Apartment lease ban on guns California

[harbingerm]

I agree. Concealed means concealed, but make sure to put away the extra ammo, cleaning supplies, spare mags, case, etc securely...

 

[357WheelGun]

Exactly. So it's like playing your radio too loud. I wouldn't let it stop me from having guns. Just don't wave them around, which you shouldn't be doing anyway in an apartment complex where your neighbor might be a drug dealer. The consequences are minimal, and in California, an eviction notice means "You can now live here rent-free for 3 months," so you won't be evicted if you don't bother anyone or damage the property, no matter what provisions of the lease you break. That's reality. Money talks, bull**** walks. I can't even tell you how many of such provisions I broke as a tenant; I never hurt anyone and I left the property nicer than I found it. Eviction was never a concern.

Agreed, but it seems that many people aren't understanding the distinction as you do.

And yes, most of the time those restrictions are there to give the landlord an "out" for a bad tenant. When I was in apartments they always had a "no working on your car" clause, but that never stopped me. I just made sure that any work I did was completed by the end of the day and was cleaned up. The girls from the office would even stop by to chat when I was under the car and never complained.

What bugs me is the number of people here saying "a landlord can't do that" or "that violates my rights". Will you likely be evicted? Nah. But it's completely within the rights of the landlord to do so if he gets a wild hair up his ***.

 

[mekender]

The tenant would not be criminally liable for anything, but would be subject to the civil penalties resultant from breach of contract. (Namely being evicted from the leased property.)

in most states, a clause like that would be invalid and unenforceable and thus there would be no threat of breaching the contract... you cant be evicted for a clause in the lease that is in direct violation of state statutes...

What bugs me is the number of people here saying "a landlord can't do that" or "that violates my rights". Will you likely be evicted? Nah. But it's completely within the rights of the landlord to do so if he gets a wild hair up his ***.

again, most states do actually say what a landlord can and cannot do... and as such, the tenants do have "rights" under state law... look up landlord tenant law in your state and get a real good idea what a landlord can and cannot do

 

[rero360]

I personally didn't find out about the no guns clause at my apartment complex until i showed up to move it, with everything I owned in the uhaul, I figure I have a safe, everything is locked up and I can put all my reloading stuff away when they come for the fire alarm check. but I know I'm not the only one with guns in the complex, found some .22 rounds in the parking lot a few weeks ago, not my brand of ammo.

 

[gc70]

not in every state.... here in NC, no body other than the state government may make rules or policies that limit the possession of firearms...

I can't find that provision anywhere in the North Carolina General Statutes. There is a state preemption of firearms regulation by inferior government entities:

Chapter 14: Crininal Law - Article 53b - Firearms Regulation - § 14‑409.40 - Statewide uniformity of local regulation.

(a) It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, and that the entire field of regulation of firearms is preempted from regulation by local governments except as provided by this section.

Chapter 42: Landloard and Tenant does not even contain the words "weapon(s)" or "firearm(s)."

 

[357WheelGun]

in most states, a clause like that would be invalid and unenforceable and thus there would be no threat of breaching the contract... you cant be evicted for a clause in the lease that is in direct violation of state statutes...

Not in WA. Aside from protected classes (religion, race, etc) there are no restrictions against a landlord's discretion in terms of to whom he decides to rent.

 

[bensdad]

I'm not a lawyer. Just a man with a daughter. I'm trying to put myself in the OP's shoes. We live in Minnesota, near the Twin Cities. If my daughter decides to attend college at the U of M, and all the appartments in the area have a no-guns clause in their leases, I would encourage her to keep a handgun. She can carry concealed (once she's 21). She can stick it under her matress, in a drawer in the nightstand or whatever. I'd rather she get evicted than raped and murdered. That's just me I guess.

Big difference between what's legal and what's right. It used to be legal to beat your slaves. It used to be legal to have little kids work 12hr. days at your dangerous factory. It used to be legal... you get the picture. My daughter should have a gun close by. That is what's "right".

Arguments about property rights and leases and one person's interpretation of honesty and integrity fall on pretty deaf ears when it comes to my kid's safety.

My kid has a right to not get raped. She also has a right to have access to the same educational opportunities as others. When one seemingly unrelated "right" interferes with another, I have no problem choosing a direction. Sorry if that offends some.

 

[jaholder1971]

I love the hypocrisies on this board at times.

One can beat their chest and rail forever about how the government's become a bunch of thugs after your rights, liberty,etc.

Yet when it is they who get a little bit of control, they become the thug they rail against.

 

[Feud]

I love the hypocrisies on this board at times.

One can beat their chest and rail forever about how the government's become a bunch of thugs after your rights, liberty,etc.

Yet when it is they who get a little bit of control, they become the thug they rail against.

That's really not hypocritical, since they are railing against control in both cases.

An example of hypocrisy would be saying they don't shop at store "X" due to the stores anti-gun policy, but then renting from an apartment complex that banned guns. If they railed against government control of guns, but then included anti-gun policies in contracts that they, as landlords, used for leases then that would also be hypocrisy. Railing against government and private gun control measures is just being consistent in their dislike for control from any source.

 

[NASCAR_MAN]

If the lease says "no weapons" and you sign it, and you then bring weapons in, it doesn't matter if the landlord can effectively enforce it. By breaking the contract you willingly entered you will have made yourself an oath-breaker, a damn dirty liar.


Blah, blah, blah...screech!

You make me laugh.

NASCAR

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

Any chance on inviting the land lord to the gun range and getting him or her over that little hang-up about guns?

 

[Colt]

The motivating factor for the landlord is likely liability.

If some drunk student busts in your front door, mistaking your apartment for another, and you blast him, the landlord can point at the lease to help him avoid liability. "See? I specifically forbid tenants from keeping firearms in their aparment. He broke the lease agreement."

It may also be a marketing tool for the landlord. When Mr. and Mrs. Sanfran Liberal sign a lease for the 18 year-old daughter, they can see right on the lease agreement that there won't be any guns in the building.

I'd sign it and then ignore it. I guess I'm a "damn dirtly liar."

I'd rather be that than a sheep who can't defend himself. Where's the nobility in being helpless? lol

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

there was a case in the midwest i wanna say idiana or illinois where a developer decide3d not to sell to lawyers. for all the obvious reasons. and as was expected a lawyer sued. and lost. could any of the "its against the law" in va or any other state cite the applicable law?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Does anyone remember when the Chicago Housing Authority tried the same thing and NRA shoved it where the sun can't shine. Since then the fed's have written into the FAIR HOUSING reg's that a landlord cannot infringe upon the rights of ANY individual, for ANY reason. That includes the constitutional right to keep and bear arms..... For those of you that don't believe, check the Federal Register, Fair Housing and Landlords.........

hmmm can't find the case or the law anyone wanna help me out?

 

[HKUSP45C]

if you are leasing your property to someone else, you forfeit the ability to decide what they can and cannot do in part...

No, the contract the tenant signs decides what they can and can't do. Not me or them or their "rights." If the contract says they can't wear blue pants on Tuesdays and they do, they have breached their agreement and could be subject to eviction and civil liability.

they are not a guest, they are a lawful occupant and thus housing and landlord tenant laws come into play...

Yes, and in most states they fall directly under contract law. There are few provisions (at least in my state) regarding landlord/tenant agreement that don't relate directly to protected classes.

and im sorry, but until you create the empire of stupid and declare independence from the US, the bill of rights most definitely does apply... yes even on your own property

You're still flat wrong. You don't even have a "right" to be on my property, much less have "other rights" while you're there.

Look, I'm all about personal freedoms and responsibilities but legally, morally and constitutionally your rights end at my property line. The only protections a tenant has in a leased space are legal and contractual. The contract's protections cut both ways.

 

[Feud]

You're still flat wrong. You don't even have a "right" to be on my property, much less have "other rights" while you're there.

Ok, which one of my Fourth Amendment Rights are forfeited by being one someone else's private property? Or, concerning "other rights", have I sacrificed my right to life and liberty by being on your property, even if invited?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

sigh ever go on a base read the pretty sign that tells you all about how you are subject to being searched /detained? they aree right next to the gate. we have some here that have the deadly force authorised clause to that violate your right to life liberty et al?

 

[Feud]

sigh ever go on a base read the pretty sign that tells you all about how you are subject to being searched /detained? they aree right next to the gate. we have some here that have the deadly force authorised clause to that violate your right to life liberty et al?

Ok, so do I have the right to detain and search the pizza guy when he delivers to my house, then kill him if I so please? Do I forfeit my right that soldiers may not be quartered in my home during times of peace when I step onto the private property of a deli? Does going next door for a BBQ mean that the Police may take that time to search my house without a warrant?

Being on someone else's property does not, in and of itself, suspend your rights. If it did no one would have any rights outside the confines of their actual home and the street.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i'll try slower

if the pizza guy delivers to cia headquaters they will detain and search him if they so desire they warn you though with a sign just like they warn you with the clause in the lease that in theory you are bright enough to read before you sign it appears however that your milage may vary here.

as to this i have to admit you baffle me
"Do I forfeit my right that soldiers may not be quartered in my home during times of peace when I step onto the private property of a deli? Does going next door for a BBQ mean that the Police may take that time to search my house without a warrant?"
what relationship do you "imagine" ,and i can't stress that word enough here,do those sentences have to the situation at hand?

 

[Ed Ames]

Feud,

At a fundemental level *all* of your relevant rights are suspended while you are on someone else's property. You lose your 1a and 4a rights. You don't really lose your 3a, 5a, 6a, 7a, etc because those aren't really relevant to you being on someone else's property.

The trick is that the consequences are limited.

If I go into your house and start preaching damnation, you can tell me to shut up or leave. If I stay and keep talking I'm tresspassing and can be arrested. If I leave and keep talking I'm exercising my 1a rights. My right to speak freely on your property is trumped by your right to control what is done on your property.

If you are in my house I can tell you to turn out your pockets or show me the contents of your bags. Businesses do this all the time by posting signs at the entrance saying that all bags must be searched. If you refuse to be searched I can tell you to leave. If you stay and continue to refuse the search you are trespassing and I can have you arrested. If you leave without being searched that's fine. Your right to be free from unreasonable searches is trumped by my right to control what is done on my property.

Same holds for 2a rights. If I go into an anti's house they have every right to ask if I have a gun... even to insist on a search. If I refuse to answer/submit to a search they can ask me to leave and, if I refuse, have me arrested for trespassing. If I answer "yes" they can ask me to leave and, if I refuse, have me arrested for trespassing.

That's not just how this country works... it's how it should work. There are too many cases where property owners have their right to control what happens on their property taken away by arbitrary laws, and too many cases where special punishments (beyond trespassing) are allowed when the only real crime is trespassing.

 

[HKUSP45C]

Ok, which one of my Fourth Amendment Rights are forfeited by being one someone else's private property? Or, concerning "other rights", have I sacrificed my right to life and liberty by being on your property, even if invited?

Sigh. Ever pay to get into a concert or other entertainment venue and then get searched for weapons, alcohol, drugs and other contra-ban? Did your employer make you sign a little slip of paper saying that you read the employee hand book? In that self same hand book wasn't there a "no weapons/drugs/alcohol" clause and a blurb about your employer searching you and your vehicle at their whim and pleasure? So much for that pesky 4A huh?

And yes you still have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness so long as your pursuit of happiness, your execise of liberty or your being alive on that person's property are done in accordance with the wishes of the owner.

For instance, simply being alive on some people's property in some states gives the property owner (or person acting on their behalf) the "right" to use deadly force against you.

Your exercise of your liberty to masterbate will get you thrown out of every church, grocery and oil change place I've ever seen.

Your pursuit of happiness when manifested as peering through someone's window to get a look see at the goings on indoors will get you locked up or shot in every state in the union.

I'm sorry you don't understand it. I really wish you could fathom the fact that your rights besides not being absolute are totally non-exisitent while on the property of others.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

perhaps when he owns property he will have the usual epiphany i know i did

 

[Feud]

if the pizza guy delivers to cia headquaters they will detain and search him if they so desire they warn you though with a sign just like they warn you with the clause in the lease that in theory you are bright enough to read before you sign it appears however that your milage may vary here.

If you have read the previous posts you would have found that I support the landlords right to control what happens on their property. The pizza guy reference was intended to illustrate that mere presence on someone else's property does not invalidate one's rights, not that a landlord has the right by contractual agreement to ban certain items from the premise.

what relationship do you "imagine" ,and i can't stress that word enough here,do those sentences have to the situation at hand?

Those, like the pizza guy reference, were more intended towards those declaring their property to be exclusionary zones as far as rights are concerned. Having reread your post I feel that I misunderstood you the first time, and thought that rather then arguing for the landlord's rights you were arguing that rights are suspended on private property. If I misunderstood you in this then I apologize.

Your right to be free from unreasonable searches is trumped by my right to control what is done on my property.

But you admit that I have the right to leave rather then be searched. HKUSP45C's comment that I have no rights on someone else's property denies me even that right, the right to leave even if I entered by completely legal means and broke no laws while there.

Ever pay to get into a concert or other entertainment venue and then get searched for weapons, alcohol, drugs and other contra-ban? Did your employer make you sign a little slip of paper saying that you read the employee hand book? In that self same hand book wasn't there a "no weapons/drugs/alcohol" clause and a blurb about your employer searching you and your vehicle at their whim and pleasure?

No actually, I can honestly say I have never been to a concert where such took place, no ever had an employer that required such (when I bought my M&P last year my boss insisted I bring it to work and show him).

And yes you still have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness so long as your pursuit of happiness, your execise of liberty or your being alive on that person's property are done in accordance with the wishes of the owner.

So if the owner invited me over and then decides he no longer wishes for me to have the right to live he may kill me? I do not argue that trespassing invalidates certain rights, but saying that I have no rights, or your equally poor argument that my rights are subject only to the wishes of the owner, would shut the economy overnight since a trip to Wal-Mart would mean you could be gunned down in the aisles if the store owner so chose without any legal consequences or recourse.

 

[geekWithA.45]

It's my property, it's my rules.

This bit of libertarian dogma still confuses this community.

As a property owner, your rights are justifiably curtailed in favor of others in various ways and to varying degrees depending on the nature of the property and the transaction in question.

Even when your rights are at their very highest, on your own property that is your home, you may not enslave your guests!

You can't even do that based on some theory of disclosure and contract!

The underlying reason we can't do this is because it's impossible to sign away inalienable rights as a matter of contract. You couldn't do this any more than agree to sign away your next-born child into slavery.

As a community, we've defined RKBA as an unalienable for peaceable adults.

One of the consequences of this assertion is that this right, of necessity, -must-exist- in one's home, or it exists NOWHERE, without regard to whether that home is rented, wholly owned, or mortgaged.

There is nothing childish or petulant about conducting one's life as if this were true in the face of those who fail to understand this. Furthermore, I shall not require of people that they engage in open dispute on the matter. I shall not fault people who decide that deception is a necessary tool to use in order to exercise their rights in the face of a foe who has attained superior position or power. The real world is a messy place, and we must all make our way in it as best we can.

Stamping one's feet and shouting "But it's my property, and therefore I can suppress fundamental rights or anything else I want subject to disclosure and contract!", however, does strike me as a different sort of petulance.

 

[glockman19]

IANAL But...I believe that clause in the rental agreement is unenforceable.