Landlord Prohibits Firearms on Property

[LoginName]

sounds like you ran into an anti, f^^^ them, move on.

JimB

Possibly, or it could be something as simple as the landlord mistakenly believing that he could be liable for any bodily harm or property

damage caused by the presence of firearms.

If that's the case, a call to his insurance agent should clear that up.

 

[Realtor MA]

Paragraph #8 - The bill of rights is null and void in the demised premises.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Maybe, though I bet rare these days. The world changes when the people change.

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.

People have changed largely in part because of government action. A generation or two of fair housing laws has made it culturally inconceivable that any civilized person would deny someone housing based on race. The felon ban on guns has been similarly ingrained into our culture (for all practical purposes, there is no room to even debate the felon ban), as has the new machine gun ban.

I would not advocate Comm2A taking a private property case if it would prevent us from taking a valid case against the government. Fortunately, with the support from our members, there is the possibility to do both.

 

[DPR]

People have changed largely in part because of government action. A generation or two of fair housing laws has made it culturally inconceivable that any civilized person would deny someone housing based on race. The felon ban on guns has been similarly ingrained into our culture (for all practical purposes, there is no room to even debate the felon ban), as has the new machine gun ban.

I would not advocate Comm2A taking a private property case if it would prevent us from taking a valid case against the government. Fortunately, with the support from our members, there is the possibility to do both.

I would think it would be a worthwhile cause to research these lease agreements and certainly those offered by rental agencies. There could be many people who are afraid to exercise their right for fear of being evicted.

 

[Fetch]

If a "civilian" "consificates" otherwise legal property, isn't that "theft"? Wouldn't be your legal duty to report the theft to the ATF?

The rental contract would be solid PC.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

 

[Billsail]

My first reaction to the OP was it would be a huge headache, and possibly costly to fight this. I imagined it would be difficult to find pro bono counsel, or someone willing to take this on contingency, with the likelihood of a substantial award being so low. MA courts, as they are, could subject you to substantial losses. (security deposit, moving expenses, etc.) I realize now, the importance of a case like this, and hopefully Comm2A agrees.

Maybe, as Rob points out, the lease needn't be signed, and the move not even take place, for there to be a measure of success. I have a feeling, however, the landlord will likely cave, and make the case moot, with no precedent being set.

 

[economist]

People have changed largely in part because of government action. A generation or two of fair housing laws has made it culturally inconceivable that any civilized person would deny someone housing based on race. The felon ban on guns has been similarly ingrained into our culture (for all practical purposes, there is no room to even debate the felon ban), as has the new machine gun ban.

I would not advocate Comm2A taking a private property case if it would prevent us from taking a valid case against the government. Fortunately, with the support from our members, there is the possibility to do both.

There are very limited situations where I would want to support use of government force to control the actions of a private property owner (as an example, waste water runoff where the property owners acts directly affect a neighboring property). A property owner deciding how his property is to be used by a renter who is free to rent elsewhere is not on the list. I don't like a "no guns" clause. That's why I would never accept one in a rental agreement. Simple enough, and no need for government force. I get your position, but I don't want to fund it.

 

[RHJJ]

Buy a House and make your own rules.

 

[bill o]

There are very limited situations where I would want to support use of government force to control the actions of a private property owner (as an example, waste water runoff where the property owners acts directly affect a neighboring property). A property owner deciding how his property is to be used by a renter who is free to rent elsewhere is not on the list. I don't like a "no guns" clause. That's why I would never accept one in a rental agreement. Simple enough, and no need for government force. I get your position, but I don't want to fund it.

I agree 100% with economist. I don't understand the argument that "I find the landlord's views reprehensible, so I want to force him to take my money and make his boat payments." I really hope there is no lawsuit over this.

 

[josh2600]

Buy a House and make your own rules.

Yep, just don't forget to pay your property taxes or fail to abide by local zoning laws and town ordinances or you may be out of "your" house.

 

[Feral]

Reinspect the apt.
Deposit upper decker.
Decline rental and toss keys on the roof.

 

[Matt_SERE]

I support the conversation between comm2A and gamma19 based on personal experience.

In the early '90's I was all set to move into a condo in Cambridge and the leasing Agent told me they were asked by the board of trustees about whether they had knowledge about the NRA sticker on my car. The Agent was giving me a heads up.

The Agent told them it did not matter, they were happy with me as a person, my references and the whole background check we LTC holders go through. Under the Agents advice the subject was dropped. If not for the Agent standing up for the law I would have been in very dire straits, just returning from the military, and losing this condo would have cost me my job. I would have also been scrambling for a new place to live while jobless.

Real estate companies can back the law or, like Rosenthal and his property management company, politically back the anti's. IMO it is worth a conversation to see where this stands.

We as a forum do not know these answers.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I agree 100% with economist. I don't understand the argument that "I find the landlord's views reprehensible, so I want to force him to take my money and make his boat payments." I really hope there is no lawsuit over this.

This issue is cultural conditioning.

If this sort of thing is tolerated, it will expand. If it is not tolerated people will come, over time, to accept that gun owners have the same housing rights as blacks and jews. This is also the essence of the current battle over the "religious freedom laws" - is acceptance of gays something on which reasonable people can disagree, or is it something like racial equality in which there is only one socially acceptable "correct" answer? The legislatures in some of the southern starts are working hard to make sure that the former position prevails. (Nobody seems to be asking them if the religious freedom law would allow someone to deny service to an interracial couple if their religion prohibits it).

 

[drgrant]

Not to mention having all your stuff in someones property that hates you doesn't sound like a fun time....

-Mike

 

[RHJJ]

Yep, just don't forget to pay your property taxes or fail to abide by local zoning laws and town ordinances or you may be out of "your" house.

Still 1,000 times better than renting an apartment.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention having all your stuff in someones property that hates you doesn't sound like a fun time....

-Mike

I don't want my home owned by someone that only wants me out of it. Life is to short to miserable at home.

 

[mac1911]

Unfortunately it's his property. Just tell them you don't agree with the terms. Don't even say why and move on.

This and you really don't want to live there knowing guns are a problem for them anyway. Pre existing tension is never good

 

[drgrant]

Yep, just don't forget to pay your property taxes or fail to abide by local zoning laws and town ordinances or you may be out of "your" house.

You still get way more advantages owning vs renting, as long as you avoid HOAs and RCs. HOAs are like property cancer, I'd rather rent at that point. Only.thing worse than owning a house with an HOA is owning a timeshare...

 

[economist]

This issue is cultural conditioning.

If this sort of thing is tolerated, it will expand. If it is not tolerated people will come, over time, to accept that gun owners have the same housing rights as blacks and jews. This is also the essence of the current battle over the "religious freedom laws" - is acceptance of gays something on which reasonable people can disagree, or is it something like racial equality in which there is only one socially acceptable "correct" answer? The legislatures in some of the southern starts are working hard to make sure that the former position prevails. (Nobody seems to be asking them if the religious freedom law would allow someone to deny service to an interracial couple if their religion prohibits it).

Means and ends. Using government force to limit/control bigotry is not my preferred solution.

 

[swatgig]

There are very limited situations where I would want to support use of government force to control the actions of a private property owner (as an example, waste water runoff where the property owners acts directly affect a neighboring property). A property owner deciding how his property is to be used by a renter who is free to rent elsewhere is not on the list. I don't like a "no guns" clause. That's why I would never accept one in a rental agreement. Simple enough, and no need for government force. I get your position, but I don't want to fund it.

Would you be OK with a clause where you waive your 4th amendment right?

"Due to the ongoing drug epidemic, the management reserves the right to enter, accompanied by law enforcement, to search for illlegal drugs".

 

[economist]

Would you be OK with a clause where you waive your 4th amendment right?

"Due to the ongoing drug epidemic, the management reserves the right to enter, accompanied by law enforcement, to search for illlegal drugs".

Of course not, hence I would not choose to live there and support that sort of idiocy with my money.

 

[cfbackrow]

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.

this is a good way to do it

 

[bill o]

Would you be OK with a clause where you waive your 4th amendment right?

"Due to the ongoing drug epidemic, the management reserves the right to enter, accompanied by law enforcement, to search for illlegal drugs".

Is that a problem the free market can't solve, though?

 

[Matt_SERE]

Is that a problem the free market can't solve, though?

I agree to an extent. The thread title evokes actions by the Landlord but the lease came from an Agent.

This might have nothing to do with the owner. As I wrote before we do not know enough.

 

[highlander]

Here are my thoughts on this,let's say the OP gets the rental while retaining his firearms and having them in a safe. First and foremost the safe is locked so unless the landlord has x ray vision what's in the safe is none of his business. Second landlord discover safe contains firearms if the safe is large enough how's he going to move it, Third and most important it's going to cost the landlord a good deal of time and money to evict you. As a landlord I can tell you it will take a minimum of 6 months to get you out and in such a case you can get another 6 months to find a new place if he wins the eviction.
Tenant's rights in Ma are taken very seriously in Ma courts. The latest tenant I had to evict cost me 2 grand in lost rent and another 2 grand for the lawyer and lost pay having to show for court hearings. That little fiasco cost all toll me $6 k. BTW if the land lord calls the cops as,long as they firearms are secure and you have your LTC they will not get involved as this is a civil matter.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

HBTW if the land lord calls the cops as,long as they firearms are secure and you have your LTC they will not get involved as this is a civil matter.

Keep in mind a crafty and dishonest landlord can just say "tenant threatened to shoot me", and your guns will be gone.

 

[AHM]

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." ...

Q1: Are you seeking to rent in the jurisdiction which has issued your LTC?

If not, Q2: How confident are you that your new town will renew it without adding restrictions?

---

I would cross out that section and send it back or go looking for a different apartment. ...

Strike it out, and sign the elision:

<gamma19's real name>, M.L.
​

If the landlord countersigns it, then the clause is gone.

If the agent asks you what M.L. stands for,
tell him it's ancient Greek for "Come and Take Them".

---

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

I disagree (see below).

---

The Volokh Conspiracyublic housing tenants have a right to bear arms, even in common areas ...

I just pointed E.V. at this thread (and excerpted the base note for him, since I doubt he has time to read the whole enchilada).

---

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. ...

I disagree. There is no phrasing like this on the Intarwebs, even without "Any firearms and/or ammunition" in the search. Other people have run afoul of similar restrictions, but it's not (yet) boilerplate. If this was the latest fad in leases, it would be visible somewhere. Hell, HuffPoo would probably be touting it as the latest way to stick it to gun owners.

I'm sure that many lawyers paid to write up something inspired by another lease would be sure to put their unique turn of phrase on it. But I suspect that this landlord had it made it up for his own business because he thinks it's a great idea, and he's serious about it.

---

This issue is cultural conditioning.

If this sort of thing is tolerated, it will expand. If it is not tolerated people will come, over time, to accept that gun owners have the same housing rights as blacks and jews. ...

If you fell in love today with a house that had a deed restriction against Your Kind Of People, would you:

1. Walk away,
2. buy the house secure in the knowledge that as a violation of civil rights, the covenant was contrary to public policy and unenforceable, or
3. make a Federal case out of it before you even bought the house?

If your answer differs from the advice you give gamma19,
compare and contrast the two situations.

 

[JohnZ]

Here are my thoughts on this,let's say the OP gets the rental while retaining his firearms and having them in a safe. First and foremost the safe is locked so unless the landlord has x ray vision what's in the safe is none of his business. Second landlord discover safe contains firearms if the safe is large enough how's he going to move it, Third and most important it's going to cost the landlord a good deal of time and money to evict you. As a landlord I can tell you it will take a minimum of 6 months to get you out and in such a case you can get another 6 months to find a new place if he wins the eviction.
Tenant's rights in Ma are taken very seriously in Ma courts. The latest tenant I had to evict cost me 2 grand in lost rent and another 2 grand for the lawyer and lost pay having to show for court hearings. That little fiasco cost all toll me $6 k. BTW if the land lord calls the cops as,long as they firearms are secure and you have your LTC they will not get involved as this is a civil matter.

I wasn't going to comment about the lawsuit issue but saw the above comment about not being able to move the safe. Anything can be moved given enough time and money. Not saying it's right or wrong just saying that the thought that the landlord will not be able to move the safe is false - especially if he prevails legally (doubtful) and shifts the moving costs onto the tenant. If someone else is paying, you can rent a pretty big crane/rigging gear.

My thoughts on if it's a good idea to pursue legal action is that the country has started down the slippery slope of using .gov to force private parties to accept the behavior of others so why not use it to our advantage for once? Maybe as people see this used against them for a change, they won't be so rabid about supporting it in the future.

 

[mikem317]

**** those people and stay away.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

- - - Updated - - -

In all seriousness, I wonder what happens if an armed, uniformed officer is immediately informed of the prohibition upon answering a call to said property.

 

[LoginName]

I would think it would be a worthwhile cause to research these lease agreements and certainly those offered by rental agencies. There could be many people who are afraid to exercise their right for fear of being evicted.

OP didn't state if the LL is a 'professional' (as in owns multiple properties and has been in the game for years), or some elderly couple type

renting out an apartment in a triple-decker they occupy.

If it's the former, the 'no firearms' stipulation could be in dozens or more leases.

Taking some sort of legal action would not only benefit the OP, but possibly many others as well.