Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Castle Rock apartment tenants told they must get rid of their guns

CASTLE ROCK - Retired Marine Art Dorsch says his Second Amendment rights are in danger.

His apartment complex, the Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, sent out a notice telling all residents to get rid of their guns.

The 77-year-old retired US Marine Corps veteran sent a newstip to 9Wants to Know saying he's afraid he'll be homeless if he doesn't comply.

The letter went out to residents on August 1 and says they have until October 1 to comply with updated "community policies."

On page 2 is a brand new provision saying "firearms and weapons are prohibited."

"It upsets me very much," Dorsch said.

As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property.

"Weapons of any kind" sort of makes it hard to cut your steak at dinner.

Interestingly we should all be familiar with the city of Castle Rock, CO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
.
.

As this case is the latest in a lineage of high-profile cases, such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County, in which lawsuits against governmental entities for failure to prevent harm to an individual were dismissed, it has also been used by gun rights advocates in the United States to add additional weight to the self-defense argument for private gun ownership.

I would probably research other communities in which to live. But, may as well notify the local news.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I'm not sure how this would play out in court with residents with firearms that have already signed a lease, but all it takes is a year or less to get everyone on the new program through new leases or moved out. Their property, their rules.

That being said, you'd be crazy to live in this self-imposed gun-free zone. Can't wait to see the trend of the number of police calls to this complex over the next 5-10 years.

Morons.

Luckily, that policy will never take effect

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

Yep, didn't even take much more than 24 hours for that management company to get slapped down by the property owners.
Note:

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

Since the housing was government-owned, the Second Amendment ought to apply. That, and the fact that somebody publicly called their hand, is probably why they backed down.

(shrugs) If it's a HOA, or a privately owned apartment, they have the ability to put verbage in like that... not SMART to do it, but they can...

Since this is PUBLIC housing... I think they fall under the same guise as the GA, or other public government office.

I have never understood why Post Offices get a "pass" on banning weapons.

The management company also seems to want their tenants to be deprived of their first amendment rights too.

Report: Apt. Complex that Banned Gun Owners Intimidates Tenants

The management group which tried to tell its Colo. apartment residents they could not keep weapons in their own units is as uncomfortable with the First Amendment as it is the Second.

The resident Breitbart News spoke with would not give her name for fear of a reprisal from the company. She told Breitbart News the management company instigated the no firearms policy without consulting tenants, and that it also has rules on the books which forbid residents from speaking ill of the group.

Reverenddel wrote:(shrugs) If it's a HOA, or a privately owned apartment, they have the ability to put verbage in like that... not SMART to do it, but they can...

That is a misperception. In any determination of such, competing interests of individual liberties are weighed against those with a compelling interests.

While a privately owned apartment complex has property rights, the tenants renting their respective units have contractual rights. Similarly, HOAs have some contractual authority over residents via their CC&Rs, but don't have the absolute authority over property ownership either.

If an management company and HOA can ban a firearm within one's own place of residence, then it can also ban birth control devices and medications for such, pictures of sunflowers, platform shoes, and the Holy Scriptures.

Personally? I have always been againsts HOA's, and Unreasonable Contracts.

I've walked away from property strictly based on those reasons, and informed the realtor about that reason. My thoughts are unlike those who want to bring down barriers. If you don't want my kind around? I don't wanna be around you.

It's why I stay the hell out of Chicago, NYC, LA, San Franscisco, and D.C. for personal visits. Business? I have no control. I'm beholden to my employer. That being said? I spend VERY little time there, and as LITTLE money as possible.

God Bless whoever invented Internet meeting forums.

Reverenddel wrote:
God Bless whoever invented Internet meeting forums.

They are derived from the old "bulletin boards"from back in the day. Just a fancier version of how people got together to share their ideas. And Al Gore had nothing to do with it.

HotD wrote:

Reverenddel wrote:(shrugs) If it's a HOA, or a privately owned apartment, they have the ability to put verbage in like that... not SMART to do it, but they can...

That is a misperception. In any determination of such, competing interests of individual liberties are weighed against those with a compelling interests.

While a privately owned apartment complex has property rights, the tenants renting their respective units have contractual rights. Similarly, HOAs have some contractual authority over residents via their CC&Rs, but don't have the absolute authority over property ownership either.

If an management company and HOA can ban a firearm within one's own place of residence, then it can also ban birth control devices and medications for such, pictures of sunflowers, platform shoes, and the Holy Scriptures.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not necessarily arguing that landlords ought to do things like prohibiting firearms on the premises they lease, but I think there is a good argument that they can do them to a large extent.

Landlords and Tenants can enter into any agreement that isn't illegal or void as against public policy. As long as the landlord isn't a government, my guess is that a lease prohibiting firearms on the demised property would likely be upheld. However, a rule promulgated after a tenancy began and not as a lease provision would be a lot harder to enforce, IMO. In order to enforce the rule against a tenant who refused to comply, the landlord would ultimately have to get a court to agree to evict the tenant, and an after-the-fact proscription of the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right ought to give a judge heartburn. There is also the issue of how the landlord would know about the gun (or birth-control device, or holy scriptures) was in the tenant's possession. A landlord generally has a right to enter at reasonable times to inspect the premises' condition and repair, but not to toss your underwear drawer or open that Winchester safe in your bedroom. So if the tenant doesn't pull the gun or wave the bible at the landlord, how's he ever to know about the contraband to begin with absent some grievous breach of the tenant's right to use the premises in privacy?

HOAs' powers are derived from restrictive covenants in the chain of title that convey the property that is subject to the HOA's supervision (meddling, as I see it). But pretty much the same logic as above applies. If you had a competent and diligent lawyer, he read the covenants and explained them to you when you purchased the house, and you bought it subject to the reservations of those rights set forth in the covenants. If you don't want an HOA sticking its nose in your business, then don't buy property subject to covenants that establish one.

I do believe SCOTUS has found that one cannot invalidate an unalienable right by contract. HOA's are in a similar situation. If a HOA says "minorities cannot vote in HOA elections" it's only valid if each homeowner actually follows through (to include a minority) and doesn't file a lawsuit. Just because it's in a contract doesn't necessarily mean it's enforceable.

GeneFrenkle wrote:I do believe SCOTUS has found that one cannot invalidate an unalienable right by contract. HOA's are in a similar situation. If a HOA says "minorities cannot vote in HOA elections" it's only valid if each homeowner actually follows through (to include a minority) and doesn't file a lawsuit. Just because it's in a contract doesn't necessarily mean it's enforceable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I said, parties can contract to do what is *NOT ILLEGAL* or *AGAINST PUBLIC PROPERTY*. What you've posited is against public policy. It may also be illegal, although I don't know of any laws about voting rights in HOAs. As to the proposition that "one cannot invalidate an unalienable right by contract", I believe you are interpreting that too broadly. The Second Amendment (As well as all the others) applies to governments; not individuals. If I own my own private property, I may agree to let someone use it for specified purposes but not for other specified purposes. The right to private property is also an unalienable right. The Second Amendment is not without some limits.

The 2nd is an individual right (see Heller as well as McDonald). SCOTUS did say there are some limits (e.g. felons).

dorminWS wrote:

GeneFrenkle wrote:I do believe SCOTUS has found that one cannot invalidate an unalienable right by contract. HOA's are in a similar situation. If a HOA says "minorities cannot vote in HOA elections" it's only valid if each homeowner actually follows through (to include a minority) and doesn't file a lawsuit. Just because it's in a contract doesn't necessarily mean it's enforceable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I said, parties can contract to do what is *NOT ILLEGAL* or *AGAINST PUBLIC PROPERTY*. What you've posited is against public policy. It may also be illegal, although I don't know of any laws about voting rights in HOAs. As to the proposition that "one cannot invalidate an unalienable right by contract", I believe you are interpreting that too broadly. The Second Amendment (As well as all the others) applies to governments; not individuals. If I own my own private property, I may agree to let someone use it for specified purposes but not for other specified purposes. The right to private property is also an unalienable right. The Second Amendment is not without some limits.

We're hardly consistent with this as you are with the last two sentences...

What else is "keeping and bearing an arm," but private property? Yet it is heavily restricted and illegal in many places. If the state can make it illegal to keep an arm because of X, why can't they also prohibit the same in a contract? Once you start limiting unalienable Rights, you find very quickly that the only real limitations are by those with the power to force others to follow them.

I think we're kind of agreeing in the broad sense but disagreeingin a locality sense. Sure, laws will be made that violate the Constitution as lawmakers are more interested in winning votes and playing the "...but at least I tried" card. That will not make an unlawful law, well, lawful. It just means it was not successfully challenged and overturned. In statist states, the probability of overturning will probably be low, but that is a fumction of the constituency's willingness to abide by the word _and_ intent of the highest law of the land (homeowners blindly following). I agree theres a big gap between differing "interpretations" of the BoR, and we've been fortunate that SCOTUS has rules appropriately (although simply) on some very pointed questions.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You have to be careful about confusing how it ought to be/how you wish it was with how it is.