owner has voluntarily given up (temporarily and locally) his constitutional rights. I think it is a BAD precedent to set and I personally would do everything I could to avoid it, but some people may not feel that they have a valid alternative in some cases. If I am carrying concealed, by the way, I disregard a merchant’s sign in re “No Guns” if for some reason I think I really need to go t that shop. If he has un-posted competition reasonably nearby I will not spend my money there. I refuse to abandon MY RIGHT to self defense just because guns make someone else uncomfortable. My right to “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” trumps their right to feel comfortable.
It depends on the state you are in. When I moved to TX I had to get used to the 30.06 law (believe it or not). It states a business can restrict those from entering a business who are carrying a firearm. In CA there is no such law ( at least when I moved in 2007.
The property is owned by the County Housing Authority. Ross is just the management company, acting on behalf of the county. That makes them a government actor and restricts them the same way it restricts the government.
It appears to be a moot point. The housing authority called an emergency meeting for today to tell the management company that they cannot do that.
#1 no guns, so they allow sex offenders x fellows to live there. #2 no background check done to move in? #3 best of all next apartment complex puts up a sign. Our residence can have guns. For theft killing and rape go next door. 🙂 🙂
First amendment protections are qualified by the phrase “Congress shall make no law”.
The Second amendment does not contain similar language as a qualifier for “shall not be infringed”.
Some people will argue that “by Congress” or “by the government” is implied in the Second, but as a Second amendment absolutist I argue that “by anyone” is implied.
as a Second amendment absolutist I argue that “by anyone” is implied.
As a lawyer, I think your construction doesn’t pass any test of logic or reason. You’re saying that despite the fact that the whole Constitution exists to regulate government, only a single sentence in it applies to nongovernmental entities. Does that make sense? Especially in light of the fact that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendments, just like the 2nd, never mention Congress or the Federal Government?
So if you show up at my place with a gun, and I tell you to remove the gun from my property, do you think your gun rights trump my property rights? If so, you are woefully incorrect.
I could see SCOTUS extending Heller and McDonald to situations such as this…
Against a governmental housing authority, sure. Against a private landlord, no. The current court is not strongly disposed to protect property rights against government, but not so in cases by and against private parties.
assuming ths “private landlord” did not accept any govt $$$ (like section 8) or road improvements, grants, etc
Irrelevant now, the ban has been lifted. Also, it was the management company, not the owners, who attempted to institute the ban. On the question of property rights Ralph, would this apartment complex also have the right to prohibit blacks from renting or even setting foot on the property? Just curious if their property rights would extend that far. And if not, why then can they prohibit firearms in a paying tenants living space? Would be interested in your opinion.
This post needs more info. Was there any restriction on firearms in his original lease? If not, then they can piss off until the term of the existing lease ends. At that point they’re free to write whatever lease they want, and he’s free to not sign it.
“Meanwhile, the question remains: does Dorsch have to surrender his Second Amendment protections on someone else’s property? I’m thinking yes. Watch this space.”
In the words of Paul Harvey, “Stand by for news…”
I may be mistaken, but I believe in some states, he can continue to pay his rent past the end of his lease and it is considered that he extended his lease, the terms of the new lease notwithstanding.
Someone – Ralph – correct me if I’m mistaken.
Varies widely from state to state. On an “automatically renewing” lease, unless one party gives 30/60 day notice, lease auto renews. On a non-auto renewing, it all depends where you live. Some will have month-to-month until renegotiated or terminated by either party, some will be booting you out the door at the end of the lease if you haven’t renewed.
Larger management corps will never let a tenant get to that point anyway. If it takes 60 days to evict in a given state, the tenant will either sign a new lease or give notice of vacating by 61 days out of end of lease. ‘Cuz 60 days out from the end, if the landlord doesn’t have what they want , the landlord will start eviction process and the tenant will be booted at the end of lease date.
I don’t see how the complex can enforce the rule, unless it demands to strip search tenants or demands access to tenants’ safes–and that has to cross some kind of line.
My complex has a no smoking policy. When they find people violating it, they send a letter. If the problem persists, they evict. No-pet policies are usually the same. I’d suspect this policy would be similar. It would be nearly impossible to enforce, unless he likes to OC or has a DGU event (or an ND, but I’m going to hope he’s competent enough to avoid that).
Or maybe if they saw you carrying rifle cases in and out.
“Rifle case? You mean this case? I use it to carry my [insert plausible sports/hobby gear here]. Prove I don’t.”
🙂
I agree that generally the owner can restrict guns (just as every lease has a clause about reasonable inspections, i had a lease that actually specified “neutral colors” for the curtains to ensure uniformity).
But, does this not depend on what type of housing it is (e.g. is it offered as section 8 housing) or whether and how much govt other subsidies are in play?
I wonder if the property owners are getting a lower insurance rate with the addition of this provision?
Thanks for that link, rhampton. Based on that, unless the laws are considerably different in Colorado than they are in Florida, I’m going to reiterate what I said above: They can go piss up a rope for the duration of the existing lease. In Florida, lessors cannot make changes to existing leases like this without the agreement of both parties.
At the end of the existing lease, he may still have to leave because it’s included in the new one, and that’s unfortunate, but I’m pretty sure it’s legal.
I got a $50 that says buried in paragraph 29, subsection 15 of this poor guy’s micro-print 20+ page lease document (yes, some really are that long) the terms of his lease include complying with all ‘complex policies’ is part of his lease. Furthermore, ‘management reserves the right to update said policies, at any time, without any notice’.
What about knives and baseball bats? Do the residents have to remove these weapons?
Does that mean I have to get rid of my 8″ Chef’s knife and 6″ fileting knife? Both would make formidible deadly weapons.
This can’t be legal for apartments to ban guns by renters.
In real estate school, we learned about D.U.E rights, the 3 rights that determine ownership of real property. If you posses all 3, you legally own the property. A renter only has 2 rights: use and exclusion of said property.
D: Disposition – You have the legal right to sell the property
U: Use -You have the legal right to use the property
E: Exclusion – You have the legal right to kick someone off your property
If this gun ban was in place before a lease was signed, maybe they can do this, but to make a new rule after the lease was signed does not give fair warning. If anything, they must wait for the lease to end, then, before a new lease is signed, tenants are given fair warning about the apartments no gun policy, and can choose to sign, or not to sign a lease and find another place to rent.
Sounds like other apartments will have a new ad campaign. We will give 1 month free rent to anyone from the Oakwood Apartments who signs a lease with us. We won’t violate your Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights here.
CO needs to act more like Ohio. If you have a CCW then your landlord legally can’t stop you from having a gun in your apartment, even if it’s in your lease. One of the few good things about Ohio :/
How would they enforce this? Enforcing non-smoking and no pet policies is easy. There is ample evidence. Unless they do strip searches and metal detectors at the door, there is no way they can prove someone has guns. If a person keeps guns in a safe, the landlord cannot demand access to that safe. The landlord will have access to the unit for maintenance etc. but cannot go through the personal belongings of the renters.
So my recommendation to all the gun owners there: stay low and don’t tell anyone.
Or go the other route: buy a big gun case or bag, walk with it through the building every day and see if someone stops and searches you. If they do, hit them with a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
+1000.
What would stop them from enforcing a “no Conservative Speech Allowed” rule..or no “Anti-Obama Speech”..I am not a lawyer..but since they are leasing a property to private individuals, would the individuals rights be safe in his home..just like they couldn’t allow the police to come in warrant less searches because they put it in their lease agreement..?
Any attorneys that could explain how this would work?
How can they outlaw all weapons? Knifes are weapons, electric drills. Screwdrivers. Are they outlawed?
The argument that Oakwood owns the place and can do whatever they want is not very convincing. They cannot discriminate by race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc. unless they want to be hit with a really bad lawsuit. As someone argued above, the renter has the use and exclusion rights of the place he rents. This is not like a coffee shop that has a non-gun policy and where visitors have no rights to their guns.
That said, Oakwood could argue that the common areas, e.g. hallways, entrance area, etc. can have a no gun policy.
But then again, how would they prove that someone walks through the common areas with a gun unless they search the body and the belongings of everyone walking through the entrance?
As an attorney and gun owning renter, I’ve actually done a little research into this area. Here’s my take on it – we have to remember were’re dealing with private actors entering into a contractual relationship (the lease between you and the property owner). Generally speaking, the bill of right applies to state action, not private individuals.
I know that here in virginia, there’s actually a state statute which makes it illegal to condition living in public housing on having no guns (think HUD). Some States have gone different directions on this issue…. Yes it’s private property, but its your home and we generally afford extra protections for that area.
I could see this being an issue being taken up by SOTUS. The best 2A argument that could probably be made would be to argue that this is similar to earlier racial cases involving home owners associations. What those cases essentially said was that yeah…. It’s private parties and they could normally prohibit racial minorities, but once a state court enforces that contractual provision, it’s transformed into state action. Therefore it would be unconstitutional for a court to enforce those provisions.
Now there are some issues with this argument…. Gun owners are not considered a protected class of individuals (yet), but I could still see the argument gaining traction. You would have to have a landlord try to evict someone for violating a lease for owning a firearm.
Somewhat related… Always read your lease with a critical eye. I live in an Archstone apartment. They are located all over the US and contain a provision in the lease which states something along the lines of “you may not posses a firearm that you intend to use as a weapon.” They could have simply said you may not posses a firearm PERIOD. But they added an element of intent. My firearms are for sport and I have no intention of using them as weapons. So I’m good to go.
The notice went out 8/1, and takes effect 10/1. Is it plausible that the leases all renew on 10/1, and this is their 60 day notice (typical if one party doesn’t want to renew – they have 30 or 60 days to give notice) that the rules are changing?
Because as others have said, the terms and conditions of a lease can’t just be changed unilaterally. That’s a duly executed contract and we still have rules for those.
As a gun owner the solution is simple.
Move.
If your don’t like whats going on in your state or town, city whatever.
Move.
I did.
Nothing new here. My property management agency forbids all of their tenants to possess firearms on or in all their rental properties. It’s printed right in the lease in the fine print. And this is in gun friendly open carry anywhere Wisconsin. I just ignored it of course. Lived here over 3 years not one inspection or incident from myself carrying my weapons to and from my auto numerous times in full view of whoever is watching. This is a trend that is growing. I think it’s more about liability issues than anti-gun rhetoric but it’s unconstitutional either way. I’m moving into a fricking home finally in a month so I could give a rats arse.
Actually California law, at least traditionally understood, I think would rail against such a policy. The courts here have ruled that you can carry a gun (openly or concealed) in your domicile, and that includes campgrounds, parked RV’s (iow when used as a domicile) and hotel rooms. If hotel rooms, a fortiori apartements.
It seems to me that the key different between a domicile that is owned by another, but occupied by you, and one owned by you, is that renting the former entails you to all the use of the place as a domicile, and as such entails the same treatment, under the law, for self-defense, carry, weapons, whether you drink booze, as if in a place you owned. Whereas changes to, damage to, etc the property itself is beyond your right as a tenant. Hence prohibitting smoking would likely be reasonable on the grounds that it damages the property.
The idea that “I own this, therefore I can dictate whatever I want” is nonsense. You are free to rent to tenants or not. But if you rent to tenants your property for their use as a domicile, then that must entail the granting of all rights and privileges that come with a domicile qua domicile. You cannot rent someone a home on the ground that they do not use it as a home.
Here we go again.
I am going to explain the way things should be. It is exceedingly simple and elegant.
Private property owners do NOT have infinite rights to do anything they want on their property. For example everyone agrees that a private property owner who kills an invited guest committed a crime that we call murder. Ipso facto private property owners do NOT have the “private property right to do whatever they want”.
As it turns out, every human life has value — let’s call it dignity. That dignity is inherent, inalienable and does not cease to exist when an invited guest walks onto private property. That is why it is a crime if a private property owner kills an invited guest. The act of killing an invited guest is a crime because it violates that guest’s dignity.
Now on to armed guests. The material status of an invited guest does not affect the dignity of the private property owner, period. Whether the guest carries a cell phone, makeup, or a revolver in their pocket does not deny the private property owner their dignity. Saying it another way, a guest who carries a cell phone in their pocket does not harm the property owner. Likewise, a guest who carries a revolver in their pocket does not harm the property owner. On the other hand a property owner who tells an invited guest what they can or cannot possess does deny the guest their dignity. It is degrading because the property owner is telling the invited guest to do something, against the will of the guest, for purely tyrannical reasons — simply because the property owner wants to tell the guest what to do. The correct limit of a private property owner’s prerogative is preventing harm to their property, not telling guests what personal effects they can possess.
Of course life gets interesting when there could be a conflict of interests. What happens when an invited guest must damage the property of property owner to save their life? Simple. The guest damages the property, saves their life, and then compensates the property owner to repair the damages and restore the original value of the property. That simple solution preserves the dignity of both the invited guest and the property owner.
Good news, the County Housing Authority, who owns the property, told the management company “NO, you are not going to ban guns.”
http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123
Nice to see the petty tyrants get slapped down.
By the municipality no less. It’s good to get a reminder that BoulderColorado.
That last line was supposed to be “Boulder >< Colorado." Only with the brackets reversed. I guess that got interpreted as HTML?
Not privately owned, part of a public housing project, and as such the rule has already been struck down by the housing authority: http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=349123
I’m not a lawyer, and I’ve seen at least on of our local ones speak on it above and I agree with what he said based on personal experience. It varies by state but substantial modification of a lease must be mutually agreed upon or can’t be done.
I once had the landlady from hell. She was an unstoppable force of combined ignorance, pugnaciousness and an unhealthy concerns for the activities of others. She attempted variously to evict for unilateral modifications of the lease to include a prohibition of alcohol, visitors after 9pm and among other things the starting of vehicles after sunset and before dusk (no, I’m really not kidding). So, while we obviously hated each other and clearly wanted to sever our relationship something of stubbornness and a hearty desire to ‘win’ brought us to the brink.
She had written the initial lease agreement herself and had fudged the party of the first and party of the third language to the point that eventually her own attorney was telling her that while her modifications would be struck down in court, she might be ordered to clean my apartment herself, take out my trash, and pay my rent, since that’s is what the initial lease indicated (she had confused lessor and lessee). Of course we simply moved once a place was open.
as a lawyer, I so enjoy when people try to draft stuff on their own, makes my job fun and gets me thru the day.
Bureaucracy to the rescue? Huh, wait..what?
So, this makes me wonder. If I have a rental, can I require all tenants have a CWP? If I only accept those with CWPs, I know that they have passed a thorough background check, and most important, I am 99.9% certain I can trust them. Even better, we can carpool to the gun range. 🙂
Comments are closed.