Landlord Prohibits Firearms on Property

Wrench75 said:
This! After reading that line I would have told them to go **** themselves. On principal alone I would never give them one red cent of my money. Whether they removed that restriction or not. Why would you chose to do business with someone who tries to restrict people's civil right as a matter of course? Not when there are ANY other options.
Click to expand...

If this logic had prevailed during the civil rights movement, we would still have properties with "no negroes or jews" covenants.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The defense would argue that the 2A is only a limit on government action, and plaintiffs counsel would counter with "If that were true, a no-Muslim clause in a private sector lease would be legal".
Click to expand...

That example would be blatant discrimination against a people whereas this landlord is not discriminating against gun owners, he's just saying you can't store them on his property. Big difference.
 
Infinite Jester said:
He must not be too bright if he has this clause in the lease. Wonder if his lawyer looked at this before he started using it. Kind of doubt it, as it opens him up to all kinds of trouble.
Click to expand...

The fact that a majority of responding NES people are responding "walk away" rather than "enforce your legal rights" shows that the most people are sheep and will not fight for their rights.

- - - Updated - - -

jpm said:
That example would be blatant discrimination against a people whereas this landlord is not discriminating against gun owners, he's just saying you can't store them on his property. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Ok, then a better analogy would be "tenant agrees not to store any literature that is in opposition to political candidates endorsed by landlord".

Or, "landlord is not discriminating against gays, he is just saying tenant cannot cornhole on his property".
 
gamma19, looks like you should unleash the wolves...or at least let the Comm2A folks look your info over to make sure they can go for the jugular.
 
Last edited:
Your best bet is probably to move on to another place, but if this one would be the right place if it weren't for that clause, why not see if they'll delete it? The lease may be a boilerplate one-size-fits-all copied from the internet, and the owners may not care, especially if you tell them about the background check required for your LTC. You'd be the most law-abiding tenant in the place. But definitely don't sign anything with that clause.
 
Gamma19 is this near, or associated with, any school of higher learning?

This is versed in such a way that it seems they deleted another word then added guns/firearms.

If you do not have to have this apartment please seriously consider using the hand Rob is extending to contact and discuss this and possible avenues with Comm2A. See post #44 below.
Bet of luck.

Matt

Rob Boudrie said:
The fact that a majority of responding NES people are responding "walk away" rather than "enforce your legal rights" shows that the most people are sheep and will not fight for their rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, then a better analogy would be "tenant agrees not to store any literature that is in opposition to political candidates endorsed by landlord".

Or, "landlord is not discriminating against gays, he is just saying tenant cannot cornhole on his property".
Click to expand...

No shit! WTF?
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
I would cross out that section and send it back or go looking for a different apartment. No way I would sign a contract that allows my land lord to confiscate my guns.
Click to expand...

This
Knocked that one out of the park.

- - - Updated - - -

slap shot said:
Have you considered banging the wife? After that the guns won't bother the POS so much
Click to expand...

You forgot the upper decker......
 
SERE said:
If you do not have to have this apartment please seriously consider using the hand Comm2A is extending.
Click to expand...
Comm2A is not yet extending a hand. One of three voting members on the executive committee (me) has suggested that this is something the Comm2A team should discuss. I can offer no assurances of any particular decision prior to a conclave of the triumvirate.
 
The reminds me of a conversation I had with a woman who was concerned her daughter was hanging around gun people all the time.

My comment was "Well, before this, she was a rock band roadie. Would you rather have her hanging out with that crowd, or a group in which every single person has been background checked for any record of drugs or violence in their history?"?

Likewise, if I were a landlord, I would love to be able to rent only to LTC holders - but that certainly would be illegal discrimination due to the disparate impact on members of minority communities who are statistically less likely to be LTC holders and more likely to be prohibited people (on a statistical basis only).
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Likewise, if I were a landlord, I would love to be able to rent only to LTC holders - but that certainly would be illegal discrimination due to the disparate impact on members of minority communities who are statistically less likely to be LTC holders and more likely to be prohibited people (on a statistical basis only).
Click to expand...

Trija'quan's mom would have two words for you: "das racisssss!" Even though everything you've said is true non-racis(t).
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Likewise, if I were a landlord, I would love to be able to rent only to LTC holders - but that certainly would be illegal discrimination due to the disparate impact on members of minority communities who are statistically less likely to be LTC holders and more likely to be prohibited people (on a statistical basis only).
Click to expand...

There is the solution and the problem. The solution is people voting with their feet -- avoiding business owners and private property holders who discriminate, deny rights, etc., and providing incentives for the objectionable bigotry to end. The problem is a society where everything is litigated, property rights are undermined, and where you only get the rights that government deems necessary.
 
economist said:
There is the solution and the problem. The solution is people voting with their feet -- avoiding business owners and private property holders who discriminate, deny rights, etc., and providing incentives for the objectionable bigotry to end. The problem is a society where everything is litigated, property rights are undermined, and where you only get the rights that government deems necessary.
Click to expand...

Really?

Do you actually think we wouldn't have "whites only" housing (both lease terms and deed covenants) if there was no law against it?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The fact that a majority of responding NES people are responding "walk away" rather than "enforce your legal rights" shows that the most people are sheep and will not fight for their rights.
Click to expand...

I have the same reaction as you Rob. Once you chimed in and said a law suit even without moving in was likely viable I have been pretty disturbed by the subsequent "move on" comments. BAH BAH
 
swatgig said:
DO NOT SIGN THAT LEASE!

Let them know that you are not willng to move into a place that forces you to become defenseless, and that you'll look elsewhere.

Maybe you'll get an opportunity to educate an anti, but don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

I retract this statement. Rob Boudrie has a better suggeston.
 
You obviously store your weapons in a safe, right? If he/she was to enter your apartment to search for whatever, he couldn't get in your safe....So who gives a crap, i say F him and go the concealed route.

Kinda like a store that has a "no gun sign". Technically you're not breaking the law by ignoring the sign and entering, but if the owner spots you and asks you to leave, you must by law. So be prepared to find housing elsewhere if he/she finds out you have weapons.
 
rromano22 said:
You obviously store your weapons in a safe, right? If he/she was to enter your apartment to search for whatever, he couldn't get in your safe....So who gives a crap, i say F him and go the concealed route.

Kinda like a store that has a "no gun sign". Technically you're not breaking the law by ignoring the sign and entering, but if the owner spots you and asks you to leave, you must by law. So be prepared to find housing elsewhere if he/she finds out you have weapons.
Click to expand...
The safe would eliminate any pretext the landlord found the guns while performing routine maintenance or responding to a safety emergency. In fact, any entry could give rise to the charge of "burglary from a container" as there is no pretext the landlord could offer for breaching a safe.

If you go this route, be prepared to defend yourself against an eviction. If it goes to eviction, open a separate bank account and deposit all the rent there - thus being able to show the court that you are only withholding rent because of an illegal deprivation of your civil rights.
 
Last edited:
gamma19 said:
I am moving and recently got an offer on a new apartment. The rental agent sent me a copy of the lease to review (which I have not yet signed). I found this little doozie buried a couple pages in:

"Firearms: Any firearms and/or ammunition are strictly prohibited from the property. The landlord or his designee may remove these items at any time without notice and at tenant's expense."

Two issues--first, I question the legality of a landlord (who presumably doesn't have an LTC) stating in writing that they can confiscate my firearms. Second, the agent did say that the lease is just a draft, and that I may request changes to it--now I'm wondering if I should bring up my gun ownership and risk getting the offer pulled, or go the "concealed means concealed route" (though it's difficult to hide a rifle cabinet) and face eviction if found out.
Click to expand...

How about talking to them first? Explain your situation and your position on the matter. It's completely possible that they have not read every word in that lease. If the wording can't be removed then they probably won't rent to you. After that it's up to you what to do with them and the agent/agency.
 
DPR said:
How about talking to them first? Explain your situation and your position on the matter. It's completely possible that they have not read every word in that lease. If the wording can't be removed then they probably won't rent to you. After that it's up to you what to do with them and the agent/agency.
Click to expand...

I can see that you're new here . rational thinking ......pffffffffffffffffft ;)
 
DPR said:
How about talking to them first? Explain your situation and your position on the matter. It's completely possible that they have not read every word in that lease. If the wording can't be removed then they probably won't rent to you. After that it's up to you what to do with them and the agent/agency.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind the agent only gets paid if you rent the unit.

You could also could turn the heat up a bit by reminding the agent that (s)he would also be named in any federal civil rights suit over denial of housing based un an unlawful deprivation of civil rights.

Seriously - if this goes to litigation, it may indeed be appropriate to name the agent, and the agent's firm - just as one would if an agent were trying to offer whites only housing.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Really?

Do you actually think we wouldn't have "whites only" housing (both lease terms and deed covenants) if there was no law against it?
Click to expand...

Maybe, though I bet rare these days. The world changes when the people change. Government force can speed that up, but only at a cost. Here and now I very much doubt many "whites only" hotels/apartments/etc. would exist even if legal. The public outrage, protests, and shunning would be extreme. That's how it should work. The libertarian view, which I prefer, is one where private property owners are free to make terrible decisions, while people are just as free to refuse to do business with them.

I would much prefer Comm2A focus its efforts on fighting bad government over fighting bad private property owners. I can easily avoid a bad private property owner. The government is absolutely unavoidable and far greater threat to my life than any pinhead landlord.
 

Similar threads

Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
382
clampett
clampett
B Kings Firearms Ohio
Replies
4
Views
309
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
What are your silliest, most useless firearms.
4 5 6
Replies
177
Views
4K
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Bergen County Firearms lawyer
Replies
4
Views
261
GaryO
GaryO
Heart-stopping bodycam shows Chicago man, 26, 'open fire on cops' days after firearms court appearance - prompting officers to shoot back 90 times
Replies
29
Views
560
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom