 |
| Hey Bob, we're being evicted ! |
Yesterday, according to The Blaze, the Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, Colorado has informed their tenants that if they own firearms, they will either need to relinquish those firearms, or move from the complex. There are some people in the apartments who are on fixed incomes, and finding another apartment could be difficult. This is also a problem for those who are hinters and live in the apartments, not to mention those who carry concealed weapons permits. The article is being reported on a number of blogs. Most people who have sympathies with the preparedness community are concerned about such a trend.
I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, we have the onerous trend that the places in which guns and people with guns may be shrinking, and that without these weapons, some of our weakest citizens may have difficulty defending themselves in dangerous times or emergencies. On the other hand, I have been a landlord. I also see the view of the landlord whose idea may be that I own this property, don't I have the right to tell those who might be my tenants that I want to limit things like domestic shootings, barricaded people in bathrooms with the SWAT team outside putting my apartment's address in the news and making it tougher to rent to nice families in the future ? I can remember in the past that there was one tenant family we had for whom I would like to have restricted firearms while they were there. All the others used good judgment with everything, and I think could have handled it. This issue pits gun rights against property owners rights, and so it's an interesting issue to watch.
Another issue is that if you remove your weapon from the safe in your apartment and give it to a relative or a mini-storage for safe keeping, doesn't it actually make it tougher for you to police and keep safe your gun. The farther your weapon is from you, the tougher it becomes to prevent others from its use and misuse.
In general if you wish to keep your firearms, the best course may be to own your home. Of course, this does not mean that attempts will not be made to restrict firearm or ammunition ownership within your town or municipality. I'm interested in hearing all of your views on this issue. Thanks for all the great and supportive e-mails over the last few days or so.
Here are references for this blog post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3052079/posts?page=85
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/07/colorado-apartment-building-tells-tenants-they-have-to-get-rid-of-their-guns-or-leave/
16 comments:
It seems like law abiding people who have a constitutional right to own guns are by default treated like criminals. If they treat you like a criminal then you may as well be one and tell the landlord that you don't have a gun, lie like a politician! If you ever have to use it, then you move, fair is fair.
I own my place so there is no one that can tell me I can't have guns here.
If you are walking in the woods with another person and all you have is a .25 when a bear comes after you shoot the other person in the knee cap to slow him/her down so you can get away.
Hahahahaha
Once again, only the good and honest people will abide by the ruling. The dishonest and criminal folks will simply say "what gun?'
I think the answer for those with concealed weapons permits is to own your own home. But even people who feel this way are in apartments sometimes during life transitions. I hate to see them caught in this.
Absolutely agreed, Gorges. They might take guns from the law abiding, the people we need to have armed, but never from the criminal who will simply ignore such a rule.
I think it depends how tough they want to be. For those who have CWPs, they already know you have a weapon. They might require a receipt proving that your weapon was sold in order to continue your lease. That would make it easy for me. I'd move.
Jane - i am with you on this one - i am split between a gun owner's rights and a property owner's rights - it's a hard call. i guess the only way to be able to have all of your rights, including gun rights, is to own your own home. it's hard these days for a lot of folk to be able to do that. but i think if people really want to have a weapon, then they are going to have to buckle down, budget, live frugally and maybe live in a less-than-desirable home. i know that if i was a property owner and then rented to some people who at first appeared ok but then became a little shady, i wouldn't want them having weapons on my property. but then again, i would never own rental properties - too much bother and hassle!
your friend,
kymber
Jane,
The Blaze is reporting the County Board of Directors isn't allowing the implementation of the policy.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/07/board-of-directors-intervenes-says-it-will-not-allow-apartment-complex-to-implement-controversial-policy-banning-guns/
The problem is the apartments are publicly owned; just managed by a private company. If it was a privately owned complex I might agree with the idea of being able to say no guns allowed.
I think any change in that type of policy should be applied to new tenants and not retro to kick out people who had already agreed to terms.
Especially in a long term, senior citizen type community.
Thank you so much for the updated information ! Yes, I agree with you. Any type of change in policy should be for those who are tenants from this point on. Thanks for your post, and please post again.
We fell into being landlords when we needed to transfer to a new job, but didn't want to lose our original house in case we came back. We rented it for years with no trouble at all, eventually selling to the tenants when they had saved enough money and were sure that they would continue to live/work in that area. Then we did the same things again, when we moved to the first farm. We had one tenant, back at our suburban home who was so bad that the story would have been an entertaining book ! He was eventually evicted but not before 20 thousand dollars worth of damage was done. We sold that large home at a slight loss the following year. I can't say I plan to be a landlord again !
Just as I predicted, but it hasn't totally come to fruition yet. Obama KNOWS that home OWNERS are going to be dis-armed eventually through homeowner's insurance. Eventually our insurance will increase our rates due to our REGISTERED guns until we can no longer afford to keep them.
Illegal guns are in the hands of people who pay no taxes and have no insurance at all. They will NEVER be affected.
This could indeed be their plan. So far,u ,y insurance agent is pro-gun for customers but I suspect this could be an isolated issue, and I am already paying quite a bit in homeowner's insurance "because there have been so many claims by others". Thanks for posting, Lotta Joy.
My cave isn't insured, hell, it isn't worth anything, but it suits me just fine.
BBC, That IS an alternative. An increasing number of people have decided not to pay thousands per year to insure their homes. Some of them are putting that amount away to repair anything that is damaged or to rebuilt in the event of a fire. I still have homeowners in the event that we have a total loss so that we could rebuild, but I know many people who don't have homeowners. Two of them had fires in the past couple of years too.
My place is a one room home built back in the great depression and it is free and clear, an insurance company would have to be insane to cover it and I can build a replacement pretty cheap.
And I don't keep pretty things out in the yard for lowlifes to steal, my valuables are things like my wood splitter and riding mower and guns and such and they stay hidden and locked up in various storage units.
There is the value an appraiser, a realtor, or an insurance appraiser puts on a place, and then there is the value something has to us. Some of the things I have which are actually worth the least, are treasured by me the most.
Post a Comment