lease not allowing firearms in apartments?

[paintballdude902]

some of the guys here at school are living near the school in an apartment complex we call "the mauka". when bear season opened here my friend boomer said he felt a little scared every time he carried his gun out to his truck, why? the lease says no firearms in the apartments.

How can this be on a lease?

is a land lord really allowed to violate someones constitutional rights?

 

[chevyforlife21]

yes that is sad,but yes its the landlords property and you have to abide by any rules he sets if you want to live there.

 

[NavyLCDR]

is a land lord really allowed to violate someones constitutional rights?

I doubt very seriously that anyone was forced to sign the lease. Your friend boomer signed the lease agreeing to it's provisions. If he didn't like the no firearms clause he should have negotiated that provision before signing or went somewhere else. Private property owner's have rights to ban whatever they want from the property they own and we have the right to not go onto their property.

Their are some states, however, that have passed statutes that prohibit a landlord from banning legal activities such as possession of firearms.

 

[ChaoSS]

It's not a constitutional issue, that only deals with what the government can ban.

Like NavyLT said, it would depend on local laws. Property owners do not have the right to regulate things just as they like, though I think they should. There are laws in every state against denying someone on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. This would be an issue for a real estate lawyer.

But yes, he should have negotiated that one beforehand. If he's going to break the rules, he should at least try to conceal the thing on his way out. (non legal opinion)

BTW, typing that just made me think, if he signed something saying that he can't have a gun, he could be in some serious trouble if anything went bad. There are laws in some places that are designed to give the DA extra charges if you ever come up on gun trouble. For example, there might be a law that says that it's illegal to have a loaded gun anywhere where you aren't allowed to have a gun. This means that he could have criminal charges, potentially, depending on the local laws.

 

[evan price]

I wouldn't care, personally.

If the landlord wants to start eviction proceedings because I own a legal firearm, well, eviction proceedings take a long time and get expensive, especially since there's no further incentive to actually pay rent if you're in active eviction.

 

[Geno]

Before folks jump too quickly to assert the landlord owns the property, throw in the issue of "possessory rights". The person who signs the lease "owns" that property for the duration. Will everyone be so quick to allow a landlord to say you can't be married? How about you can't have children? I can understand the issue of pets, smoking etc because those matters can damage the property. But, owning a firearm? How many pieces of the Constitution are we willing to cut off the edges just to make people happy?! JMHO.

Geno

 

[Bailey Boat]

PBD, I would only suggest that you contact NRA-ILA and advise them of the situation. You may be asked to provide a copy of the lease so if you're not prepared to do that then stop now. They have successfully fought situations like this before and won. Numerous housing authorities around the country tried this same ploy several years ago and were defeated by the NRA. You ARE a member aren't you?????

 

[mgkdrgn]

How can this be on a lease?

Private property. Landlord can put "No mustaches on Tuesday" on the lease if he wants.

Nothing says you have to sign it.

 

[inclinebench]

I own some rental properties, and usually, if you have a "no" clause in the lease, it is to protect the property from damage. This is where things like no smoking (fire damage, and the smell can permiate) no dogs, no cats etc. comes in. The "no guns" thing is a little outside of the purpose of excluding specific things like smoking or dogs, however, as stated above and will probably be stated again, he signed the lease with this on it. So, he has to abide by it.

Oh, and for the record, in the places I rent, if they want to have guns, I am more than OK with it. I might even take them shooting if they are decent tenants.

 

[LeonCarr]

A lease is a legal and binding contract that ALWAYS favors the landlord. Don't sign a lease you either can't live up to or that violates your principles. Not only can the landlord evict you for non payment of rent, he can also sue you later for breach of contract if you also violated the lease in another way besides non payment of rent.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Minnesota is nice because our CCW law was carefully thought out and includes a clause that restricts landlords from restricting the lawful carry and possession of firearms by tenants and their guests.

Honestly, most no-guns clauses are a reflexive thought on behalf of a landlord or company to limit lawsuit liability for any accident or criminal activity that may occur.

 

[EOD Guy]

Is this a university owned/controlled apartment complex? If it is, that clause is quite common and, in many States, firearms would be restricted by law.

 

[ArmedBear]

WARNING: Do not read if you don't live in the REAL WORLD.

A lease is a legal and binding contract that ALWAYS favors the landlord.

ROTFLMAO

The contract may, but enforcement doesn't. We own a rental unit in California. The idea of the lease being legal and binding as written and/or favoring the landlord is a laugh. It takes 90 days to boot someone out of the place if they walk up to you and tell you they're not paying rent any more.

Not only can the landlord evict you for non payment of rent, he can also sue you later for breach of contract if you also violated the lease in another way besides non payment of rent.

Maybe in Texas, but there are many places where I wouldn't bother. Besides, if someone has a pot to piss in, he's not renting an apartment with a bunch of other guys. The notion of suing a tenant is pretty funny: he's got no assets. Generally, you're happy if you can get rid of a deadbeat and start getting rent payments again to cover the mortgage.

Sure, you can get a judgment against him for damage done to the unit in some way or other (judgment =/= actual cash in hand), but for a violation of the lease that doesn't cause damage?

I'd love to see an example of any monetary damages awarded to a landlord, when no actual damage occurred.

As a landlord, I'd advise this. Pay your rent on time. Don't make noise that bothers other tenants. Don't smoke cigars under other people's windows. Don't shoot guns in the house or have big parties at 3AM on Tuesdays. Don't trash the place. Don't lock 10 unfixed tomcats in the apartment. Then do what you want, making sure not to bother anyone, and to keep it under wraps if it's dubious. Transport your rifle in a duffel bag. Outdoor Products makes big ones for relatively cheap. You'll be the LAST tenant the landlord wants to evict.

 

[Gunfighter123]

Minnesota is nice because our CCW law was carefully thought out and includes a clause that restricts landlords from restricting the lawful carry and possession of firearms by tenants and their guests.

WOW --- like a breath of fresh air ---- must be a GREAT state to live in !!!

 

[benminer]

A lease is a contract and the firearms clause (unless prohibited in your state) is no different than any other terms. When you enter into a contract you are agreeing to certain penalties if you violate the terms of that contract. Whether the rule is in regards to pets, overnight guests, parking spaces, or guns is irrelevant. Your buddies have agreed to accept the risk they may be evicted and/or pay penalties if they are caught breaking any of the rules they agreed to.

I do not agree with those who see this as a moral/ethical issue whereby you are somehow staking your honor on sticking to the terms of the contract. Leases are a business arrangement not a solemn blood oath. So long as you are not breaking any laws (which may be the case sometimes, like if it’s on-campus housing) you are merely not abiding by the terms of the contract and are risking consequences if caught.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Those of us who love the Constitution and the ideals it embodies should also be aware of who the Constitution does and does not apply to.

 

[John E.]

Thanks, ArmedBear - it is always nice to see a pragmatic, real-world point of view.

 

[Blackbeard]

Egad, this question gets asked at least once a month. Search is your friend. Here's what comes out of every single thread:

Yes it's legal to have that in the lease, because you agreed to it.
No you don't have to obey it.
If you get caught he can evict you.
If you don't bother anyone and pay your rent, why would he want to?

 

[One-Time]

There are 2 thoughts to this-

1. The landlord own and or manages the property, the property is private property and therefore subject to the whims of the owners and management, and they can deny rights same as you can in your home(if inclined though i am not)

2. Courts have ruled that all though it is private property, people living there cannot be denied their rights under the Constitution and BoR as it is a dwelling

 

[LeonCarr]

Mr. ArmedBear is right in the fact that landlords seldom get their judgement/unpaid rent in an eviction case, and if they do it is sometimes years in the future before it happens.

To stay on thread I would never sign a lease prohibiting firearms in my residence .

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[withdrawn34]

They can only evict you. You can't be arrested for it. Keep them out of sight and safe - you'll be fine.

 

[ArmedBear]

There is a cardinal rule of life, as far as I'm concerned.

Don't be an arsehole.

Follow that, and a lot of the other rules don't matter. All the other rules are usually just meant to try to enforce this one.

 

[Prosser]

Contract terms can be anything. Doesn't mean they are enforceable in civil court.

Recently had a Workmanscomp case. The hospital has you sign a bunch of pre-op forms, after they know you are starving, prior to surgery, for 12 hours.

The basic forms say you accept financial responsibility for everything, including things that if you are given, Workmanscomp may not approve of. So, they give you a bunch of stuff, like crutches, charge you 300 dollars for them, and you think you have to pay for them.

That's called Duress. One could argue something like that, if, after giving up a prior residence, the property owner adds a clause, such as no firearms, that is outside the 'industry contract' standard.

A good attorney would probably be able to defeat any liability, or eviction.

As others have said: be quiet, and careful. Also, consider if the Supervisor can access your property at anytime, without your permission, or, at anytime, period.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Contract terms can be anything. Doesn't mean they are enforceable in civil court....

But they are enforceable unless there is a solid and sound legal basis upon which to deny enforcement.

We are discussing specifically a "no guns" clause in a lease. In some states there are statutes prohibiting such clauses. In some state there may possibly be case law that would block enforcement. The way for the OP to find out if there is some basis where he is upon which to challenge the clause is to consult a qualified local lawyer.

But absent a legal basis upon which a court might deny enforcement, the lease terms are valid and enforceable.

..is a land lord really allowed to violate someones constitutional rights?

Basically yes. The Constitution does not regulate private conduct. It regulates government conduct.

That's called Duress. One could argue something like that, if, after giving up a prior residence, the property owner adds a clause, such as no firearms,...

Doubtful --

First, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Duress is a question of fact, and the standard for establishing duress is quite stringent. To establish duress, one claiming it must generally show imposition, oppression, undue influence, or the taking of undue advantage of the business or financial stress or extreme necessities or weakness of another. The alleged coercive event must be of such severity, either threatened, impending or actually inflicted, so as to overcome the mind and will of a person of ordinary firmness. There's no reason to believe that here thre would be facts to support a claim of duress.

Second, a contract signed under duress is voidable and not void. That means that the party seeking to avoid his contractual obligations on the theory that they were assumed under duress must repudiate the contract in a timely manner and can not continue to accept the benefits of the contract. If he does continue to enjoy the benefits of the contract, he has ratified it and will be held to it.

 

[Prosser]

The bottom line is we are blowing a bit of smoke. Find out what your state laws are, and, how they apply to such topics.

Also, your state case law is going to be important. The right to bear arms has just recently become a Federal issue, or right, and, we'll see how it plays out, thanks to Heller.