Landlord Prohibits Firearms on Property

The landlord may have had an incident or more likely this is boilerplate lease drafted by his attorney If you want to live there i would delete the paragraph and initial it. If they agree to your terms then I would guess this is not a real issue for them. If they don't accept you as a tenant then it will be 100% clear why and that will help to prove any potential legal claims.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
Realtor MA said:
The landlord may have had an incident or more likely this is boilerplate lease drafted by his attorney If you want to live there i would delete the paragraph and initial it. If they agree to your terms then I would guess this is not a real issue for them. If they don't accept you as a tenant then it will be 100% clear why and that will help to prove any potential legal claims.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ditto our company used one of those retarded hr companies to write our employee hand book. Firearms were banned from company property. Funny thing they had just comped ammo for the pumpkin shoot, and they allow me to use the company truck to attend the shoots lols. Needless to say that was stricken from the hand book. Well at least mine lols.
 
The landlord or his designee may remove these items at any time without notice and at tenant's expense."
Click to expand...

Whether related to anything, firearms or not, this clause is not legally valid. Landlords cannot just steal their tenants things even if those things are prohibited on the lease. In fact they cannot even entered the apartment except under specific circumstances. This is not one. It's straight up criminal.
 
I've read most of this thread, and there have been a bunch of what seems to be very valid legal arguments posed. I like it. I am not a lawyer.

All I know is that I don't want to be anywhere near anyone that is an anti.....so I can't get past why you would want to live in such a shithole? If you want to be near antis, don't complain about having your rights denied and ignored. The government is not your friend.
 
To those who think the property owner's right trump, I offer the basis for my position:


  1. The government has chosen to enforce civil rights in housing
  2. Since Heller/McDonald, gun ownership in the home is a civil right.
  3. We still have a problem with gun ownership being treated as a second class right
  4. If we accept less protection for gun ownership than we do for the right to marry or live with who we wish, or to not be constrained to certain ghettos because of our race or religion, we are acquiescing to the concept of gun ownership as a "second class right" deserving of less protection that other civil rights.
  5. I am unwilling to concede that gun ownership is a second class right, hence my advocating that people insist for the same civil rights protection afforded to any other recognized legal right.
Thats not quite on the point here. Your hypothetical assumes that everyone was pro-separation. Hint: they weren't.
Click to expand...
No, it does not make that assumption.

It assumes that *some* property owners would restrict occupancy based on race, either overtly or covertly (which no doubt still happens, but not to the extent it used to thanks to changing cultural norms and fear of MCAD).
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
To those who think the property owner's right trump, I offer the basis for my position:


  1. The government has chosen to enforce civil rights in housing
  2. Since Heller/McDonald, gun ownership in the home is a civil right.
  3. We still have a problem with gun ownership being treated as a second class right
  4. If we accept less protection for gun ownership than we do for the right to marry or live with who we wish, or to not be constrained to certain ghettos because of our race or religion, we are acquiescing to the concept of gun ownership as a "second class right" deserving of less protection that other civil rights.
  5. I am unwilling to concede that gun ownership is a second class right, hence my advocating that people insist for the same civil rights protection afforded to any other recognized legal right.

No, it does not make that assumption.

It assumes that *some* property owners would restrict occupancy based on race, either overtly or covertly (which no doubt still happens, but not to the extent it used to thanks to changing cultural norms and fear of MCAD).
Click to expand...

Forced equality is just as bad as segregation. Again, it does not matter. You had a changing of the public's opinion on race coming around, people were sympathetic to the cause. Those people acted out of their beliefs, not because a government forced them to. Those people are the ones who offer housing, support, etc to others. Let those people do it because of their conscience, and let them decide what should be done with their property. I guess I wont rent my extra room out to any statists. There is other housing available, so who cares if I won't rent to a statist? They will find housing, just like minorities that you claim would be so overburdened.
 
lancecolonel said:
it doesn't matter to me personally, but i'd still like to see my question answered.
Click to expand...
I was not being an ass. I was trying to answer it with a reference to other areas...he can put what he wants but but what is the point? Its not the landlords responsibility to patrol the property and enforce laws.
 
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...
How is it different?I dont like turbans ornthe coran you cant keep em on my property! There is no difference. He is discriminating....period.
 
Last edited:
Those people acted out of their beliefs, not because a government forced them to.
Click to expand...

Today, that is true. Part of the reason is that the fair housing laws have made equal housing the norm, and over time, it became socially unacceptable to segregate apartments and have racial deed covenants.

I remember back in 1969 when one of my parents neighbors said they would not sell their house to a black family because "they wouldn't do that to their neighbors". Today, anyone saying such a thing would look ignorant.

Not all equal housing came easily, and in the early years of the law, it was definitely state force and not changing cultural norms, that ended whites only rentals and deed covenants.

My point was that since fair housing laws exist, gun ownership should be protected along with other rights in housing, otherwise, it is being treated as a second class right.
 
Last edited:
I have to believe the landlord is either unaware or does not fully understand what is in the lease.

Basically, the landlord is prohibiting any LEO from living on his property. Could you imagine the shit show that would occur if said landlord entered an apartment and confiscated a LEO's department issued firearm? That would be awesome...
 
Let's You And Him Fight Dept.

Rob Boudrie said:
... Not all equal hosing came easily, and in the early years of the law, it was definitely state force and not changing cultural norms, that ended whites only rentals and deed covenants. ...
Click to expand...

You so funny.


While waiting for an answer to the question I posed to you...

AHM said:
... [Q1:] 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.
Click to expand...

...I thought of another:

It's not unusual around here for town government to pal up with big landlords.

Suppose OP chooses to become a poster boy for renters' 2A right by making a Federal case out of this. It's been pointed out that in this third world hellhole of a Commonwealth, his COP might magically discover that he's "unsuitable".

Q2: What safeguards do you contemplate Comm2A offering against that risk?
 
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...
That's not what Heller says - the right to self defense is most acute in the home and the SCOTUS found that there is no effective difference between a ban on functional handguns and a complete ban.

In federal court this would be won easily

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 
It's not unusual around here for town government to pal up with big landlords.
Click to expand...
That's why big landlords can have large apartment complexes assessed on "capitaliazation basis" *, and homeowners and small landlords are assessed on market value.'

* - Capitalization assessment is a methodology in which the assessment value is derived from the fair market rental and used to determine what an "affordable" tax is. It often results in an assessment less than 50% of actual market value.

Suppose OP chooses to become a poster boy for renters' 2A right by making a Federal case out of this. It's been pointed out that in this third world hellhole of a Commonwealth, his COP might magically discover that he's "unsuitable".

Q2: What safeguards do you contemplate Comm2A offering against that risk?
Click to expand...
We have not yet seek any retaliation against people for using the courts to enforce gun rights. It that were to happen, I think Comm2A would bring another federal case.

I spoke to Alan Gura, and he told me that even in Chicago, he did not see any attempt at retaliation against plaintiffs and Chicago was petty and obstructionist (which has not been the case in MA). We have treated the various MA agencies and officials with courtesy and respect, and they have done the same with us. (though that has not prevented them from spewing nonsense in some of their pleadings).
 
Last edited:
I have read through most of this thread and I agree and disagree with a lot of the points. I am going to make a few comments as a Landlord who currently owns rental property and has owned a lot more in the past but got rid of them due to the hassle.

I have boiler plate rental agreements. I go over them with the prospective tenants in person. I am a reasonable and flexible guy and some aspects are open for adjustment and other are not.

Example: I do not rent to smokers. Not open for discussion. If you smoke in my property I can evict you. At a minimum you will pay for a good cleaning of the unit out of your security deposit etc.

Example: I do not allow dogs, cats. This is negotiable. If I think you are a good person and you agree to extra provisions in the lease covering animals I may decide to let you have pets and then again I may not.

My whole point is, when negotiating a lease speak with the landlord and not some "agent".

I don't want a tenant who has a beef with me from the get go. I also don't want a tenant who comes in with a predisposed idea of violating the lease and coming after me in court. Do yourself a favor and the landlord and bring up all the issues ahead of time. Unless you have some free legal resources it will cost you and the landlord a lot of money and in the end not much will change. Also in my specific case you will be on the street regardless because all of my leases, that you would have signed, have a clause that allows me to terminate the lease for no reason with 90 days notice.
 
fencer said:
I have to believe the landlord is either unaware or does not fully understand what is in the lease.
Click to expand...
The agent certainly does not understand the legal risk to him/her and the firm in presenting such a lease.
Example: I do not rent to smokers. Not open for discussion. If you smoke in my property I can evict you. At a minimum you will pay for a good cleaning of the unit out of your security deposit etc
Click to expand...
No. At minimum, the tenant will get several months free rent once you start an eviction for smoking, and the tenant stops paying rent. You may very well get a judgement for the cleaning allowing part of the deposit to be kept for that (as opposed to applying it to unpaid rent - in any case you keep the entire deposit while losing several months rent).

Sure, you will get a judgement for the uncollected rent, but good luck collecting.
Unless you have some free legal resources it will cost you and the landlord a lot of money and in the end not much will change.
Click to expand...
But, if you do have free resources, you are in the driver's seat.

If you win, the policy will change, the landlord will not have a choice, and you will have another cause of action if there is a retaliatory eviction or non-renewal of lease. I don't call that "not much". If the landlord non-renews and changes the use of the building, you don't have much of a case - but if the landlord terminates your lease, and rents to another party, you would have a valid case for damages due to retaliatory eviction, termination or non-renewal.
Also in my specific case you will be on the street regardless because all of my leases, that you would have signed, have a clause that allows me to terminate the lease for no reason with 90 days notice.
Click to expand...
A clause that will be held to be void if the court determines that said termination is retaliation for a legal action to enforce a legal right.

I agree with the strategy of giving the landlord a chance to make it right before taking any action.

But, landlords only have power when dealing with upstanding citizens who believe in honoring their word; paying their bills; and not screwing people over. If you get a tenant who does not subscribe to the value of the working, honest, taxpayer most of the power you think you have as a landlord vanishes.

Two classic works in this area are "The care and feeding of tenants" and "Tenants revenge", buth written by a scummy Rochester, NY landlord.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
That's why big landlords can have large apartment complexes assessed on "capitaliazation basis" *, and homeowners and small landlords are assessed on market value.'

* - Capitalization assessment is a methodology in which the assessment value is derived from the fair market rental and used to determine what an "affordable" tax is. It often results in an assessment less than 50% of actual market value.


We have not yet seek any retaliation against people for using the courts to enforce gun rights. It that were to happen, I think Comm2A would bring another federal case.

I spoke to Alan Gura, and he told me that even in Chicago, he did not see any attempt at retaliation against plaintiffs and Chicago was petty and obstructionist (which has not been the case in MA). We have treated the various MA agencies and officials with courtesy and respect, and they have done the same with us. (though that has not prevented them from spewing nonsense in some of their pleadings).
Click to expand...

I've got a cient who was told he was not suitable for an LTC, but would be granted an FID. He appealed the LTC denial (and lost) and was subsequently denied (via court) the FID.

I'd call that retaliation, but cannot prove it.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The agent certainly does not understand the legal risk to him/her and the firm in presenting such a lease.

No. At minimum, the tenant will get several months free rent once you start an eviction for smoking, and the tenant stops paying rent. You may very well get a judgement for the cleaning allowing part of the deposit to be kept for that (as opposed to applying it to unpaid rent - in any case you keep the entire deposit while losing several months rent).

Sure, you will get a judgement for the uncollected rent, but good luck collecting.
Click to expand...

Legally I can evict but do I want to? No. You are correct that eviction is the last thing in line. You can never win with an eviction in most cases and especially in MA which has draconian laws protecting tenants and screwing landlords. I have evicted only one person and it took me about 6 months and they did not fight it. I had 6 months of lost rent, more damage than the security deposit and it just sucked.

Rob Boudrie said:
I agree with the strategy of giving the landlord a chance to make it right before taking any action.

But, landlords only have power when dealing with upstanding citizens who believe in honoring their word; paying their bills; and not screwing people over. If you get a tenant who does not subscribe to the value of the working, honest, taxpayer most of the power you think you have as a landlord vanishes.

Two classic works in this area are "The care and feeding of tenants" and "Tenants revenge", buth written by a scummy Rochester, NY landlord.
Click to expand...

As a landlord I want a situation that will work for both the tenant and I. I go to great lengths to weed out bad candidates. I meet with them in person and go over the lease and what is expected. If we mutually decide to move forward I collect references from previous landlords and have them sign a paper to run a credit check and background. I run the credit check first, if it is bad then it is over. Next the references and if they are good then a background check. I don't care about minor records just anything violent or sex offenders. Never ran a background check until a few years ago when I witnessed what happened when a friend of mine rented to someone on the sexual offender list. What a mess.

I guess my whole point is once again, try and work it out ahead of time. If you can then everyone wins. If you want to go after the landlord for the gun clause be aware that it will be a somewhat long and tedious process depending on how hard the landlord is willing to fight. Let's assume you have a lawyer send the landlord a letter (which would seem to be the first step) and the landlord backs down and does not even fight you. Basically the landlord says OK, keep your guns. I can almost guarantee in a few months (unless you have a multi-year lease which is unusual for residential) when your lease is up they will not renew it and you will be looking for a place to live.
 
My closing comments on this.

I liken this in one way to getting an LTC. The local chief says you need to write a letter on why you want an LTC, submit 3 references and have an interview with him. Do you go after him in court because it is technically not required or do you suck it up and do what he wants and get the LTC. In this case it is a little different but kind of similar. Do you go after the landlord or do you just walk away and find another place. Each person has to decide what they are going to do. A single person with time and strong thoughts might decide to go after the landlord. A married person with kids and no free time might just walk away and find another place.
 
when your lease is up they will not renew it and you will be looking for a place to live.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

Pre-negotiation, or a legal letter, will not cost the landlord anything, and (s)he might decide that it's easiest for all concerned to just renew. A bigger concern would be the landlord being more aggressive about rent increases at renewal. When I had a few apartments, I always kept the increase minimal for existing tenants and would always have the biggest increase when the units turned over.

But, there was an interesting case in NY where the courts held that a landlord was acting within his rights denying an apartment to an attorney because he feared that person would be more aggressive about enforcing her legal rights. The court held that being an attorney was not a protected class, and the landlord had the right to deny her the unit.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Not necessarily.

Pre-negotiation, or a legal letter, will not cost the landlord anything, and (s)he might decide that it's easiest for all concerned to just renew. A bigger concern would be the landlord being more aggressive about rent increases at renewal. When I had a few apartments, I always kept the increase minimal for existing tenants and would always have the biggest increase when the units turned over.

But, there was an interesting case in NY where the courts held that a landlord was acting within his rights denying an apartment to an attorney because he feared that person would be more aggressive about enforcing her legal rights. The court held that being an attorney was not a protected class, and the landlord had the right to deny her the unit.
Click to expand...

I've heard some places don't like to rent to law students, not sure if that's true or not (though I believe it).

My landlord by UMass upped our rent 300 a year, when he tried to do it again (1850 for a beat to shit farmhouse 3 bedroom apartment that started out at 1250 2 years earlier) we said goodbye. He excitedly told me he found someone for 1900... well when I had to fight him over my security deposit he poured his heart out that he'd spent thousands in legal fees and that person had been living their for 6 months and never paid rent and was sabotaging the apartment (clogging drains, etc) for their benefit.

Greedy bastard got what he had coming. Still the power tenants have, ESPECIALLY when you talk about individual unit leases, is insane.

Mike
Mike
 
well when I had to fight him over my security deposit he poured his heart out that he'd spent thousands in legal fees and that person had been living their for 6 months and never paid rent
Click to expand...
You mean you were still fighting for your security deposit 6 months later?
 

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