This needs to go Viral. completely wrong!!!

[Shrek]

All the opinions that a property owner should be able to conduct his business as he sees fit are just that , opinions with no constitutional basis. Your property rights are based in old English common law and are granted by the "king" or in the US case the state. You have no absolute rights and all are subect to the "reasonable" will of the state as limited by the US constitution. Castle doctrine and property rights are implied but not described in the constitution and are subect to legislative limitations unlike described rights like freedom of speach , assembly , keeping and bearing of arms , ect.

 

[Shrek]

When you say that he can find another place to live or a business should be allowed to bar arms owners then you are advocating the the subversion of the constitution and the taking of liberty. Many here misunderstand property rights in this country.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Your liberties don't extend to a property that I own. If I kick someone out of my field for exercising their freedom of speech, tough. I own it, I have that discretion. I can tell people they can bowhunt but absolutely no firearms.

As a business owner, I cannot discriminate based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. However I can certainly put restrictions on actions, behaviors, etc. It is not a taking of liberty, it is exercising your rights as a property owner.

 

[Bonedalien]

Tonloc is right,springing this mid-lease is BS.
on a lighter note, I think the management might want to change the name to "Soft Target Acres."

 

[Shrek]

Jason Snyder , on your own castle doctrine applicable property I agree with you but when you open that property to public business I believe that my first ten amendment rights are senoir to you implied property rights . I'm of the opinion that it is unconstitutional for an employer or a business open to the public to require me to subjugate my ascribed rights to your implied property rights. As hard as it may be for you to bear , your property rights are far from immutable. All of your property claims are subject to reasonable limitations and none of the inalienable rights as described in the first ten amendments known as the bill of rights are subject to reasonable limitations. Your property rights are second to all of our inalienable rights. There have been many rulings in favor of secondary Implied rights over our inalienable rights and I believe they are wrong. When you say someone may enter your property but only if unarmed then you are subverting thats persons civil rights by discriminating based upon their exercise of their rights. Very hard to define the lines in these scenarios but a public restaurant or theater should certainly not be allowed the discretion to discriminate based on my exercise of my second amendment rights. As for allowing free trespass on your ranch I would agree you have discretion to bar entry to those armed but I do not agree that you can require that of an employee at your ranch or farm. Then you would be conducting public business facilitated by public money and public commerce.

 

[mtnwrunner]

You know, just when you think you've heard it all. I don't think I can rent to you because you have a TV, I don't think I can rent to you because you are blonde, I don't think I can rent to you because you drive a Cadillac, I can't rent to you because you are ugly....blah blah blah. IF I had to live in a place like that I would not say a friggin word. Screw em. I would NEVER live in a place like that anyhoos and what the hell ever happened to common SENSE!!!!! The right (get it, right) to bear arms is a RIGHT! Period. Man, you have struck a nerve with me and I forwarded this to the NRA. I hope every crook in Castle Rock reads that article.

Randy

 

[gelton]

Looks like the story did go viral. The apartment management company has suddenly done a 360 and changed their tune...
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/349123/222/Apartments-firearm-policy-thrown-out

 

[Shrek]

The problem is that the management company hasn't been fired for this . Until a little sunshine was was shown on this they were getting away with it. Unless companies and the individuals who run them are penalized for bs like this there is no deterrence for the next anti gun manager to try an impose their personal beliefs on others. Loosing the contact to manage all the boards properties would send a clear signal of deterrence.

 

[gelton]

I agree. The management company wouldnt even talk to the local news station. I say the Management Company needs to have their phone lines and email boxes full tomorrow as well as any property owner that employs them.

 

[Justin Crossley]

At Boeing, where I work, we are not allowed to have a firearm on the property. I don't like it at all but I believe it should be their (Boeing's) right to make this rule.

If I don't like it, I am free to find another job. I also believe this rule will eventually lead to a shooting at work where people will be unable to defend themselves. At this point I feel the job is worth keeping, even with some of the stupid company policies that I have to follow.

I feel the same if I'm renting a house or apartment to someone. If you don't want to rent from someone because they don't allow guns, find another place to rent. (I have had rentals in the past)

I don't agree with changing this rule in the middle of a contract though.

 

[Shrek]

Justin , why do you feel that property rights trump your personal rights ? Would you support the right of Boeing to say that you can't have a bumper sticker supporting the party of your choice in the parking lot ? They own it. How about who you can associate with on break in the break room ? Why are so many willing to give up their personal liberties in any way because the onership of the property. I don't care who owns what , nobody should except discrimination for exercising their fundamental constitutional rights. Many seem to believe that property rights are supreme when under our system they are limited. We zone the use of property , condem and take property for public uses , ect. There is nothing particularly sacred about property under the law but the bill of rights is the sacred bedrock of our freedom and when you take lowly property rights and elevate them to supiority to the bill of rights you have lost me.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I don't feel that their rights trump mine at all. Remember that I make the CHOICE to work there.

 

[realunlucky]

This is a crazy story. I'm sorry that Colorado is suffering from the insanity of a few. Bloomberg will probably arrive shortly with a bag full of money for the management team.

 

[Shrek]

When you accept any inconvenience or have to change your behavior in any way to exercise your rights then they have been diminished. You should never have to even consider the exercise of your rights when leading your life. Nobody should be allowed to challenge your exercise in any capacity at any time. Own the property or not. You should never be made to make a choice of where to work based on the employers discrimination against your fundamental rights.

 

[jmez]

I don't feel the my rights trump anyone else's rights. If I make a choice to live in someone else's building then what they say goes. If I don't like what they say I have the freedom to leave. I can take my guns and go. I wouldn't give up any freedom or liberty, I would simply move.

 

[gelton]

At Boeing, where I work, we are not allowed to have a firearm on the property. I don't like it at all but I believe it should be their (Boeing's) right to make this rule.

If I don't like it, I am free to find another job. I also believe this rule will eventually lead to a shooting at work where people will be unable to defend themselves. At this point I feel the job is worth keeping, even with some of the stupid company policies that I have to follow.

I feel the same if I'm renting a house or apartment to someone. If you don't want to rent from someone because they don't allow guns, find another place to rent. (I have had rentals in the past)

I don't agree with changing this rule in the middle of a contract though.

According to the updated story this was not a decision of the owners but one the management company made on their own so, if what the property owner said is true then it is a much different situation than what you are describing.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Shrek,

Your constitutional rights protect you from the government, not a private citizen. Your right to free speech doesn't allow you to say whatever you want on Rokslide. Your right to warrantless searches doesn't prevent you from having your bag searched at the Justin Beiber concert.

Housing discrimination is a separate law and from the HUD website:

"What Is Prohibited?

In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:

Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing."

The reason these things are protected by the Fair Housing Act (Not the Constitution), is that the black guy denied housing based on being black can't choose to be white and qualify for the housing. That is the big difference.

I would choose to get housing elsewhere.

 

[Shrek]

Jmez , the laws dictate just about everthing you can and can't do with your property because you property is not a sacred right under the constitution but our right to bear arms is. You have no right as a property owner to undermine my rights while utilizing your property . If you offer an apartment for rent you have no right to discriminate against me based on my exercise of my rights. You could choose to not rent to anybody and therefore avoid the problem but once you engage in public interactions on the property those that you allow on carry their fundamental rights and you have no right to challenge those rights whether you agree with them or not.you have no right to ask , challenge , or limit through contract any rights under the constitution. They are rights and are in no way negotiable.

 

[jcodyc40]

So Shrek, you're saying you would have no problem with me excercising my right to assemble, my freedom of speech and my right to bear arms in the cab of your truck that you utilize for public commerce?

 

[Floorguy]

Jmez , the laws dictate just about everthing you can and can't do with your property because you property is not a sacred right under the constitution but our right to bear arms is. You have no right as a property owner to undermine my rights while utilizing your property . If you offer an apartment for rent you have no right to discriminate against me based on my exercise of my rights. You could choose to not rent to anybody and therefore avoid the problem but once you engage in public interactions on the property those that you allow on carry their fundamental rights and you have no right to challenge those rights whether you agree with them or not.you have no right to ask , challenge , or limit through contract any rights under the constitution. They are rights and are in no way negotiable.

No other way to say it but you are wrong. The fact that a person has a public business does not diminish the fact that it is still his private property. As stated the 10 amendments are what the government cannot do to its citizens. The interpretations are handed out by the courts.