Melat Kiros won the primary for Colorado's first district, and this is what she said. This is indefensible, yet probably a non-zero amount of people in this sub voted for her.

This is truly r/LeopardsAteMyFace material for Coloradans.

The narrow slice of our legal system occupied by Homeowner Associations remains fertile soil on which to experiment with limits on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

➡️ This post is not an endorsement of such legislation, but a warning. ⬅️

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

A BILL FOR AN ACT
CONCERNING
GUN SAFETY IN COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITIES

In Colorado Revised Statutes CRS § 38-33.3-302

“Powers of a Unit Owner’s Association. (1). Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, and subject to the provisions of the declaration, the association, without specific authorization in the declaration, may”

add the following

(x)(I) Regulate the carrying, possession, storage, and usage of firearms within a Common Interest Community.

(II) Legislative Declaration. The General Assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows

(A) Except for the list of specific “Prohibitions Contrary to Public Policy” explicitly enumerated in CRS § 38-33.3-106.5, the continuation of the economic prosperity of Colorado is dependent upon the strengthening of homeowner associations in common interest communities by increasing the association’s powers.
note: “The continuation of the economic prosperity of Colorado is dependent upon the strengthening of homeowner associations in common interest communities by increasing the association’s powers” is the current Legislative Declaration of the CCIOA, at CRS § 38-33.3-102, passed in 1991 as part of House Bill HB91-1292 aka the "Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act".

(B) Homeowner associations are private corporations and not political sub-divisions of the State, and therefore their authority and powers are not restricted by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor restricted by Article II § 13 “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, nor restricted by CRS § 29-11.7 “Regulation of Firearms”.

(C) The only limits on the authority and powers of homeowner associations are statutory and contractual.

(D) As private corporations, homeowner associations act through their Boards of Directors to represent their members.

(E) An association’s Board of Directors has broad authority and power to unilaterally make and enforce policies and rules that do not violate state law and do not violate the association’s own Declaration.

(F) The laws of the State of Colorado, the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and the Constitution of the United States, do not place any limits on the authority and power of a homeowner association’s Board of Directors from making and enforcing rules regarding gun safety within a common interest community under the association’s jurisdiction of private corporate governance.

(G) This section does not grant any new powers to a homeowner association, but clarifies a right that already exists for any association that chooses to enact and enforce gun safety rules by explicitly enumerating their authority and power to do so in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA).

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

The gun lobby has been telling people the government is coming for their guns. But in the real world, HOA and condo boards really do have the power to ban guns, unless the laws of their state say they can't. And there are reasons they might want to ban guns, such as liability for accidental shootings and fear that the local angry owner will take up arms against perceived private tyranny -- which has already happened a few times. Maybe in states with strong gun cultures, BODs [Boards of Directors] will be less likely to interfere with gun owners' rights, but in Chicago guns were banned until recently, so I can see boards freaking out and enacting gun bans.

- Evan McKenzie. "Debate Grows Over Concealed Weapons at Community Associations". April 05, 2014. Professor McKenzie is a former H.O.A. attorney, and the author of Privatopia (1994) and Beyond Privatopia (2011).

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

Do Homeowner Associations have the legal right to the carrying, storage, usage, and even ownership of firearms among their members?

The knee-jerk reaction will be "No, because of the Second Amendment". But ...

• Homeowner Associations are private corporations, not political sub-divisions of the State (i.e., they are not governments).
• As private corporations, Homeowner Associations do not have to respect your Second Amendment rights any more than your employer does. Let us know what happens when you bring your guns to work and tell your boss "the Second Amendment says I can".
• Homeowners are presumed to have agreed to the H.O.A. rules -- whether or not they actually did -- and therefore their rights have been waived.
• There are 50 states. As far as I am aware, only two of them have explicitly limited the legal authority of an H.O.A. to regulate firearm ownership within their controlled communities.
• Texas Property Code Section 202.021 enacted in 2019 (TX Senate Bill 741)

>Sec. 202.021. REGULATION OF FIREARMS OR FIREARM AMMUNITION. A property owners' association may not include or enforce a provision in a dedicatory instrument that prohibits, restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting any person who is otherwise authorized from lawfully possessing, transporting, or storing a firearm, any part of a firearm, or firearm ammunition, as well as the otherwise lawful discharge of a firearm.

• and South Dakota Codified Law 11-5-9 enacted in 2024 (SD Senate Bill 39)

>11-5-9. Firearms regulation -- Homeowner association restriction unenforceable. A homeowner's association may not include or enforce a provision in a governing document that prohibits, restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting the lawful:
(1) Possession, transportation, or storing of a firearm, any part of a firearm, or firearm ammunition; or
(2) Discharge of a firearm.

Which of course begs the question: why did the legislatures in those gun-owner-friendly states believe it was necessary to explicitly protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Homeowner Associations?

No such restrictions on the authority and powers of Homeowner Associations exist in the Colorado statutes.

✳️ Thanks to u/noeticist for the info about Texas and South Dakota. EDITED TO ADD: I would be surprised if Florida does not follow suit in the near future, given some of the recent stories coming out of that state vis-à-vis H.O.A. gun restrictions.

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

Our HOA is considering the banning of gun ownership in our private community. My husband is a gun collector, and a hunter. We are both responsible individuals who have never been in any trouble at all with any law enforcement agency anywhere. We have never displayed or discharged any firearms within the community. However, a couple of members of the board of directors do not my husband, and are obviously aiming this new proposed rule at us.

What are their chances of prevailing in instituting such a law and how could they enforce it? It would seem to me it violates the constitution to say we cannot own any guns.

It's a very small community and they claim they will put the rule to a vote of members who wish to vote on it. All six of their friends, no doubt.

- PhillyMom. "HOA Baning Gun Ownership". August 21, 2009.

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

My Friend recently moved into a gated neighborhood in north eastern Georgia and a few of his HOA rules seem illegal/unenforceable.

1 To keep a firearm in your house you must submit a request to own and meet with the HOA president for a formal interview.

2 All firearms must be kept locked in a safe when not being transported.

3 No openly carried or concealed handguns may be carried within the community unless being transported from house to vehicle.

4 All registered firearms owners within the community must have their safes inspected twice yearly to make sure storage is adequate.

This isn't a typical neighborhood it's more like a massive 5000 home community but are these rules even legal?

- u/megaultrausername . "Friends HOA has some strange rules". May 06, 2016.

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

The legality of H.O.A. gun regulation has not yet been tested in Court.
^(usual disclaimer: As far as I know. If I'm wrong, please let me know in the comments.)

Often an H.O.A. will reverse a rule as a result of bad publicity. But that does not set legal precedent.

So the question is still open.

But given that "those few intrepid owners who make the long and expensive trek through the civil justice system soon find that most judges defer to these volunteer boards as if they were repositories of great political wisdom", the outcome for gun owners would not be hopeful.

A quick web search on the question will turn up a few short articles on the subject, which I'm sure readers will post links to in the comments section. While the consensus seems to be that

1. Homeowner Associations can regulate firearm possession in their common areas -- although the Attorney General of Florida has recently stated that they cannot ✳️ -- and
2. the question of whether or not they can do so on a homeowner's own private property is divided.

✳️ via https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckHOA/comments/1tjp7ar/ . The Florida A.G. cites Fla Stat. § 790.251, which regulates guns in cars at work and is discussed below. It is not applicable to Homeowner Association rules. Regardless, if an H.O.A. in an anti-gun state such as California, Colorado, New York, or Washington decided to restrict firearms ownership, the Attorney General in those states would not intervene. Gun-owning homeowners would be left with the option to file a lawsuit, at their own expense, against the H.O.A; while being required to fund the H.O.A.'s attorneys via their mandatory assessment payments.

The only academic law journal article I am aware of that examines the subject in depth concludes by predicting that "It is therefore likely that a patchwork approach will emerge amongst the states. While some states may invalidate an HOA handgun ban, other states may not. Time will tell how far the looming penumbra of Heller will reach, but for now the narrow slice of our legal system occupied by HOAs remains fertile soil on which to experiment with limits on our right to keep and bear arms".

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

The homeowners association (“HOA”) of Nashboro Village in Nashville, Tennessee, adopted a rule in 2007 prohibiting the possession of guns in the neighborhood’s homes. (page 1003)

The legality of an HOA ban on handguns remains an unsettled question. No litigation on the issue has surfaced in the courts. (page 1003)

Professor Paul Boudreaux briefly conceded that an HOA handgun ban would likely be valid, but he argued that legislation should protect the right to bear arms against infringement by HOAs. Representatives in the Arizona state legislature have taken this approach by introducing a controversial bill that would prohibit HOAs from banning handgun possession anywhere in an HOA-governed community except for the HOA management office. (page 1004)

✳️ O.P. note : Arizona House Bill HB-2095 (2012), which would have protected the right of H.O.A.-burdened homeowners to keep and bear arms, did not pass. It did not even make it out of Committee to be put to vote on the Floor.

III. VALIDITY OF HOA SERVITUDES THAT PROHIBIT HANDGUN POSSESSION IN THE HOME

A. HOA Handgun Bans and the State Action Doctrine

An HOA ban on handgun possession could implicate the right to bear arms, but because HOAs are organizations formed by private agreement, a court would very likely not subject an HOA servitude to constitutional scrutiny. (page 1024)

The California Court of Appeal, however, has indicated that

A homeowners association is not a quasi-municipality. It does not perform most of the functions of a municipality (such as providing police and fire services, schools, libraries and utility services), and those limited functions it performs that resemble municipal functions (levying assessments, maintaining common areas, enforcing rules) are also performed by entities (such as corporations or private recreational clubs) that are not governmental entities. Moreover, a municipality enjoys privileges and immunities not available to a homeowners association. (page 1024)

B. HOA Handgun Bans Under the Law of Servitudes

It is quite possible that an HOA ban on handgun possession in the home would be valid under property law. First, the servitude is subject to a presumption of validity, as all servitudes are. Second, it is possible that a court would find that the servitude does not violate public policy. (page 1025)

If this issue were litigated in state courts, the likely result would be a patchwork of decisions (some upholding the servitudes, some invalidating them) that vary by state and possibly by region. (page 1025)

A more nuanced approach to the Second Amendment might dull the perceived severity of an HOA’s infringement upon this right. As an initial consideration, the Second Amendment is applicable to federal government action through Heller and to state and local government action through McDonald, but not to private action; to this extent the Second Amendment evinces a policy to protect individuals from government impositions on their right to bear arms but to remain neutral with regard to voluntary restrictive agreements between private individuals. (page 1026)

While a law that bans handgun possession in all homes in a city is unconstitutionally broad, an HOA servitude prohibiting handgun possession in a specific tract of homes within a city is nowhere near as broad: the law extends throughout the entirety of a jurisdiction, but the servitude is enforceable only against action occurring on properties that are subject to the HOA. If a homeowner does not wish to live in a neighborhood that bans handguns, then the homeowner can pack up and move to a more agreeable neighborhood without necessarily having to leave the jurisdiction. Moreover, property law policy favors servitudes that cover no more than a reasonable amount of land area. So while Second Amendment policy may disfavor broad restrictions on the right to bear arms, such as a law banning handgun possession throughout an entire city, a court might view an HOA servitude banning handgun possession in just one residential development as hardly an unreasonable burden. (pages 1026 - 1027)

Answers to certain unresolved questions may suggest that Second Amendment policy favors an HOA ban on handgun possession in the home. A private community of individuals voluntarily agreeing to restrict their right to possess a handgun at home could be favored by such a policy. (page 1028)

3. Property Law Policy

A variety of property law policies weigh in favor of enforcing an HOA ban on handgun possession. (page 1031)

The validity of an HOA servitude is a matter of state property law, not only constitutional law. Residents’ mere belief that handgun bans lead to safer communities, even if empirically untrue or inconclusive, implicates fundamental policies of property law that would favor validating the ban. (page 1032)

First, if the ban on handguns has been in place long enough, the HOA residents will have developed an expectation interest in the servitude, and a court could respect the peace of mind that the servitude has brought to the community. Moreover, if prospective purchasers of HOA homes also believe that handgun bans increase safety, then these purchasers may be willing to pay a safety premium on the price of the home, which in turn supports the policies of promoting the productive use of land and of supporting servitudes that relate to the value of the land. To the extent that prospective purchasers pay less for homes that are not protected by handgun bans, declaring an HOA handgun ban invalid as against public policy actually undermines the public policy that favors the enhancing of home values. (page 1032)

Finally, a court might give weight to the policy of freedom of contract — that is, the fact that a homeowner voluntarily agreed to be bound by the HOA’s rules when the homeowner bought his or her home. (page 1033)

Property law and state constitutional law, however, provide a venue for both individual citizens and states to manifest their opposition to federal Second Amendment policy. State courts have the power to interpret their constitutions without regard to any consideration of federal constitutional law. State courts therefore are free to interpret their own right to bear arms policies in a manner inconsistent with, or even contrary to, federal Second Amendment policy, and thereby validate HOA servitudes that ban handgun possession in the home. The tables thus can be turned against conservative voices that advocate both states’ rights and gun rights. (pages 1035 - 1036)

It is therefore likely that a patchwork approach will emerge amongst the states. While some states may invalidate an HOA handgun ban, other states may not. Time will tell how far the looming penumbra of Heller will reach, but for now the narrow slice of our legal system occupied by HOAs remains fertile soil on which to experiment with limits on our right to keep and bear arms. (page 1036)

- Christopher J. Wahl. "Keeping Heller Out of the Home: Homeowners Associations and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 15, No. 3, 2013. pages 1003 - 1036.

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

"The narrow slice of our legal system occupied by HOAs remains fertile soil on which to experiment with limits on our right to keep and bear arms".

Given that the current paradigm of H.O.A. law is that

• the authority and powers of an H.O.A. are broad; it is allowed to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited. whereas
• the rights of homeowners are narrow and constrained; they are only allowed to that which is explicitly permitted

any regulation of firearms ownership by an H.O.A. should be legal, as long as their is no law that says it isn't.

Personally, I would like to see this paradigm reversed, and have states neuter the authority and power of Homeowner Associations by

• limiting them to that which is only necessary to manage and maintain their common property, and
• making it illegal for an H.O.A. to make and enforce rules on a homeowner's own private property.

Doing so would pre-empt H.O.A. gun bans, along with so much more.

But nobody is interested in seeing that happen. Most people are not willing to unplug their minds from the H.O.A. Matrix. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

H.O.A. gun bans will be defended with some variation of the usual conservative/libertarian talking points.

• The homeowner voluntarily agreed to the rules.
• Government should not interfere with private contracts.

Even staunch Second Amendment advocates will end up shilling and simping for the very authoritarian regimes that would deprive them, under the guise of contract law, of their Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

For example, when the State of Florida enacted the the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008", Florida Statutes 790.251, the libertarian Reason magazine declared it an attack on private property rights of employers.

>The National Rifle Association says any corporation that forbids firearms in its parking areas is violating the 2nd Amendment. That may sound like a promising argument, since the Supreme Court recently struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as an infringement on the constitutional guarantee. It's not.
Robert Levy, the Cato Institute lawyer who participated in the successful challenge of the Washington ordinance, says the Florida law "has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment." The Constitution, he notes, is a limit on government power, not a constraint on what private individuals or corporations may do.
The law doesn't uphold gun rights. What it does do is infringe on property rights.
- "Gun Rights vs. Freedom? How 'Take Your Guns to Work' Laws Violate Property Rights". Reason. August 25, 2008. Emphasis added.

Professor Evan McKenzie, a former H.O.A. attorney and author of numerous books and academic papers on Homeowner Associations, wrote on his blog that

>This is another example of what I think of as "repressive libertarianism," where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty. The libertarian defense of HOAs is the perfect example. The developer writes covenants and leaves. Everybody who lives there has to obey them forever, even if they lose due process of law and expressive liberties.
As private corporations take over more functions of government, this position could lead to gradual elimination of constitutional liberties.

Should Homeowner Associations begin enacting gun control rules, the usual suspects when it comes to opposing government regulation of private H.O.A. corporations will, at most, simply demand an unprincipled exemption for themselves.

And the Colorado General Assembly, which hates gun owners with a passion, will not be sympathetic to their pleas.

Your lack of faith in Free Market Capitalism and the Profit Motive to solve this problem is disturbing

The question of "whether or not an H.O.A. has the legal authority to regulate firearms ownership" is very different from "how such regulations would actually be enforced". Twenty years ago -- before the current age of Surveillance Capitalism -- there would have been no practical way for an H.O.A. to determine who is keeping firearms in their home. Any attempt at privatized gun control by Homeowner Associations would have been unenforceable.

But that was then.

Entrepreneurs such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Tom Miller, etc., will come up with solutions to detect which homeowners are violating H.O.A. gun regulations. One H.O.A. management company is currently advertising "Drones and Robotics for Security Patrols", telling their clients that "Autonomous drones and robotic security guards can patrol large communities, providing aerial and ground surveillance in real time".

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

What lawyers & experts are exploring emerging legal issues in "smart homes?" What happens when the "smart home" industry starts teaming with the community association industry?

I think that the greatest area for privacy law etc. issues will come from smart condominium complexes, where you could have multi-owner information collection by the same people who are dolling out nonjudicial fines, liens, foreclosures for violation of rules, etc.

The insecurity of IoT [Internet of Things] plus the dysfunction of HOA governance - add where HOA’s have “right of entry for inspection” - is a perfect storm for massive invasion of privacy in our homes.

- John Cowherd. January 14 and 15, 2018. Mr. Cowherd is an attorney in Virginia specializing in property rights.

🇺🇸 ═━═━═━═━═━═ ═━═━═━═━═━═ 🇺🇸

That was 8 ¹/₂ years ago. No progress has been made to protect homeowners in this regard since then.

Companies such as Flock and Amazon / Ring and Palantir will be more than willing to sell that information to H.O.A. boards and H.O.A. management companies and H.O.A. attorneys; who are always looking for more ways generate revenue from H.O.A.-burdened homeowners by issuing non-judicial Fines.

EDITED TO ADD:

This post is not intended as an endorsement of such legislation, but a warning.

I hate Homeowner Associations. Go read my posts and comments at r/fuckHOA .
I would like to see state governments neuter the authority and power of H.O.A.s by

• limiting them to that which is only necessary to manage and maintain their common property, and
• making it explicitly illegal for an H.O.A. to make and enforce rules on a homeowner's own private property

along with

• making it explicitly illegal for an H.O.A. to assess and issue non-judicial fines.

>Owners best interests are served by both neighbors properly maintaining their own property and not sweating the small stuff.
Giving Due Process of Court Proceedings vs. Sitting as both Prosecutor and Judge
If association boards had to seek injunctions every time they thought an owner violated a community rule, then the HOAs would be much less likely to enforce the rules. The ease and certainty of enforcement greatly defines the value of the right. Boards and committees do not have the inherent right to sit as judges in their own cases and award themselves money if they determine that an owner violated something. That is a “judicial” power. Some interested people lobbied state capitals for HOAs to have power to issue fines for the violation of their own rules. To really give this some teeth, they also got state legislatures to give them the power to record liens and even foreclose on properties to enforce these fines.
Fine Statutes Should be Legislatively Repealed
In my opinion, community association boards and owners should both be subject to the same requirements to enforce restrictive covenants. If state legislatures repealed their fine and foreclosure statutes, the boards would not be left without a remedy. They would not go bankrupt. Chaos would not emerge. They would simply have to get in line at the courthouse and play by the same rules as other property owners seeking to protect their rights under the covenants or common law.
- John Cowherd. "Are Legal Remedies of Owners and HOAs Equitable?" July 27, 2017.
Mr. Cowherd is an attorney in Virginia specializing in contracts and property rights.

Unfortunately, nobody is interested in seeing any of that happen.
Especially in Colorado.

FDD published the finalized list yesterday of firearms to purchase before 8/1. Hope it’s helpful!

Not a local from CO but heard about the law and decided to scroll through just to see. Saw this absolute gem. Apologies if this is not allowed.