Apartment lease ban on guns California


PDA






nicki
March 11, 2008, 01:45 AM
My daughter is leaving off campus in Davis Ca. She told me that the lease in her apartment has a "no guns clause".

She is moving, but the next apartment complex has the same "no guns" policy.

This are not apartments owned by the University.

My question is does anyone know if this is legal. Certainly I respect property rights, but when you rent out a property, tenants should have reasonable use of the property.

Since many of us are not home owners, a provision in leases that bans ownership of legal guns could put many of us at risk of being evicted.

Any comments

If you enjoyed reading about "Apartment lease ban on guns California" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
carebear
March 11, 2008, 01:56 AM
As a landlord I could restrict anything you were willing to agree to by signing the lease, no matter how legal. Smoking, pets, loud music, overnight guests, waterbeds etc.

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

In the case of renting, the lease is your prior notice of what is allowed. If you sign saying you will abide by its terms, no one is forcing you. If you break it, you're evicted.

There's no protected class at issue so EO isn't in play.

Basically, if you want to live with your guns, buy your own home or find a landlord who will allow it.

Private property rights trump gun rights in that scenario, as they should.

Now if the lease didn't contain a "no guns" provision when you signed then you can argue you should be able to at least finish it out.

You have the right to own guns, that doesn't mean you have the right to convenience in your living arrangements. If guns are important to you it's your choice to make.

mekender
March 11, 2008, 02:10 AM
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...

furthermore, a lot of states consider the property "yours" as soon as you sign the lease and you become the lawful holder of the property for any thing other than things related to the building itself...

Geno
March 11, 2008, 02:17 AM
In Michigan it is known as "possessor rights". Back when we rented, we had full rights to the property as though we owned it. Obviously we could not alter the home, damage it, etc. Dogs can damage, and so limiting pets is fine.

But the landlord cannot even enter to property without permission and 24 hours notice. Castle means castle.

carebear
March 11, 2008, 02:29 AM
True, state laws may vary and you should be secure in the property after the lease is agreed to by both parties.

However, assuming the landlord's property rights aren't being trampled by an overly intrusive state, if you sign a valid lease and then break the terms, you can and should be evicted.

It's a contract, don't sign it if you don't intend to abide by it. It's your right to find somewhere else to live.

Harvster
March 11, 2008, 02:35 AM
Even if the lease says no guns, landlord would have no right to look in a quick access handgun vault or other locked container. Also, usually the eviction process for renters is a several months long process and a real PITA. It likely wouldn't be pursued.

69Chevy
March 11, 2008, 02:37 AM
I lived in a few places like this in a college town up here. I always ignored it and if I need to take my rifles anywhere, i just put them in a duffel bag. Handguns are even easier to move obviously. The landlord can't search your stuff or come in the place without prior notice unless it's an emergency. Just keep all guns/ammo/extras out of sight. Like others have said, it is legal to put restrictions on property you own and I have no problem with that. Of course, if you ever get caught somehow, then they can kick you out. I weighed the risks, and even though this is a college town, people still get shot, stabbed, and robbed here. Personally, I rather get caught with it then without it.

drphil
March 11, 2008, 02:45 AM
+1 to waht 69chevy said. Just dont leave them out when they do a "fire alarm inspection". Even if they do see them, the worst that can happen is she would get evicted and it is non-trivial to evict a person in CA.

Treo
March 11, 2008, 02:56 AM
I am continually amazed by the number of posters here that are so vocal about our rights under the 2nd ammendment, but have no problem ignoring the property rights of the owner/landlord of the apartments .

If the no firearms clause was on the lease when you signed it then you agreed to be bound by that condition. if you did it W/ no intention of abiding by it you're a liar.

Why should the antis trust us W/ guns when we prove ourselves untrustworthy.

HK G3
March 11, 2008, 03:09 AM
My lease had a section that said you would be evicted for ILLEGAL activities, and then had subsections to this that listed the storing/selling of weapons and ammo, as well as using drugs and the standard things everyone knows to be illegal.

I took that to mean that I could own guns so long as they were legally purchased and owned, which, obviously, all my guns are. The people don't seem to have any problems with it, since I'm pretty sure they know I'm a shooter, since sometimes my NRA magazine gets dropped off to the main office.

I never really bothered to clarify this point with them, but as it's written, it's under illegal activities, so I would imagine I'm not breaking the agreement.

Feud
March 11, 2008, 03:14 AM
If the no firearms clause was on the lease when you signed it then you agreed to be bound by that condition. if you did it W/ no intention of abiding by it you're a liar.

Why should the antis trust us W/ guns when we prove ourselves untrustworthy.

Agreed.

My University requires that all student housing, both on and off campus, be "gun free". It annoys the heck out of me, and I've known many people who broke it. But I gave my word to my school, my Church (and by extension my God), and the apartment managers that I would keep that rule, and I will do so.

What's the point of defending myself if I have abandoned my principles and honor?

carebear
March 11, 2008, 03:25 AM
A lease is a contract I willingly entered, I'm bound to honor it.

Convenience is not a right.

nicki
March 11, 2008, 03:26 AM
Many people rent their homes in the United States.

Certainly landlords have a right to protect their investment and as such their needs to be a reasonable balance between renter's and landlord's rights.

It is interesting that we fight against government intrusion of our rights, but willingly accept private violations.

In many states, we can't use our ccw permits when we go to work because we can't leave our guns in our cars on company property.

Parking off company property is not a viable option for many employees depending on who they work for.

All it takes is for the surrounding pubilc streets to be no parking zones.

What if a lease agreement said no political or religious books are allowed in the apartment.

We need to protect all of our rights and we need to protect them for everyone.

Nicki

Autolycus
March 11, 2008, 03:35 AM
If you don't like it then don't live there. I agree with the above posters who say that it is shameful that people would violate the terms of their lease simply because it is convenient for them. I am sorry but you are breaking the terms of your contract and that is against the law. While not criminal you are guilty in a civil court.

carebear
March 11, 2008, 04:14 AM
Many people rent their homes in the United States.

Certainly landlords have a right to protect their investment and as such their needs to be a reasonable balance between renter's and landlord's rights.

It is interesting that we fight against government intrusion of our rights, but willingly accept private violations.

In many states, we can't use our ccw permits when we go to work because we can't leave our guns in our cars on company property.

Parking off company property is not a viable option for many employees depending on who they work for. All it takes is for the surrounding pubilc streets to be no parking zones. What if a lease agreement said no political or religious books are allowed in the apartment. We need to protect all of our rights and we need to protect them for everyone.

Nicki
Today 11:25 PM

You need to reexamine the concept of rights.

Your rights are absolute only so far as they do not interfere with the rights of others. There is no requirement for "balance". The concept of the Constitution was not to regulate relationships between individuals, but to define the limits of what Government can do, the Bill of Rights does not and should not apply to my property.

If I, not the government, own the company/store/parking lot/home/apartment/1000 acres of raw land, etc. it is MINE. I should be free to bar anything I want on that property, denying access to whomever I choose for whatever reasons I care to.

Your right in response is to refuse to do business with me.

If the job or apartment I offer won't allow you be armed, then it's up to you to find another job, find a different apartment, castigate me in the press, do whatever you want, but you do not get to violate my right to be secure in (ie control) my property.

The right to arms is ultimately based on the right to defend your own life and property, not to force your way onto the property of others to dictate to them. If you are able to force your wishes on my property, the whole system is meaningless.

TAB
March 11, 2008, 05:21 AM
in CA that would be illegal... but there is not really anything you can do about it.



PS I got my BS at UCD :)

mekender
March 11, 2008, 05:33 AM
You need to reexamine the concept of rights.

Your rights are absolute only so far as they do not interfere with the rights of others. There is no requirement for "balance". The concept of the Constitution was not to regulate relationships between individuals, but to define the limits of what Government can do, the Bill of Rights does not and should not apply to my property.

If I, not the government, own the company/store/parking lot/home/apartment/1000 acres of raw land, etc. it is MINE. I should be free to bar anything I want on that property, denying access to whomever I choose for whatever reasons I care to.

Your right in response is to refuse to do business with me.

If the job or apartment I offer won't allow you be armed, then it's up to you to find another job, find a different apartment, castigate me in the press, do whatever you want, but you do not get to violate my right to be secure in (ie control) my property.

The right to arms is ultimately based on the right to defend your own life and property, not to force your way onto the property of others to dictate to them. If you are able to force your wishes on my property, the whole system is meaningless.

i would stand to argue that any property owner making those policies would be both infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, which specifically states "shall not be infringed" and i take that to mean by ANYONE....

i would also stand to argue that they would be violating an individuals right to be secure in their possessions...

why is it that we cant ban people based on race, religion, sex etc... but we can for firearms? they are all things guaranteed by the constitution....

A lease is a contract I willingly entered, I'm bound to honor it.

Convenience is not a right.

in most states, any clauses in a contract that are in contradiction with state or federal law are invalidated... in some states a contract that contains such clauses would render the contract null and void

Master Blaster
March 11, 2008, 07:48 AM
As a landlord I could restrict anything you were willing to agree to by signing the lease, no matter how legal. Smoking, pets, loud music, overnight guests, waterbeds etc.



Actually you can put whatever you want in your lease as long as it doesnt contradict the LAND LORD TENANT CODE in your area. IF it does it will be null and void in a court of law and you could owe the renter 3x damages.

The Landlord tenant code overrides any clause you put in a residential lease.

http://homepage.mac.com/saj777/.Public/CA_Rental_Law.pdf

Bubbles
March 11, 2008, 08:10 AM
Not legal in VA. You really need a CA attorney to answer this for you. Personally I would rent a place elsewhere since I will not patronize anti-RKBA businesses.

mbt2001
March 11, 2008, 09:50 AM
+1 carebear

Buy her a taser and some pepper spray and a baseball bat (cold steel has one). Maybe a dog. You can hold it down with those. It is only temporary.

I was thinking about it, you would like to be able to call the police if someone came onto your property armed and without "consent". That being said, the same consideration must be extended to others. It's sort of like going to a party that says, "black tie". Wear a tux or don't go...

HKUSP45C
March 11, 2008, 09:52 AM
i would stand to argue that any property owner making those policies would be both infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, which specifically states "shall not be infringed" and i take that to mean by ANYONE....

And you'd be wrong. As mentioned above the constitution is a document limiting the rights and defining (narrowly) the roles of the Federal Government. Not people, the Federal Governement. Not States, the Federal Government. You have no rights, whatsoever, when you're on my property. You don't have the right to practice free speech, bear arms, practice religious ceremony/engage in religious speech, be secure in your person and possesions (think searches at concerts/metal detectors) or even to be present. If you violate the rules of my property I can "force" you to leave and be well within my rights. In some states there are specific laws that limit property owner's rights to what can and can't be denied and especially under a lease contract but that's a different animal than the one you're discussing.

i would also stand to argue that they would be violating an individuals right to be secure in their possessions...

If I don't want you to bring something on my property, you can't. This is exactly as it should be. You have no right to be secure in your possessions when conducting business on my property.

why is it that we cant ban people based on race, religion, sex etc... but we can for firearms? they are all things guaranteed by the constitution....

Because the federal government passed specific legislation creating protected classes many moons ago that affords people the right to conduct business regardless of race, creed, gender or color. This was done to combat the widespread refusal of many to allow people of certain races, creeds, genders and colors to do business in the same manner as others. It has nothing to do with your right to bear arms, practice free speech or be secure in your possessions. Nor does it have anything to do with their right to any of the preceeding as it pertains to the property rights of others. It only guarantees them the same rights (ostensibly) you have.

To put it shortly, the Bill of Rights does not apply to anyone who is a guest on my property. You have only the protection of the law when you're here.

RoadkingLarry
March 11, 2008, 10:08 AM
I'd sure like to see you landlords argue property rights when you get sued for race or gender discrimination....."by gard its my private property and if I don't want to rent to no colored people or single womens then by gard its my right!"
Yup that danged old Constitution don't apply to you no way no how.

k_dawg
March 11, 2008, 10:21 AM
"I ain't going to rent to dang gum niggah's.. and hell no, not to no dang gum slope shifty eyed kike! i knows my private property rights! "

HKUSP45C
March 11, 2008, 10:38 AM
I guess RoadkingLarry and k_dawg missed the part about the federal law regarding protected classes. It really doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, it's the force of federal law at work in those cases.

People who are on private property still have the protection of law, just not any inherent protected rights.

Just like I can't murder you or rob you or rape you simply by virtue of your presense on my property, since those are all illegal, I can't break federal law by discriminating against protected classes, either.

Two seperate concepts, rights and laws. I would have thought we all knew that since our 2nd Ammendment rights are constantly infringed upon by law, much to our collective and vocal chagrine.

So, as soon as you can get your congress critters or state reps to pass a law forcing your will on property owners, you'll be all set.

AirForceShooter
March 11, 2008, 10:55 AM
How would any landlord enforce this?
If he comes into your apartment unannounced a baseball bat upside the head would be called for. That's called Breaking and Entering.
If it's an emergency (water leak) he opens the door and screams he's there. If I catch him looking in a closet it's bat time again.
And if Heller prevails, that lease clause is gone.

AFS

RoadkingLarry
March 11, 2008, 11:45 AM
HKUSP45C - Where in the constitution does it say I can't discriminate against someone for race, creed or gender? Where does the concept of "protected class" come from? Is it because I have a RIGHT not to be discriminated against? something called "civil rights"

Or are you claiming that the laws you espouse as trumping natural rights protected by the Bill of Rights are not consitutional.

brighamr
March 11, 2008, 11:47 AM
To the origional poster - I lived in Davis for 4 years while my wife went to college. Tell your daughter that 99% of the rentals there will barge in without notice (my favorite excuse was "we heard there were mice in the building"). Being young, I never sued over it but I should have. Long story short, she should keep her guns out of site 24/7.

Davis is essentially "mini-berkely". If you don't mind, can you type verbatim what the "no gun" policy says? the reason I ask is that my last rental stated "no unlawful discharge of firearms on the premises".... not exactly saying I couldn't own a firearm, just that I can use the parking lot as a shooting range.

K3
March 11, 2008, 12:04 PM
If I don't want you to bring something on my property, you can't. This is exactly as it should be. You have no right to be secure in your possessions when conducting business on my property.

Will you then provide said security?

MrAnteater
March 11, 2008, 12:52 PM
I have a hard time with the concept of restricting what property a person can bring into their home when they are renting. As long as the weapon is not stolen or illegal, how can it be restricted? I would make the exception for things that will destroy the property such as cigarette smoke or animals. But an inanimate object such as a firearm? I would think the 2nd amendment supersedes any terms in an apartment lease.

If I'm a landlord can I tell my tenant he is not allowed to have any knives, even in the kitchen, because they are weapons too?

The whole thing is stupid.

carebear
March 11, 2008, 01:14 PM
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.

Does the concept of honoring one's word mean nothing any more?

You pledge at marriage to not cheat, but your wife can't watch you 24/7 to enforce it, so breaking that oath is okay I guess?

You pledge at enlistment to obey orders, but your superiors can't supervise you 24/7 so I guess smoking dope and taking a nap on watch are just fine then?

What childish selfishness. :uhoh:

You do not have to rent from a landlord who wants no guns on the property he owns and is allowing you to occupy, you can go elsewhere.

If you don't like the rules, don't go into the deal planning to break them like a petulent child, be a grown-up and go somewhere else, do business with people whos rules you agree with.

Or man up and assume the risks of property ownership yourself.

For all those who think your right's trump any one elses. Try walking onto someone's lawn or into a store and exercising any right you can think of, speech, worship, it makes no difference.

Step one, you are warned to leave by the property owner.

Step two, police are called and warn you to leave a second time.

If you continue to refuse to leave,

Step three, you are arrested and forcibly removed from the property. Why? You have no right to be there except by consent of the property owner to engage in business conducted by the property owner.

For goodness sake people, take a class or read a book and learn what rights really are. What you describe is the modern entitlement mentality, not our Constitutional system.

harbingerm
March 11, 2008, 01:14 PM
Concealed means concealed. I'd keep my guns anyway. But be careful and really lock them up and don't leave ANYTHING firearm related lying around. I don't know about other states, but when I rented an apartment in Texas, I got busted for having an "illegal" cat that I'd adopted. Turns out the damned maintenance man outed me when he came in to change out the A/C filter. No warning, no notice left, nothing. I only found out when I inquired as to how they found out. That guy could have gone through all my stuff for all I know. :fire:

357WheelGun
March 11, 2008, 01:28 PM
HKUSP45C - Where in the constitution does it say I can't discriminate against someone for race, creed or gender? Where does the concept of "protected class" come from? Is it because I have a RIGHT not to be discriminated against? something called "civil rights"

You have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not have a right to be on another person's private property. A person who says that in order to be on his property you must not have guns is restricting your ability to enter his private property, not your ability to have guns. There's a difference under the law and under the Constitution.

Also, as has been pointed out, the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government only. Private individuals are not subject to the constitution's restrictions, that's what the US Legal Code is for.

Just as you can prohibit someone from coming onto your property and putting up a bunch of "Vote for Hillary" signs (hey, it's their right to free speech, isn't it?), so too can another person prohibit you from entering his property while armed.

harbingerm
March 11, 2008, 01:34 PM
You have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not have a right to be on another person's private property.

I'm no lawyer by any means, but if I am paying to be on the property and live in it doesn't it make me the person in direct control of it? I ask this since this was originally about apartments and you have to pay rent. I understand about violating the lease if no guns are allowed, but many states have laws regarding the "possessor" of a property. This includes motel rooms, too. In many states, if you can't carry legally because it's not allowed and/or you have no permit, you can still carry legally in your place of "residence".

biscuitninja
March 11, 2008, 01:48 PM
As owner of several properties, I can put ALL sorts of restrictions on you. But once you're in, its VERY difficult to get you out. As long as your son/daughter is safe with then there should be no issues.

Now the downside, the reason they are putting that on the lease is that they want to limit there exposure to negligent discharges. Can you imagine what kind of risk you pose if your gun goes off in packed housing? Not only are they going to sue everybody and their brother... they are going after the deep pocket first.... The land owner....

Keep a safe and keep it out of sight.
I'd also keep an airsoft just in case anybody gets the idea to inspect.
good luck
-bix

Feud
March 11, 2008, 03:21 PM
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.

Does the concept of honoring one's word mean nothing any more?

+1

harbingerm
March 11, 2008, 03:26 PM
Now the downside, the reason they are putting that on the lease is that they want to limit there exposure to negligent discharges. Can you imagine what kind of risk you pose if your gun goes off in packed housing? Not only are they going to sue everybody and their brother... they are going after the deep pocket first.... The land owner....

Can you provide a real world example of that? I've never heard of one. The person that had the ND is responsible and not the land owner. Seriously, has a restaurant or store ever been successfully sued and a payout made for a shooting that happened inside and an innocent got hit/killed by either a lawful carrier or a criminal? Did Luby's in Killeen, TX get sued...or McDonalds...or, more recently, will Wendy's be sued? Never heard about any lawsuits against the businesses. Same goes for pizza chains that have drivers hurt/killed because they have a "no guns" policy. I've read where drivers have carried anyway and shot someone holding them up and never heard about the criminal and/or family suing Domino's or the like.

yinyangdc
March 11, 2008, 03:40 PM
missed the part about the federal law regarding protected classes. It really doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, it's the force of federal law at work in those cases.Yeah, that just about sums up our status today.:fire:

Zundfolge
March 11, 2008, 04:16 PM
What I'd do is cross out the section forbidding firearms, and send it back to the landlord. If he accepts it than you're fine.

Often times when you're sitting down with the guy and you have a check written out to him in your hand, he'll gladly change the terms of the lease.


The lease isn't written in stone until you've signed it.

Bailey Boat
March 11, 2008, 06:14 PM
I haven't read this entire thread because most of what is said is BS from folks that don't have a clue.........

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.........

If a resident of a rental property feels that the landlord is infringing upon their rights contact your local HUD office for advise.................

harbingerm
March 11, 2008, 06:19 PM
Exactly, Bailey, exactly... If you're payin' for it, you can do whatever you want as long as it isn't illegal or destructive to the premisis. Last I checked, owning firearms and having them in your place of residence, whether you own or rent, wasn't illegal. I don't own my own house yet because the bank still owns most of it. Would it be right for the bank to tell me I couldn't have firearms? Of course not, so why should a landlord be allowed to?

ArmedBear
March 11, 2008, 06:19 PM
In California, you can legally have guns on or in any property that you legally own or occupy.

That means you can have guns in your apartment. You might be evicted, but that's the worst thing that can happen to you. And in California, it takes a few months to do it, so you can stop paying rent, move out your stuff and live there rent-free for a while.

Landlords know this and are therefore unlikely to evict you unless they absolutely have to.

This clause probably exists only because the walls are paper-thin and the landlord wants to escape liability for any overpenetration.

Just have her keep firearms out of public sight. This is a good idea anyway; you never know who or what lives next door.

mekender
March 11, 2008, 06:29 PM
To put it shortly, the Bill of Rights does not apply to anyone who is a guest on my property. You have only the protection of the law when you're here.

if you are leasing your property to someone else, you forfeit the ability to decide what they can and cannot do in part... they are not a guest, they are a lawful occupant and thus housing and landlord tenant laws come into play...

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

Chris Rhines
March 11, 2008, 06:32 PM
Zundfolge is correct.

The one time I rented an apartment with a no-guns clause in the lease, I simply crossed out the offending clause, signed and dated it, and handed it back to the secretary at the rental office. The landlord apparently had no problem with it. If your daughter's landlord does object, she needs to either get rid of her guns, or find a different apartment.

- Chris

Feud
March 11, 2008, 06:32 PM
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...

I searched, but as far as I can tell the Fair Housing Act only deals with discrimination based upon renting to begin with, not with the provisions that a landlord may require in the lease.

Could you be a little more specific on where I can find evidence to support your claim? If it exists I would like to point it out to my landlord next time the contract is renewed.

harbingerm
March 11, 2008, 06:35 PM
Folks, this isn't like banning pets or children. There's no constitutional right to have either one of those. However, there IS a delineated right to keep and bear arms, especially at one's place of residence whether it's owned or rented. A lot of states extend the definition of "residence" to include personally operated vehicles. Would anyone have a problem with a rental contract stating firearms couldn't be carried/transported in a rental car? I know I would.

budiceman
March 11, 2008, 06:35 PM
I'm a landlord in Minnesota! I cant say a thing about it if they can legally own one! That sounds like more Cal. crap!

357WheelGun
March 11, 2008, 06:59 PM
I'm a landlord in Minnesota! I cant say a thing about it if they can legally own one! That sounds like more Cal. crap!
This is not about whether they can legally own a firearm. It's about whether they are allowed by the property owner to continue their lease if they have a firearm on the property. It is absolutely stunning to me that more people do not see this crystal-clear distinction.

The landlord cannot make it a criminal offense for them to have a firearm. However, if the tenant has a firearm on the premises, it would constitute a breach of contract and the landlord would have legal cause to evict the tenant. 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.)

An apartment lease is a contract. If you sign it, you are agreeing to of the terms and conditions thereof. It is an established legal precedent that on can sign away rights through a contract (e.g. when one signs a non-compete agreement or a confidentiality agreement with an employer or when a photographer sells or licenses a photograph to a stock agency). If you sign a lease that has a no firearms clause and subsequently violate that clause, you have broken the lease and can legally be evicted. The firearms cannot be confiscated, however, and owning the firearms themselves remains legal, you have simply voided your contractual permission to occupy the premises. The instant you bring the firearm onto the leased property, you have violated the lease and are no longer lawfully occupying the property.

ArmedBear
March 11, 2008, 07:02 PM
The landlord cannot make it a criminal offense for them to have a firearm. However, if the tenant has a firearm on the premises, it would constitute a breach of contract and the landlord would have legal cause to evict the tenant. 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.)

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.

I have no moral problem with "breaking the lease" if I'm not doing anything to hurt anyone in any way.

Why do people worry about this stuff so much?

357WheelGun
March 11, 2008, 07:11 PM
I don't own my own house yet because the bank still owns most of it. Would it be right for the bank to tell me I couldn't have firearms? Of course not, so why should a landlord be allowed to?
The bank does not own your home. The bank holds the home in collateral for the money they have lent you. This is a distinct difference. You are the legal owner of your home regardless of whether you have paid it off or not, the bank merely holds the right to confiscate the house should you fail to honor your debt.

The landlord is the legal owner of his property. The tenant is someone whose lawful presence is conditional upon fulfilling the obligations of the contract he signed at the beginning of the lease.

I realise that this appears to be splitting hairs, but the colloquial definitions that we use every day are simply not applicable to the legal system.

lanternlad1
March 11, 2008, 07:12 PM
I would suggest that the daughter should have ONE concealable gun, and take it with her wherever she goes. If she's searched while not there, it won't be there, and can't be confiscated or stolen. It will be where it needs to be - with her, protecting her life. The Declaration of Independence calls for the freedom of 1) life, 2) liberty and 3) the pursuit of happiness. Can't have 2 or 3 without 1. I don't care what a lease calls for, my money is as green as anyones', and if they accept it, I'll do as I please in MY home - thank you very much.

harbingerm
March 11, 2008, 07:14 PM
I agree. Concealed means concealed, but make sure to put away the extra ammo, cleaning supplies, spare mags, case, etc securely...

357WheelGun
March 11, 2008, 07:18 PM
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
March 11, 2008, 08:26 PM
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
March 11, 2008, 08:54 PM
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
March 11, 2008, 09:26 PM
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 (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-409.40.html) - 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 (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0042) does not even contain the words "weapon(s)" or "firearm(s)."

357WheelGun
March 11, 2008, 09:41 PM
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
March 11, 2008, 10:08 PM
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
March 11, 2008, 11:38 PM
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
March 12, 2008, 03:03 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 03:22 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 08:02 AM
Any chance on inviting the land lord to the gun range and getting him or her over that little hang-up about guns?

Colt
March 12, 2008, 09:53 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 10:02 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 10:08 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:00 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:08 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:13 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:32 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:39 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:41 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:42 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 11:45 AM
perhaps when he owns property he will have the usual epiphany i know i did

Feud
March 12, 2008, 11:49 AM
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
March 12, 2008, 12:30 PM
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
March 12, 2008, 12:34 PM
IANAL But...I believe that clause in the rental agreement is unenforceable.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2008, 12:46 PM
i can write lease prohibiting pets kids people under a certain age. i for a couple years enforced leases that had you waive many of your rights we could evict you on a majority vote and keep your security deposit with no notice beyond the others in the house voting. and we were supported in this endeavor by the police in the peoples republic of takoma park md. we couldn't cut a tree in our yard without a public hearing but we tossed plenty of folks. the first time we had to educate the cop b ut after that it went smooth. read the lease its a contract don't sign that what you don't wanna abide by. its not like when you lived with mommy

harbingerm
March 12, 2008, 12:52 PM
Last I checked, owning pets and having children under a certain age were not protected by the constitution. Keeping and bearing arms is so please try to keep it OT.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2008, 01:00 PM
nowhere in there is it written that you have the right to do things on a property i own. and you are welcome to address the reallity of what we did in the oxford houses with as many hypothetical "it coulda happened that way" scenarios as you like

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2008, 01:01 PM
heck some one could surprise us and quote one piece of legislation that disallows what we decribe so far only crickets and bombast

ArmedBear
March 12, 2008, 01:02 PM
cassandrasdaddy, here you go.

Here is the legal basis for this. When you take money from someone in return for his use of a piece of property for a time, it becomes his property to use for that period of time, per California real estate law. There is no, nor need there be, any piece of legislation that addresses guns in apartments, at least in California, where real estate law is pretty clear. See below.

You may want to limit your own bombast.

There are three basic types of real estate title one can create in California: fee simple, life estate, and estate for years.

Fee Simple is called "owning" the property. The previous owner sells it to you, he gets his check for the agreed-upon price, it's yours (subject to mortgage liens, etc.) and it's no longer his.

Life Estate used to be uncommon, but "reverse mortgages" have resurrected this title. It means that you "own" the property until you die, then it automatically belongs to somebody else, specified in the title.

Estate for Years is a lease or rental arrangement (it can be for months, weeks, days or even, if you're Eliot Spitzer, for a few hours, but it's called "Estate for Years" anyway).

The rights of the title holder, though, are very similar if not identical, regardless of which type of title it is. That means that, effectively, the only difference between someone who owns property and someone who rents the property is that the renter must vacate the property at some point, per agreement. Also, upon vacating the property or sometimes in other instances, the renter has to pay the fee simple title holder for the damage.

However, as long as you hold the Estate for Years title (i.e. you are renting the apartment in this case), you are the property holder in the eyes of the law. The landlord cannot legally enter your unit except with notice and only for the purpose of making repairs or related inspection, or upon your request.

As geekWithA.45 says, your legal rights as a citizen on your own property are the same, whether that property is "yours" through any of the three types of title.

If you are renting, the property you're paying for is effectively "your property" for the duration.

WRT property rights, the landlord voluntarily gives up most of his rights to the property for the duration of the lease, in return for money, just like a property seller voluntarily gives up his rights to the property permanently, in return for money.

Nobody is forcing a landlord to rent the property, and if he wishes to use the property however he sees fit, he can simply choose not to rent the property, and use it himself however he wants.

See, the guy with the Fee Simple title voluntarily limited his property rights when he rented the place to someone. He does not own the tenant, so as geek writes, he cannot deprive that tenant of ordinary legal rights, no matter what is in the lease agreement. The renter only has the inside of the unit as an Estate for Years, so the landlord can strictly limit activities in areas not possessed by the tenant, but inside the unit.

Want to let the cops search a place without a warrant? Want to make sure there's never a gun in your unit, or that nobody in your unit votes for Ralph Nader, or that you can walk into the unit whenever you want and do whatever you want? Then don't rent it out. That's the law's view.


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.

True.

And I AM a property owner.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2008, 01:07 PM
key words here
per agreement

and still waiting to see that pesky law so often mentioned never referenced

harbingerm
March 12, 2008, 01:09 PM
I don't think you're going to get a neat, tidy answer since laws vary from state to state.

engr
March 12, 2008, 01:10 PM
Just a quick note, here in Mississippi they enacted a castle law last year and now the company I work for cannot forbide firearms locked in the cars parked on the company property. I spotted the change on the no weapons poster in the facility

ArmedBear
March 12, 2008, 01:22 PM
key words here
per agreement

The agreement only allows the landlord to break the lease, e.g., end the agreement with X amount of notice, under certain conditions. That's all. It's generally included because there is a good amount of legislation that automatically gives tenants all sorts of "outs" and the landlords want to "level the field." The landlord can choose to tell you that you need to move out under certain conditions; that doesn't mean, however, that he can tell you what to do.

It's clear that most people here don't know anything about California real estate law (both as written and the various unwritten but common practices it engenders), and that is what is at issue here. Therefore, many of these comments, including yours, are indeed bombast.

Here's one that makes sense...
I don't think you're going to get a neat, tidy answer since laws vary from state to state.

Ultimately, it's up to the individual person, whether she wants to have a gun in the apartment. However, by having one, all she's doing is giving the landlord a legal opportunity to break the lease. I figure, let him have that legal opportunity, and conduct your business as you see fit, and don't hurt anyone.

The reality is that most landlords don't actually care whether you do many things that could let them break the lease. They often are quite aware that you're doing them and have no intention of enforcing them unless they want to kick you out of the unit for some other reason. That's just how it's done in California -- it's Game Theory stuff in action. Furthermore, many such lease agreements are boilerplate that the landlord has never actually read through, and certainly didn't write.

Don't try to impose some silly imaginary notion morality on this reality. It will only drive you bonkers. Look through the BS and figure out what's really going on behind the facade.

EDIT: see the very next post by harbingerm for an easy-to-understand example of what's really going on, especially in states where litigation is common.

harbingerm
March 12, 2008, 01:27 PM
A lot of these "no gun" clauses are put in not so much as to be enforced by the landlord, but rather to give him an "out" if a shooting occurs on his property.

I know a restaurant owner back in Arizona where open carry is perfectly legal and practiced all the time. He has a "no guns" type sign at the front, but people carry all the time in his restaurant as he never enforces the policy. He said it was recommended by his insurance company because if there were ever a shooting and someone tried to sue him because he didn't have a "no guns" policy. Well, now he can point to the sign and say he did, but he didn't realize someone was carrying because he was in the back, cooking, etc.

Ed Ames
March 12, 2008, 01:51 PM
ArmedBear... what you say is correct in the details but misses a crucial point and so comes out wrong in the conclusion.

The terms of the agreement are what they are. I can write a lease that requires $1,000,000 a day for a 500 square foot apartment. Is that reasonable? No... but if someone agrees to that lease, and then fails to pay me my million a day, I can evict them. Maybe it'll take me an hour, maybe six months, but I can evict. The sheriff will even come around to help me get rid of the tenants.

The only real limit is that I cannot set a term that requires a violation of the law to fulfill. In CA I cannot require payment in sex or illicit drugs for example.

There is no law that requires anyone to keep a gun in their house. As such, having, as a term of payment, "must not keep a gun in the house", is perfectly OK.

The opposite might not be true... requiring that tenants KEEP guns would be a problem because some classes (felons, wife beaters, etc) are prohibited so you that would be requiring illegal performance to meet the terms. Even then it would only be because there are fair housing laws that bar landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants.

HKUSP45C
March 12, 2008, 01:56 PM
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.

Sorry, I take your point. I let the absurdity of the arguments I was contesting creep in to my own.

You not only have the right to leave you are compelled to if your actions or presence on another's property offend the owner to the point he tells you to do so.

Even when leasing a property you are required to follow the terms of the contract or be compelled to leave. Only stipulations in a private contract that are contrary to local or federal law are unenforcable. All others are fair game to be agreed upon by consenting adults.

Last I checked, owning pets and having children under a certain age were not protected by the constitution. Keeping and bearing arms is so please try to keep it OT

Last I checked the Consitution didn't apply to land lords. It applies to the federal government so please keep it OT

However, by having one, all she's doing is giving the landlord a legal opportunity to break the lease.

And he hasn't even violated her "rights" (civil, constitutional or otherwise)since she doesn't have the protection of the 2A from a land lord and a contract she willingly signed. I'm glad we finally agree.

And that was my point all along. If she had the right to bear arms while leasing property from another he could not legally break the contract (that forbade her doing so) for her exercising it. As we all see, he can.

Therefore, her 2A right, along with all of the other relevant rights we've discussed thus far, doesn't exist on his property without his permission and by extension a right granted is a privilege and therefore really no "right" at all.

Though, I will concede ArmedBears other point, too. If you don't mind breaking your word to your land lord, the worst he can do is chuck you out and sue you for lost rent damages. It's not like you'd be breaking a penal law or anything by keeping a roscoe on the night stand, regardless of what the contract says.

MechAg94
March 12, 2008, 02:00 PM
Either way, you still only have the ability to evict them. Nothing else.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that when you lease property, you are temporarily ceding ownership of the property to be returned to you in the same condition it was received. IMO, you rights to or on that property are very limited during the lease.

At least in Texas, they have a standard lease contract that all the apartments use. It says nothing about firearms. The managers were always careful to review every single section with me and made me initial all of them. I don't think I have ever seen one with any significant writing on it.

k_dawg
March 12, 2008, 02:05 PM
I can see many people here advocate leaving a woman vulnerable to rape or murder.

I wonder why?

MechAg94
March 12, 2008, 02:06 PM
he could try to sue for rent damages. I doubt he could win. It is all in the terms of the lease and law I would think. It is not like the owner couldn't lease to someone else so until rent is no paid, I don't see what the damages would be.

I believe the 14th amendment or one of them expanded the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Not sure how broadly it is worded. It is not so much the right to possess a gun so much as the right to defend one self. Not sure how much right you have to limit that simply due to lease terms. A taser is not a gun.

Kentak
March 12, 2008, 02:21 PM
i would stand to argue that any property owner making those policies would be both infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, which specifically states "shall not be infringed" and i take that to mean by ANYONE....

You have a serious flaw in your understanding of constitutional law. Do some reading.

K

ArmedBear
March 12, 2008, 02:22 PM
I tend to agree with the sentiment that when you lease property, you are temporarily ceding ownership of the property to be returned to you in the same condition it was received. IMO, you rights to or on that property are very limited during the lease.

Not just a sentiment. It's the law.

ArmedBear... what you say is correct in the details but misses a crucial point and so comes out wrong in the conclusion.

The terms of the agreement are what they are. I can write a lease that requires $1,000,000 a day for a 500 square foot apartment. Is that reasonable? No... but if someone agrees to that lease, and then fails to pay me my million a day, I can evict them. Maybe it'll take me an hour, maybe six months, but I can evict. The sheriff will even come around to help me get rid of the tenants.


If you had read what I wrote all the way through, you would have seen that I said just that. You can evict them. But in this case, the landlord won't.

Again, you don't live in California. The landlord could evict a tenant, but this essentially never happens except in extreme circumstances. Everybody knows this, and when people on either side of the table sign a lease, this is the unspoken understanding. By the same token, the tenants don't pay attention when the landlord hires illegal immigrants to do maintenance and yardwork around the place.

It's all a game, and you have to know how it's played. I'm not sure I've ever signed a lease without clauses in it that would allow the landlord -- or me -- to break the lease, for various and sundry reasons. That's just standard stuff here, because the state makes things very hard on landlords otherwise.

It's also understood by parties involved that these clauses are almost never invoked. They exist so that the landlord can escape liability as mentioned above, or so that the landlord can have tenants evicted if they're running a crack house or something.

Agreements often limit the number of roommates to a lower number than the number of people who will occupy the house, for example. The landlords know there will be four or five people in the house, and they don't care, as long as the rent is paid. The lease says, "three". They just don't want more people on the lease, and/or the city may have building codes or parking regulations that make it far easier for the number to be three instead of five. But five people will live in the house, and they won't ever be evicted unless they make themselves a nuisance in some other, serious way like dealing crack. Sometimes, the landlord knows and greets them all by name.

That's just how it's done. If you don't understand that there's a huge difference between words spoken and written, and what people's actions will be, and that there is often unstated agreement between the parties about it, then you haven't been around much, or you live in a very different place.

Try to understand this, please. That's how the world works, at least here. If you live in a state where landlords and tenants can both be straight-up with each other, instead of giving each other mutual winks, consider yourself lucky. This state ain't like that.

And for those who have a hard time reconciling this with their personal morality, I do understand that. Good luck. Do understand, however, that the landlord is also lying. He doesn't expect you to follow the agreement to the letter; he just wants to make sure he can throw you out if he feels like it, and he doesn't want to say that to your face.

Kentak
March 12, 2008, 02:28 PM
mekender said 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 suspect you are confusing the "no preemption" rule, which many states have. Such rules or constitutional provisions prevent political jurisdictions from enacting more restrictive laws than provided by the state. This has nothing to do with rules landlords may have about firearms in their leases.

K

Ed Ames
March 12, 2008, 02:40 PM
I tend to agree with the sentiment that when you lease property, you are temporarily ceding ownership

It's more than a sentiment, it's one of the foundation theories used by our legal system.

When you lease a property you are selling a limited (especially in time) and specific interest in that property in exchange for specific compensation.

The issue some people don't want to accept is that the form of compensation can be anything legal. You can trade a domicile for office work, for car parts, for money, or for any other consideration that is legal.

As for the "but you have a constitutional right to keep firearms"... so what? Having a right doesn't mean you cannot waive that right. You have a right to not incriminate yourself in a criminal trial too... doesn't mean you can't get up on the stand and say you are guilty.

Ed Ames
March 12, 2008, 02:45 PM
Oh, and, 'cause I missed it... ArmedBear... I left CA in 2007 after 30+ years.... in that time I was a renter, owner, and landlord... and I still can't figure out why people think where someone lives matters to their ability to discuss simple subjects like this.

ArmedBear
March 12, 2008, 02:55 PM
Ed, I'm surprised, then, at your stated ignorance of how things work here. Or did you not read my previous post? It was pretty specific, and I don't see where the conclusion was other than what you stated.

Why does it matter what state someone is in? Because someone was asking for advice regarding a proposed course of action, and its consequences. The best advice varies from state to state.

Your previous posts made it sound like you are unfamiliar with California, and I remain surprised that you have been a renter, owner and landlord in this state.

Bear in mind that I am not addressing and did not get embroiled in the RKBA canard in this thread. However, there are such things as legal rights that cannot be voluntarily ceded to anyone, even by mutual agreement, or legally used as a form of payment. Whether RKBA is one of these is before SCOTUS as we write. However, slavery, indentured servitude, and prostitution are all illegal as forms of payment; certain rights like Free Speech have been found to apply even when someone isn't a tenant specifically, as in the case of a shopping mall, and it does not matter what the landlord's conditions are. So, the RKBA people do have a point, whether or not I think there's much of a point to that discussion.

Kentak
March 12, 2008, 03:00 PM
But the terms of the lease agreement may stipulate restrictions on the use of that property. For example, I might lease you a vehicle, but the lease agreement could stipulate that you won't use the vehicle to tow a trailer, or that you won't take the vehicle off paved roads. Whatever restrictions I want on the use of my property I can put in the lease. If you sign the lease you are agreeing to the terms. Just because I lease you my vehicle doesn't mean you can do anything with it just as you would your own vehicle.

K

glockman19
March 12, 2008, 03:09 PM
I tend to agree with the sentiment that when you lease property, you are temporarily ceding ownership

An owner NEVER Ceceeds OWNERSHIP. WE simply grant the right to use for a specific period of time and specific price. Other conditions obviously apply, however if you lawfully own a gun the clause in the lease is UNINFORCEABLE. It's not like Children, Smoking, Pets.

In California, you might want to check with the Apartment Owners Association of California:
http://www.apartmentownersassociation.com/

Ed Ames
March 12, 2008, 03:12 PM
ArmedBear... I read your previous post(s). I also see part of the problem... I was replying to your post #80 but reality prevented my hitting 'Post' prompty. You then posted again and reality sort of went sideways for a moment.

Having read both posts... I think your first post misses the point one way and your second misses the point the other way. There are real risks invovled in knowingly violating the terms of your lease even in CA where evicting someone is a PITA... and I still don't see the point of suggesting a nod and wink approach as though it's a sound answer. There are plenty of ways to have a home without subjecting yourself to those sorts of risks. The main one being to either challenge the restriction or keep shopping.

As for your surprise... I wasn't a renter very long (I'm not the tenant type) but I still own a house in CA so I'm quite familiar with ownership and landlording it over people.

Kentak
March 12, 2008, 03:32 PM
Last I checked, owning pets and having children under a certain age were not protected by the constitution. Keeping and bearing arms is so please try to keep it OT.

The...Bill...of...Rights...is...a...prohibition...against...government...infringement...of...rights.

There. I said it slowly. Did you people not take civics in high school?

First Amendment = freedom of speech, press...etc. That means the government can't censor what you editorialize about in the paper you publish. It doesn't mean that *you* can't censor someone else's ideas they want to publish in your paper. You don't have to publish the pro-gun control letter-to-the-editor someone wrote, unless you want to. Only the government can infringe on their 1A rights.

K

harbingerm
March 12, 2008, 03:52 PM
Exactly, and the rental car analogy of pulling a trailer or using it off road doesn't apply. Those actions are not protected. A landlord has no business telling me I can't exercise my 2nd amendment right to own firearms any more than he could either enforce me or prohibit me from practicing the religion of my choice. It just won't fly! Same goes for the garbage people are spewing out about how someone can't come on to their property and do something they prohibit. Simply going on/into someone eles's private property is NOT the same as PAYING to LIVE in a property where the resident has the expectation of it being his home.

Ed Ames
March 12, 2008, 04:17 PM
Simply going on/into someone eles's private property is NOT the same as PAYING to LIVE in a property where the resident has the expectation of it being his home.

No, it isn't. And that's not the issue under discussion per se either.

Here's an example... let's say I'm a devout believer in Religion X and I really want to spread the word about my religion. I have some extra space in my home so I decide I'm going to give room and board to anyone who will attend discussions in the morning and evening of the merits of Religion X. The meetings will take place in the room they are rentin. Religion X includes a belief in getting everything in writing so I write up a lease agreement which stipulates that they are renting a room in exchange for attending these meetings in the rented rooms.

That room is legally their home and they have all the rights of someone who paid cash. Legally they have all the rights of someone who bought the room outright.

So a couple people agree to this arrangement and we're all having our meetings and it's great fun and so on.

Then one of them tells me he doesn't want to attend the meetings any more. "You know, Religion X really isn't my thing..."

Freedom of religion is a protected right in the USA... yet I can evict the person... because they are breaching the terms of our lease. They aren't paying their rent.

If I stipulate in a lease that you cannot store firearms on the property and you do so anyway it is EXACTLY the same... you aren't paying part of your rent. The cost of living in that apartment isn't just X dollars a month... it's also taking the garbage out regularly (yes, that's in some leases), not having guests for more than 48 hours (or at all) without management approval (yes, that's in other leases), keeping your car registered and operational (yes, that is in some leases), and, if you agree to it, not having firearms on the property.

Kentak
March 12, 2008, 04:17 PM
Those actions are not protected. A landlord has no business telling me I can't exercise my 2nd amendment right to own firearms any more than he could either enforce me or prohibit me from practicing the religion of my choice.

No, the landlord can't tell you you can't own a firearm, but he can prohibit you from possessing it on his property AS A CONDITION OF THE LEASE. If you don't like it, don't sign the lease. Otherwise, you've contracted not to have a gun on the property, with whatever penalties for violation that are stipulated in the lease and allowed by law, e.g., eviction. The landlord could care less if you have a gun while you are somewhere else.

I guess it needs to be said again: The 2nd Amendment protects your RKBA from infringement by the government (at least that's what we believe it does--stay tuned). That's all. Period. Your landlord is not the government, the 2A doesn't prohibit him from doing anything.

K

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2008, 04:32 PM
i think the no smoking bans are a good case in point though i know someones gonna try to play second amendment here since its guns not cigarettes. in both cases no one can tell you you can't smoke or own guns just can't do it on their property

harbingerm
March 12, 2008, 04:34 PM
I will admit not to understanding how the clause in the lease against guns on the premises can even be legal. Any more than they could prohibit me from practicing Catholicism, or whatever, in my own place. I'm not talking about running a church/bible study/etc, just personal practice. Has anyone ever challenged things on a lease like these in court?

Kentak
March 12, 2008, 04:41 PM
Just a quick note, here in Mississippi they enacted a castle law last year and now the company I work for cannot forbide firearms locked in the cars parked on the company property. I spotted the change on the no weapons poster in the facility

That's fine. I'm assuming the law specifically addresses that issue. If a state has a law that said landlords can't prohibit guns as a condition of lease, then fine and dandy. Don't know of any that do, but there may be some.

K

Kentak
March 12, 2008, 04:45 PM
I will admit not to understanding how the clause in the lease against guns on the premises can even be legal.

Because there is NO LAW against putting such a provision in the lease.

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to private interactions between private individuals. Sheeesh! It only applies to what the government can do, or not do.

K

Ergosphere
March 12, 2008, 04:46 PM
Geek, I agree.

Also, when you rent an apartment, it becomes your residence. For many purposes it is treated as your property... e.g. the landlord can't barge in at any time without being guilty of trespassing. So, my view is that lease restrictions on firearms are almost certainly illegal if the 2nd protects an individual right.

jackdanson
March 12, 2008, 04:47 PM
Renting something doesn't make it "temporarily your property". If that was the case apartments couldn't make rules regarding dogs. I think people are getting confused with criminal law that states an apartment/hotel room is a dwelling that falls under castle doctrine, this doesn't mean that you "temporarily own" the property, just that you have the right to defend it as if you owned it.

The only recourse you have is to
A) Go somewhere else, let the owners know why. If they get enough people doing this they may feel it in their pocket.

B) Request a custom contract omiting that part of it. Clarify that you are a responsible owner. They probably won't go for this, but you could try.

C) Keep the guns anyway-- worst that could happen is they boot you, could cost you a lot of money though.

Ed Ames
March 12, 2008, 04:47 PM
No smoking leases are a great example.

There are apartments (all over the country I suppose but I know specificaly about California and Texas having them) where the lease specifies that you cannot smoke anywhere on the property including inside the units.

There is nothing illegal about smoking in your home -- just as there is nothing illegal about possessing a gun in your home -- but doing so is a violation of your lease agreement.

Violations of the lease agreement can trigger more than evictions. Pay your rent late and you'll trigger contractual obligations that can include paying extra money, paying by money order, or other terms.

Think of it this way... does the 1st ammendment protect atheists? It talks about freedom of religion, bars state religions, bars prohibitions of the free exercize of religion, right? Well atheists don't have a religion. That's what the word means... the a-prefix means 'non' and theist means the belief in divinities or deities. So... can the state force atheists to choose a religion? Does the 1st amendment demand that they have one? Or does the right to have something implicitly include the right not to have it as well?

The answer is obvious but I'll give it anyway. A right is not a requirement... having a right to bear arms doesn't create a requirement that you bear arms. Having a right to be religious doesn't create a requirement that you have a religion. Having a right to free speech doesn't create a requirement that you speak. Having a right to avoid self-incrimination doesn't remove your right to confess to crimes.

If I have a right not to have a religion, or a gun, then asking me to exercise that right as a contract term doesn't infringe on my rights.

thorn726
March 13, 2008, 12:05 AM
no smoking leases work because they refer to DAMAGE to apt and NUISANCE to neighbors. not exactly the same as having a gun in the apt.

here's what i was able to dig out of the Cal DOJ site on it, also good to know the
laws on defending your home are pretty good. no duty to retreat. (edited, i first posted a somewhat incomplete quote)

it could easily be argued that a person's right to defend his "castle" supra cedes the lease agreement

they can't enter without 24 hr notice except in emergency like fire or plumbing catastrophe in Cal. your only real concern is can they evict you if you shoot some criminal- even then besides that you might want to move anyway after that, not likely you could be evicted.


Firearms in the Home or Business
Any person over the age of 18 who is not prohibited from possessing firearms, and if otherwise
lawful, may keep and carry a firearm or have a firearm loaded at his or her place of residence,
temporary residence, campsite, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the person.
(Penal Code 12026, 12031(h) and (l).) Any person engaged in any lawful business (including
nonprofit organizations) or any officer, employee, or agent authorized for lawful purposes connected
with the business may possess a loaded firearm within the place of business if that person is
over 18 years of age and not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. (Penal Code 12026,
12031(h).)

NOTE: A person’s place of business, residence, temporary residence, campsite, or private property
may be located in areas where possession of handguns or other firearms, whether loaded or
unloaded, is otherwise prohibited. Such areas include, but are not limited to, state, federal, or private
game reserves or refuges, federal and state parks, and other public lands. Questions regarding the
applicability of such laws should be directed to your sheriff or chief of police, federal or state fish
and game officers, or federal or state park rangers.

Ergosphere
March 13, 2008, 12:26 AM
Violations of the lease agreement can trigger more than evictions. Pay your rent late and you'll trigger contractual obligations that can include paying extra money, paying by money order, or other terms.

Requiring additional payment when the rent is late violates California state law. Not that it stops landlords...

che_70b
March 13, 2008, 01:38 AM
Let me start buy saying I come from a long line of land owners so this is not coming from an "uppity renter".

The BOR grants us no rights, it lists Divinely given natural rights that the founding fathers thought were important enough to list specifically. I am appalled by anyone and everyone be they government agents or "property owners" who think they have a right to over rule these things we consider sacred as a society. I was particularly off put by the assertions of some that disparaging the character of those who would sneak around behind the backs of those that dared to seek to deny those basic rights of the people who they earn money from by renting too by calling them liars and oath breakers. By virtue of wanting to attack such basic human rights a person proves themselves unworthy being shown the common curtesy of keeping an oath to them. In Norse mythology, a culture that took oaths very seriously, you can find plenty of examples of heros being decietfull to best wicked foes and outsiders.

My other point. Some people talked about a persons right to tell someone they could not have a gun they could not carry a gun into your home. This is really a completely different issue, you certainly should have control over your own residence, but this is not the same thing as commercial property like appartments where you are dealing with the living space of others.

(BTW not all libertarians have this desire for unquestioned control of of anything they own. I am a libertarian becouse I believe everyone should be able to live their lives as free from intereference as possible, I aply this same standard to myself as I do the .gov)

dvdivx
March 13, 2008, 02:01 AM
I think it's more ironic that these so called "it's my property so you have no rights" types will just have their land seized so the government can just make more money from someone else. Don't expect any sympathy then.

You have the expectation that a tenant will pay full rent on time and take care of the property. When a landlord starts saying "x" is prohibited on my rentals and "x" is legal they are only waiting around for someone who has the means to take them to court to do so.

qdemn7
March 13, 2008, 07:55 AM
I used to swallow the Kool-Aid about private property rights until I realized it really meant that private property owners, especially businesses, don't give a damn about any one's rights except their own. Just another reason why I support a Constitutional Amendment Revoking Corporate Personhood. (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html)

Kentak
March 13, 2008, 08:19 AM
I am a libertarian becouse I believe everyone should be able to live their lives as free from intereference as possible,

Well, I'm a libertarian, too. And one of the principles of libertarianism is that people should be free to make honest, mutually agreeable transactions without government interference. If a landlord wants to put a restriction on what a renter can have on the property as a condition in the lease, what's the problem? If you don't agree with that restriction, take your freaking divine right and trot it over to some other landlord who doesn't have that restriction.

Let me turn the situation around. Another BOR guaranteed right is the 1st A protection of free speech and free press. That means, of course, the right to freely express ideas and advocate for political and other causes. Suppose you own an office building and one of your tenants moved out and you have an office vacancy. So, a potential tenant walks into your office and indicates he wants to lease the space. Well, it turns out, the potential tenant is the National Organization To Repeal The Second Amendment and Confiscate All Guns.

So, do you say, "Gee, well, I'd like to rent this space, but I don't agree with your purpose, so I can't rent to you. You'll have to try somewhere else."

Or,

"Gosh, well, I don't agree with you, but you have a constitutional right to advocate for your position and I can't violate that, so, sign here."

Which is it?

K

HKUSP45C
March 13, 2008, 08:24 AM
You have the expectation that a tenant will pay full rent on time and take care of the property.

No, you're incorrect. I and the tenant BOTH have expectations that we will each live up to the the voluntary contractual agreement we both signed. That may or may not include the landlord prohibiting things on the property, even guns.

When a landlord starts saying "x" is prohibited on my rentals and "x" is legal they are only waiting around for someone who has the means to take them to court to do so.

On what grounds, may I ask? Is it your contention that contract law is such a new-fangled idea that the US court system is just now going to start having cases regarding it?

It's been done, the contracts are enforceable, legally. Now, enforcing it practically is a whole different fish.

Kentak
March 13, 2008, 09:06 AM
I think it's more ironic that these so called "it's my property so you have no rights" types will just have their land seized so the government can just make more money from someone else. Don't expect any sympathy then.

You are mischaracterizing the property rights argument and improperly conflating different concepts. Why won't you address the central issue? That is that the 2A RKBA is a protection against infringement by government power. It has nothing to do with private transactions. Do you deny that?

Why is Heller in front of the SCOTUS? It's not because some landlords didn't allow tenants to posses guns on their property, it's because the government of DC prohibited it.

Can you cite any case law successfully challenging, on 2nd A grounds, a landlord's right to restrict firearms as a condition of lease?

K

Ed Ames
March 13, 2008, 01:05 PM
no smoking leases work because they refer to DAMAGE to apt and NUISANCE to neighbors. not exactly the same as having a gun in the apt.

Incorrect on both fronts.

First... No smoking leases work because people sign them and there is a sizeable market of renters who will pay extra to live in such a place. They need no other justification.

Second... many people would argue that the presence of guns enables damage to the units (ND holes) and are a nuisance to others (loud noises and unexpected bullet wounds caused by said NDs). If the guns weren't there those issues would go away. So by your logic "no-guns" leases will work because they deal with the "DAMAGE to apt and NUISANCE to neighbors."

Requiring additional payment when the rent is late violates California state law.

You are completely incorrect.

"Late fees and dishonored check fees

"A landlord can charge a late fee to a tenant who doesn't pay rent on time. However, a landlord can do this only if the lease or rental agreement contains a late fee provision."
-- http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/living-in.shtml

As for the citations of criminal code... you are right, it isn't a crime for someone to have a gun in their leased apartment when the lease says they can. Here's how it works... you agree to pay me certain things in exchange for use of the apartment as your home. $1000 a month, keeping the place in decent shape, taking out your garbage, not playing the radio loud after 11PM, not having a charcoal grill on your balcony without permission, not having a gun in your apartment, keeping your car's registration up to date, et cetera. If you fail to pay me those things that YOU voluntarily, in good faith, without coersion, agreed to pay me... then I can exercise whatever penalty clauses were in the contract. I can have your car towed, have you evicted, charge you extra fees... whatever's in the contract.

Don't want to face those consequences? Don't pay for your home with your rights. Don't whore yourself out by agreeing to give up your 2-a, 1-a, or whatever-a rights as part of the payment for an apartment. That is YOUR choice.

If you do agree to pay something, don't try to fool yourself into thinking it is OK to choose not to honor your side of the agreement. You can't just say, "I don't feel this apartment is worth $1000/mo, I'm only going to pay $800." You can't change the other terms of your lease. All you can do is leave. Even that will involve penalties. Most leases include a provision that you must pay some large fraction of the rest of the lease off to break the contract.

You who want to act as though one of your rights should trump everyone else's rights... it doesn't work that way. You need all of your rights as a package. The right to keep and bear arms is worth nothing if you can't own property. The right to own property is worth nothing if you can't defend yourself. The right to defend yourself is worth nothing if you can't speak... they are a package. You are fools to try to split one off and say it is the only one that really matters.

Ergosphere
March 13, 2008, 04:56 PM
Requiring additional payment when the rent is late violates California state law.

You are completely incorrect.

"Late fees and dishonored check fees

"A landlord can charge a late fee to a tenant who doesn't pay rent on time. However, a landlord can do this only if the lease or rental agreement contains a late fee provision."
-- http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/l...iving-in.shtml

Well, it's not quite that simple. Check the statutes and case law:

1671. Validity of Liquidated Damages Provisions
(a) This section does not apply in any case where another statute expressly applicable to the contract prescribes the rules or standard for determining the validity of a provision in the contract liquidating the damages for the breach of the contract.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a provision in a contract liquidating the damages for the breach of the contract is valid unless the party seeking to invalidate the provision establishes that the provision was unreasonable under the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made.
(c) The validity of a liquidated damages provision shall be determined under subdivision (d) and not under subdivision (b) where the liquidated damages are sought to be recovered from either:
(1) A party to a contract for the retail purchase, or rental, by such party of personal property or services, primarily for the party's personal, family, or household purposes; or
(2) A party to a lease of real property for use as a dwelling by the party or those dependent upon the party for support.
(d) In the cases described in subdivision (c), a provision in a contract liquidating damages for the breach of the contract is void except that the parties to such a contract may agree therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage.


Orozco v. Casimiro (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th Supp. 7 declared "late fees" to be "liquidated damages" under 1671. A summary is given here (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JcGOGf_0Do8J:www.gordonrees.com/pubs/pdf/reupdate_1104.pdf+Orozco+v.+Casimiro+(2004)+121+Cal.App.4th+Supp.+7&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a); also see this (http://daviswiki.org/Tenant_Rights).

Ed Ames
March 13, 2008, 05:14 PM
Did you read your own citation?

It says that, in the case of a residential lease of real property:


(d) In the cases described in subdivision (c), a provision in a contract liquidating damages for the breach of the contract is void except that the parties to such a contract may agree therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage.


In other words... if the contract says that you will pay "Actual damages or, if actual damages cannot practically be ascertained, $300" the contract is valid and, unless you can prove that the actual damages were other than $300 (which, one assumes, you would only try to do if the damages were less) you owe $300 if you breach the contract.

Ergosphere
March 13, 2008, 05:52 PM
Orozco v. Casimiro held that late fees are legal only insofar as they are reasonably related to the landlord's losses or costs which are a result of the rent being late. This amount would generally be very small over the course of a few days. A late fee which serves as a penalty was ruled illegal even though it was in the lease agreement signed by both parties.

asknight
March 13, 2008, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't suggest to anyone to sign a legally binding agreement that revoked their basic civil rights.

Ergosphere
March 13, 2008, 05:58 PM
Another ruling...

Harbor Island Holdings, LLC v. Kim (2003)
Liquidated damages provision unenforceable because it bore no reasonable relationship to range of actual damages parties could have anticipated

Orozco v. Casimiro (2004)
Late fee invalid because landlord failed to establish that damages for late payment of rent were extremely difficult to fix.

Ed Ames
March 13, 2008, 06:11 PM
Yeah, that's common to liquidated damages in general... they must bear some resemblance to actual damages or the terms are unenforceable.

Still... admin time at $25/hr min 1 hr. Cost of drafting a letter for a business is well established to be $15 or so. So you can easily ding somene for $40 give or take and every judge will say it's kosher... and you know what? You pay your prop. managers salary so it really doesn't take $40 out of your pocket.

Works fine, perfectly legal, no problem.

Kentak
March 13, 2008, 07:11 PM
Okay, to sum up then...

The OP wrote: My question is does anyone know if this is legal. Certainly I respect property rights, but when you rent out a property, tenants should have reasonable use of the property.

Since many of us are not home owners, a provision in leases that bans ownership of legal guns could put many of us at risk of being evicted.

Any comments

Answer: Yes, it is legal, and, yes, violating terms of a lease could put you at risk of being evicted.

Lesson: Read your lease carefully and don't sign it if you don't like the terms.

K

Ergosphere
March 13, 2008, 08:30 PM
Still... admin time at $25/hr min 1 hr. Cost of drafting a letter for a business is well established to be $15 or so. So you can easily ding somene for $40 give or take and every judge will say it's kosher... and you know what? You pay your prop. managers salary so it really doesn't take $40 out of your pocket.


The cited case was over a $50 charge, which was ruled illegal.

Ed Ames
March 13, 2008, 08:55 PM
That specific charge, for that specific business, was not sufficiently documented. Shrug. That's being a sloppy landlord. Another landlord, with a property manager who documented the expenses more completely, could charge $100 and a judge would find it equitable.

The general reality is that such terms are, when reasonable, completely enforceable. You can talk around it but your own citations agree with what I'm saying.

Deavis
March 13, 2008, 11:12 PM
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.

Bingo. Any unlimited protections some of you think the Constitution gives are a moot point. When you sign a contract you are willingly giving up some of your rights. That is the distinction, you willingly gave them up. Nobody forced you to do it, there is a BIG distiction. Same thing with HOA policies. You might own the house but you bought it and agreed to the covenants willingly, therefore you can't claim they infringe on your rights after you've accepted them. The government has power by us giving up our rights, again, same thing.

jaholder1971
March 13, 2008, 11:14 PM
I'm beginning to think that some folks are libertarians because they're jealous of the way the government stomps on people and wishes they had that same power.

OAKTOWN
March 13, 2008, 11:51 PM
Historically property owners had more rights than non-property owners. The more things change the more things remain the same.

fireflyfather
March 14, 2008, 01:22 AM
Long thread, not going to go into detail. Sorry if already covered.

Landlords have rights, but tenants do too. If, hypothetically, you, as a landlord had a clause in the lease agreement that violated a tenants rights, there would be a conflict of one person's rights vs another. Balance may not be the appropriate term here, but laws and courts govern whose rights prevail. It isn't an automatic trump of landloard over tenant because of "mere" ownership. Nor is the reverse true: I can't pee on the walls every night and expect to not pay for it, or eventually be evicted.

If I, not the government, own the company/store/parking lot/home/apartment/1000 acres of raw land, etc. it is MINE. I should be free to bar anything I want on that property, denying access to whomever I choose for whatever reasons I care to.

Actually, no, there ARE limits on who/what you can bar, even if you put it into the lease, depending on laws in your area, and federal laws. There's a difference between not honoring your word (keeping guns in a "no gun" lease property), and breaking lease terms that are rendered null/illegal by law(if the lease language is trumped by law to allow guns on property). The distinction here is one of ethics and law. That said, if you were to hypothetically break another law with your lease, say discrimination against a protected group, then I think we would ALL pretty much give you the metaphorical finger (obviously you are not doing this, so no direct attack on you here) and most folks would see no problem with that.

Technically, the way to do this would be to refuse to sign the lease as written, and IN WRITING demand a new version of the lease without that language, then sue the HELL out of you if you refused and local laws permitted.

Now, obviously carebear & the others would put in no such anti-gun clause, but that would be the tactic to use, methinks.

NASCAR_MAN
March 14, 2008, 02:51 AM
Lease...Schmease. People are not going to give up thier rights to self-protection no matter what a lease says...they'll still keep guns.

Now...we can all be honest about this and not put anything in a lease that would hint at prohibiting guns, or...we can just fake it: sign the lease, shake hands and lie in each other's faces.

So...you want a lease agreements based on truth...or do you want to keep lying to each other?

Kentak
March 14, 2008, 10:44 AM
I'm beginning to think that some folks are libertarians because they're jealous of the way the government stomps on people and wishes they had that same power.

If you're referring to me, you couldn't be more wrong. You are not stomping on anyone's rights if they voluntarily sign a contract to do or not do certain things in return for use of the property. That's totally different from a government edict that applies to you when you had no chance to say, "no thanks."

If I was a landlord, would I put a no gun clause in the lease? I might, depending on the circumstances. One reason might be simple CYA, not wanting the legal hassle of possible lawsuits if a doofus in one unit gets drunk, plays with his guns, and sends a round into a kid in the adjoining unit.

K

Kentak
March 14, 2008, 10:51 AM
Lease...Schmease. People are not going to give up thier rights to self-protection no matter what a lease says...they'll still keep guns.

Sure, that's totally probable. But, that's a separate issue from the question asked by the OP, which is about the legality of no-gun clauses in leases.

I, myself, might be tempted to do that as part of a risk/benefit calculation of doing so. Is it wrong and unethical? Yes. And, I should be prepared to accept the consequences, e.g., eviction, if caught.

K

NASCAR_MAN
March 14, 2008, 11:12 AM
Kentak wrote:

Sure, that's totally probable. But, that's a separate issue from the question asked by the OP, which is about the legality of no-gun clauses in leases.

I, myself, might be tempted to do that as part of a risk/benefit calculation of doing so. Is it wrong and unethical? Yes. And, I should be prepared to accept the consequences, e.g., eviction, if caught.
============================

So...now you are saying it is unethical to defend your life.

NASCAR

Ed Ames
March 14, 2008, 11:55 AM
It is unethical to agree to pay someone X and then renig on that agreement. If you don't want to pay then don't promise to pay. You shouldn't be trading off your rights anyway.

I wouldn't require (or sign) a lease that limited my ability to arm myself. Every time I've signed a lease I've looked for such limitations and if I'd found them I wouldn't have signed. As for putting it in a lease I was offering... one of the best (especially considering the source but that's another story) bits of contract advice I've ever received was, "Don't put terms in a contract that you wouldn't agree to." I wouldn't agree to that term so I won't be including it in any lease (or employment contract, etc) I write.

That said... there are people who will agree to those terms, and others who will require them, and if you agree to them you are ethically and legally bound to honor your agreement. If you sign a contract in bad faith (knowing you intend to breach it) you are opening yourself up to more than just eviction. If you post here saying "I'd just sign the lease and ignore the terms" that demonstrates bad faith and can leave you vulnerable to penalties, interest, legal fees, etc.

All that talk about liquidated damages not being OK suddenly goes out the window because you signed the contract in bad faith.

asknight
March 14, 2008, 12:07 PM
If I was a landlord, would I put a no gun clause in the lease? I might, depending on the circumstances. One reason might be simple CYA, not wanting the legal hassle of possible lawsuits if a doofus in one unit gets drunk, plays with his guns, and sends a round into a kid in the adjoining unit.

If I were a landlord, I think that legal firearm ownership would be mandatory in my lease agreements. I'm sure the apartment complex would be a much safer place with legal firearm owners present at all times. The Govt has even saved me the money of paying for my own background checks on tenants, by NICS and CCW application processes. :)

Kentak
March 14, 2008, 04:36 PM
So...now you are saying it is unethical to defend your life.

Come on, NASCAR, your attempt to bend my words to mean something different is so transparent it hardly needs a response. See Ed Ames post above.

K

GuyWithQuestions
March 14, 2008, 04:55 PM
Before you read this, keep in mind I'd never rent or lease an area that's a gun-free zone!

If two independent parties sign a two-way agreement (contract), where what both sides do is completely conditional on what the other party does, and the government later steps in to interfer saying that it's unfair after the stupid party found out what they're getting into, isn't that a violation of rights? Should the government be allowed to void private contracts, even when it doesn't require someone to do something that's illegal (like rob a bank)? When a landlord signs a contract with a tenant, him receiving rent and the terms/conditions of the tenant are conditional on if the landlord leases the property to him and follows certain promises that the landlord says that he'll do in the contract (for example maintenance). When the tenant signs the contract, him being able to rent (own the use of) the property is completely conditional on if he pays his rent and follows the terms and conditions that are in the contract. Isn't the purpose of a contract to provide legal protection to both sides before getting into an agreement that could be risky if one went against what he said he would?

Just like the saying "What one man's garbage is another man's treasure", what one sees as "a rip off" another sees as a "good deal". If two independent parties out of their own free will and choice enter into a two-way agreement where what one does is completely conditional on what the other one does, who is the government to interfere with every private transaction that occurs? If I was actually a property owner and had an extra house on my property, let's say someone else was to ask if they could rent that extra house from me so that they could have a place to stay? I say sure, but that they didn't have to pay money as rent, they just had to agree that they wouldn't wear pink while inside that smaller house or while on the property grounds itself. We both agree with this two-way deal that's conditional on what the other one does. We sign the contract. If a week later I change my mind, can I kick him off even though I signed that contract with him? If in a week he thinks that it's stupid that he can't wear pink and then wears pink, would I still legally be required to let him own the use of that smaller house for the time period that was specified? What one sees as "a rip off", another sees "as a good deal". I don't understand why the government should step on peoples' toes so much and control what they eat, drink, what they say, etc.

In the amendments to the Constitution, it says that prohibition is not Constitutional, but since some people will pay more to be in an apartment without smoking or drinking, some landlords will have contracts that they can't smoke or drink as a condition if they are leased the apartment (leasing is conditional on their side of the contract). That happens even though it's perfectly legal to smoke and drink at your own place of residence. Similarly, there are paranoid individuals out there who want a gun-free zone apartment complex and are willing to find those areas. What I personally think is "a rip off deal", not being able to carry my guns, is "an excellent deal" to paranoid people :rolleyes: Just because I don't like their values, doesn't mean I'm going to restrict them from finding those privately owned resorts or havens for themselves :banghead:

GuyWithQuestions
March 14, 2008, 05:06 PM
On utahcourts.gov, it says that landlords in the state of Utah have some restrictions. Since renting means that the tenant owns the use to the property, the landlord legally can't go in whenever he wants to because he gave up that right when he rented/leased it out, and that there has to be a 24 hour notice when it's necessary for maintenance and that the tenant can control when he comes inside. On that .gov website, it also says that both landlord and tenants are obligated to abide by their terms of the contract.

I also emailed someone from the Utah Department of Public Safety and asked them what are the laws as far as firearms in rented apartments. This is what I asked:
I was wondering if a landlord that has in contract that no firearms are allowed is legally enforceable? I live somewhere where there's nothing in the contract that says that, but have heard from others that their contracts say that. I was wondering because 76-10-511 says it's lawful in a temporary place of residence and in 76-10-530 where it talks about private property owners restricting others from bringing firearms onto their property if they tell them not to, it says "(5) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence." So does that only mean a landlord can't post a sign saying "No tenant can bring in firearms" nor verbally tell them not to? Would that apply to a landlord/tenant leasing contract also, because that would be outside of what rules a landlord could place in a legal contract, or would a landlord be able to enforce that in a leasing contract? I was just wondering for future reference, in case I ever was to run into something like that.

This was his response:
By state law IF YOU ARE renting an apartment it is your residence, ( your home) and only you can ask or require no firearms, this law also applies if you are stay in a motel for a night, while you are there it is your residence and you can possess a firearm, if a landlord placed it in a contract the only way he can enforce it is through civil court for violation of contact, but there is no criminal aspect to it. As far as private property rule,
it is then the renter right to restrict the firearm, not the landlord, it is not landlord's place of residence.

So it sounds like in the criminal courts they can't do anything, neither can the police do anything if the landlord call police, but that the landlord can get you in civil court for breach of contract. Keep in mind that Utah is the state where legally a public school cannot tell students with permits that they can't carry onto school property. I carry mine onto campus at the University all the time. We're talking about human rights here!

PX15
March 14, 2008, 05:17 PM
FWIW:

I'm an old retired dude, and own my own property and home anyway, but when I was younger just like most other young folks there was a time when financial circumstances required my wife and I rent apartments and places to live.

Most of those places had clauses where you couldn't keep pets, although the mania against having guns had not surfaced yet.

My wife and I signed everyone of those lease agreements with a smile on our faces and our two mutts in the back seat of our car in the parking lot.

We had no intention of harming the apartments, (didn't care to lose the substantial damage deposit for one thing), and we wouldn't allow our pets to mess up anything either. IF we, or our pets, had somehow damaged something we would have paid to have it fixed, that's just the way it worked, then..

Additionally I always had a firearm, and IF the lease agreement had prohibited guns I would have still cheerfully signed the agreement, with my handgun(s) out of sight.

Common sense dictated that IF I ever had to use my firearms in self defense the last concern I would have would be the potential for my landlord to be po'ed, or he would have had me evicted.

The landlord put all sorts of stuff in the lease to cover his/her butt, I knew I would maintain his property in excellent condition, I would pay my rent on time, and be a good rented for him/her. I made the "judgement call" about what was in the lease that would affect me, and then signed or declined to sign based on MY best interest, not that of the landlord.

I prefer the old "tried by twelve vs carried by six" theory..

It's the same truth that honest folks don't steal, and crooks will sign, or say anything, and still steal.... :D

Dissenting opinions cheerfully ignored.

JP

jaholder1971
March 14, 2008, 10:32 PM
Quote:
"I'm beginning to think that some folks are libertarians because they're jealous of the way the government stomps on people and wishes they had that same power."

If you're referring to me, you couldn't be more wrong. You are not stomping on anyone's rights if they voluntarily sign a contract to do or not do certain things in return for use of the property. That's totally different from a government edict that applies to you when you had no chance to say, "no thanks."

If I was a landlord, would I put a no gun clause in the lease? I might, depending on the circumstances. One reason might be simple CYA, not wanting the legal hassle of possible lawsuits if a doofus in one unit gets drunk, plays with his guns, and sends a round into a kid in the adjoining unit.

K

Bottom Line: You're pro RKBA for yourself yet have no problems with others being denied theirs if you feel like writing it into their lease. Hypocrisy.

GuyWithQuestions
March 14, 2008, 10:53 PM
nicki,

Just do what I did. I went to a .gov website that is the official page for concealed firearm permits for my state (Utah) which is under the Department of Public Safety. Then I emailed them saying that I found such and such code saying that anyone can possess a loaded firearm at their place of residence, even a temporary residence like a camp or hotel room, and that I found code somewhere else that a landlord cannot tell a tenant not to have firearms on the property (California laws may be different than Utah's, though). I got a response back saying that landlords cannot tell a tenant not to have firearms, and that the only way they can is if it's in the contract. Then after that, there's no criminal penalties to it, it's only a civil matter where the landlord has to go after you for violating a contract that you had made with them.

The .gov website for California firearms that I found at handgunlaw.us is http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/ It looks like it's under the Office of the Attorney General, instead of Public Safety, like my state's firearm .gov site is. I'd go to "Contact Us" and ask them (1) what are the laws if you're a tenant and want to have a firearm at your place of residence; (2) you heard that there's some things that a landlord is restricted from placing in a contract and if a no firearms policy is included in that, or not. That'll answer your questions much better than this thread will ;)

alan
March 14, 2008, 11:20 PM
Seems to me that I read somewhere the followiong.

That a contract that contains provisions that are violations of either the law or constitutional rights is null and void, otherwise unenforceable.

Of course, given that I'm not licensed to practice law, the foregoing is simply my opinion, supported by my recollection, which might be faulty.

cassandrasdaddy
March 14, 2008, 11:30 PM
where'd you read it?

this was the part that guy with questions got that covers it

"if a landlord placed it in a contract the only way he can enforce it is through civil court for violation of contact" and thats how evictions are handled they are civil matters.

the law says you gotta give notice to evict someone yet when we wrote leases for sober houses we evficted hundreds of people with an hour or less notice and were backed up by the cops and courts. i did feel bad about the guy who i put out when it was 20 degrees and snowing. he whined and moaned on the porch for 2 hours till we called the cops. he shoulda thought about that clause in the lease before he smoked that rock

Kentak
March 15, 2008, 01:00 AM
Bottom Line: You're pro RKBA for yourself yet have no problems with others being denied theirs if you feel like writing it into their lease. Hypocrisy.

Jarholder,

Before I answer you, please read my post #116 and suppose you are the office building owner. How would you react to the situation described there?

TwitchALot
March 15, 2008, 03:43 AM
i would stand to argue that any property owner making those policies would be both infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, which specifically states "shall not be infringed" and i take that to mean by ANYONE....

i would also stand to argue that they would be violating an individuals right to be secure in their possessions...

why is it that we cant ban people based on race, religion, sex etc... but we can for firearms? they are all things guaranteed by the constitution....


Let's suppose for a moment the Bill of Rights applies to individuals.

If anything, YOU are violating their right to be secure in their possessions. Namely, their residence (or property). Since when did you have a right to be in someone's home, business, or other private property?

The First Amendment allows you to peaceably assemble. Assume the Bill of Rights restricts the right of individuals (strange as it may be). Can I peaceably assemble in your home with my family when I want to?

I don't think the the government has any authority to force people to hire or rent based on race, religion, sex. That's the way it is, but that doesn't mean it's right, so that's a moot point.

if you are leasing your property to someone else, you forfeit the ability to decide what they can and cannot do in part... they are not a guest, they are a lawful occupant and thus housing and landlord tenant laws come into play...

Incorrect. YOU are the guest, and I am letting you live there- under MY terms. If you do not obey the terms of the contract, not only are you a liar (especially if you purposely decide beforehand you are not going to obey the terms of the contract), you are not a lawful occupant (you shouldn't be, anyway). If I stipulate you can live in my apartment if you follow my rules, and you do not follow those rules, you do not have my permission to live there. You are trespassing, among other things.

Not States, the Federal Government.

Since incorporation, this has changed, and rightfully so.

Would anyone have a problem with a rental contract stating firearms couldn't be carried/transported in a rental car? I know I would.

I would have a problem with it. Which is why I would let the company know that they lost my business because of their policy and rent from their competition.

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.

You most certainly can waive your rights as a matter of contract, just as you can waive your right to a trial by jury. You cannot agree to sign away your next child into slavery because you have no right to do so, not because it is impossible to sign away rights. You do not have a right to someone else's life.

See, the guy with the Fee Simple title voluntarily limited his property rights when he rented the place to someone. He does not own the tenant, so as geek writes, he cannot deprive that tenant of ordinary legal rights, no matter what is in the lease agreement. The renter only has the inside of the unit as an Estate for Years, so the landlord can strictly limit activities in areas not possessed by the tenant, but inside the unit.

So because it's the law, it's right? Limiting someone's rights because they choose to exercise it a certain way is a rather dangerous line of reasoning. No one should be forced to give up certain rights because he decides to use his property in a certain way.

GuyWithQuestions
March 15, 2008, 04:50 AM
If someone's renting/leasing property from a landlord, the landlord can't boss them around, because the lease contract is a two-way conditional agreement where the tenant says, "If I pay this certain amount of rent and abide by these terms and conditions, you'll lease this property to me for this certain amount of time and provide these certain services." The landlord can't make up rules that weren't in the contract. Also, legally, although the landlord still "owns the property", the landlord no longer "owns the use of the property". Leasing means that you transfer your ownership of "the use of the property" over to someone else, the tenant. It's not the landlord's place of residence. On my state's .gov website at utahcourts.gov, it says that as such, a landlord can't just go into the tenants rented space whenever the landlord wishes, because "After a landlord rents a property, he or she gives up the right to enter the property at any time." I've seen quite a few other sources say that if the landlord does, he/she can be prosecuted for trespassing on private property. My state's .gov website says that if the landlord is required to do maintenance, he/she has to provide at least 24 hour notice beforehand for non-emergencies. The tenant can also tell the landlord when it is not reasonable to come in, in these situations. However, it also says on the .gov website that both the tenant and landlord have a responsibility to abide by the terms of the lease agreement, and also says "Read and discuss your lease with the landlord before you sign it, because you must abide by all its provisions." When you read about what a contract is from other sources, a contract says what one party does is "conditional" upon what the other party does, a two-way conditional promise. If the contract says a certain amount of rent is needed, if the tenant doesn't pay, he can't just say, "Well this is my place of residence so I can do whatever I want, even if I didn't pay rent!" Rent is not the only thing that's in the two-way promise (contract), there's also certain terms and conditions that the tenant agreed to before hand, just like the landlord agreed to leasing and providing certain services that are in the contract beforehand. Both the tenant and landlord out of their own free will and choice agreed to the contract. If not, why did the tenant sign it? Why did the landlord hand the contract to the tenant if he didn't agree?

I don't understand why landlords say, "This is my property, so I can do whatever I want whenever I want"? I also don't understand why tenants say, "I can go against any term or condition in the lease agreement, because it's my place of residence"?

alan
March 16, 2008, 01:08 AM
My wife and I moved out of a rented apartment at the end of a lease. There were some "issues" about the place as we had left it, the owner claiming unspecified "damages", there were none.

She also claimed that the apartment stunk of cigar smoke. In those days I smoked a couple of large cigar every day. Even more interesting was the fact that when we first met the "landlord", to see the apartment, I was smoking a big black cigar. Never could understand why she was surprised at the smell of cigars indoors.

Additionally, her lawyer loudly announced that the small black cat we had had for many years, including the time we lived in this particular apartment, was a violation of our lease.

Interestingly, the original lease, which I had kept a copy of, clearly stated that the apartment would be occupied by two adults, and one small black cat named Midnite. I advised the landlord's lawyer that he had a liar for a client, and not a particularly smart one either, adding that I supposed it might be all right for the landlord to lie to a tenant, but lying to her lawyer was kind of dumb.

The landlord tried to retain a good part of our security deposit, in compensation for damage she claimed we had done. Pennsylvania law requires a specific listing of any damages claimed by the landlord, no such listing was provided, so we filed suit in Magistrates Court. We won, the landlord ending up paying our filing fees in addition to returning our security deposit.

We kept some firearms in the apartment, however there was never anything said about such things. Some tenants are problematic, but then so are some landlords.

NASCAR_MAN
March 16, 2008, 10:28 AM
TwitchALot said: Incorrect. YOU are the guest, and I am letting you live there- under MY terms. If you do not obey the terms of the contract, not only are you a liar...
====================================

If that's your take, then by your standards, I am a LIAR, too! And I'm Damn proud of it! In fact, I feel quite Righteous about it...as is morally healthy for any man who values his freedom and life.

I laugh at your sense of ethics - which would render good men defenseless.

NASCAR

Ed Ames
March 16, 2008, 10:47 AM
A good... self-righteously lying... man. Umm.... yeah.

A good man wouldn't have signed a lease in bad faith. You're just saying you are a hypocrite. You want to think of yourself as good even as you lie and deal falsely. You need to reflect on your definition of good and figure out that the time to be righteous is BEFORE you pledge your word.

NASCAR_MAN
March 16, 2008, 10:54 AM
A good man wouldn't have signed a lease in bad faith. You're just saying you are a hypocrite. You want to think of yourself as good even as you lie and deal falsely. You need to reflect on your definition of good and figure out that the time to be righteous is BEFORE you pledge your word.
=========================================

Oh my God...I am now a HYPOCRITE, too - who LIES and deals FALSELY! :neener:

Got any other names you want to call me? :)

NASCAR

Ed Ames
March 16, 2008, 10:57 AM
Not really. Just seems kinda ironic that you would be claiming righteousness and boasting of lying in the same paragraph.

cassandrasdaddy
March 16, 2008, 11:05 AM
a stereotype fulfilled

BryanP
March 16, 2008, 11:11 AM
So how is a provision in your rental agreement saying you can't exercise your 2nd amendment rights (no guns) any different from one saying "You can rent here, but while you live here you cannot belong to a church and you cannot publish a blog."? (First amendment rights).

Kentak
March 16, 2008, 11:36 AM
BryanP,

If you were an office building owner, would you lease space to the local chapter of a militant anti-gun organization, knowing they would use the leased space to organize, lobby, publish, and advocate for gun bans and confiscations?

Would you, BrianP, would you? They have, after all, a first amendment right to advocate for their political agenda. Would you deny them that constitutional right in your office building?

(Similar to my post #116)

K

NASCAR_MAN
March 16, 2008, 11:51 AM
Not really. Just seems kinda ironic that you would be claiming righteousness and boasting of lying in the same paragraph.
=======================================

Actually, I'm not boasting...but just claiming I am morally superior to yourself. I mean, I won't use a man's sense of honor as his hanging rope...but I think you feel it's o.k..

See, I believe the right to defend my existence is not to be signed away or negotiated. You obviously don't.

NASCAR

Ed Ames
March 16, 2008, 12:14 PM
Again you are blaming others for your own actions.

I don't want to sell my rights away so I don't.

You don't want to sell your rights away so you do and then get all self righteous and dishonorable at the same time.

That's a big difference IMO.

Ditto_95
March 16, 2008, 12:20 PM
It boils down to weighing the risks.

1.What are the chances of being attacked?

2. Can I live with myself if I sign a lease knowing that I am going to violate it?

3. What are the chances of being caught with a gun in the apartment?

4. What will happen if I am caught with a weapon in the apartment?

5. What will I do to defend myself if I don't have a gun in the apartment?

Every person will knowingly or unknowingly make this risk assessment.
What you do with the information is make the decision of what to do.

NASCAR_MAN
March 16, 2008, 12:33 PM
Ed, you have a strange concept of "Rights" - you obviously believe they may be bought, sold, granted or transferred. I guess "Inalienable Rights" would be anathema to you?

I believe rights to be "Inalienable" - and the first and foremost is my right to Life - and this neccessarily includes the means of defending it.

Furthermore, if you have a problem with your concept of "Lying" - that I use to defend my rights; in order to not be a "Hypocrite" as you say, would you not personally have a problem with you using a gun to defend your life - for you may have to kill someone to do it - and if "Lying" is bad to you - then "Killing" must be 100 times worse (provided that you are not a Hypocrite, of course).

NASCAR

Kentak
March 16, 2008, 01:17 PM
I'm so sad. No one wants to respond to my office building owner scenario. I wonder why.

K

Ed Ames
March 16, 2008, 02:08 PM
Of course you can "sell" (or agree not to exercise) your rights. That's what a lease is... it's an agreement by a property owner to sell (or rent) their rights to the property for a specified period of time (month or whatever) in exchange for a given amount of money and other considerations. If you couldn't sell your rights then when you leased an apartment they would still have full ownership rights and could do whatever they wanted in that apartment. In that case possessing a gun in violation of the terms of the lease would be criminal trespass instead of a civil matter.

You give up your ownership rights to some money, and you agree to suspend other rights, in exchange for them giving up some of their rights such as possession of the property. If everyone does so honestly then it's a fair deal and everyone gets what they want.

It is also voluntary on both sides. You aren't being coerced into giving up your rights. They aren't being coerced into giving up their rights. Both sides see some benefit and enter the agreement willingly.

Another prime example is when you get a job. You "sell" your right to go wherever you want and do whatever you want 8 hours a day, maybe your right to dress however you want, usually your right to speak however you want... you sell that in exchange for some cash.

The agreement to sell isn't permanent of course. If you decide you aren't happy with the arrangement you can quit your job and leave. If your employer doesn't think you are keeping up your end of the bargain they can fire you. Once that agreement ends you are free to start exercising your rights again and they are free to stop paying.

You can do the same with a lease. Don't like the terms any more? Leave and you'll no longer be bound to the agreement. Completely fair and honest.

Your attempt to equate my understanding of your dishonesty with an unwillingness to defend my life is totally illogical. You are being dishonest if you agree to something with no intention of fulfilling your end of that agreement...that has no connection to the question of whether killing someone to defend my own life is good or bad. I have no agreements with an attacker who is endangering my life so it is not dishonest or dishonorable of me to defend my life even at the cost of theirs. Whether it is worse or better is subjective of course but it isn't hypocritical.

Kentak
March 16, 2008, 06:56 PM
I guess NASCAR MAN has never heard cops say, "You have the right to remain silent.....etc...etc...ect....If you waive these rights...."

Rights can be voluntarily waived. Such as when LE asks to search your house without a warrant. You *can* let them, if you wish. Others rights you can waive is the right to a jury trial, the right not to have to take stand in an action against you. It's no different if you voluntarily sign a no-gun lease. You are waiving your right to keep a gun in that apartment. If you don't want to waive your right to do so, you pass on accepting the terms of the lease.

I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand.

K

che_70b
March 17, 2008, 12:35 AM
My contention was that it was completely honorable to lie and violate a lease on a person who thought it was acceptable to deny you access to basic human rights. I am of the opinion that most things we think of as wrong are ONLY wrong in certain contexts (killing being a very obvious example). Decieving someone who attempts to attack your rights and put you at a possition of dissadvantage is not wrong.

Kentak: Sorry it took me so long to get back to your question, I have not been online for several days. You asked about renting space to a group that advocates the disarming of the people. We have already established how I feel about the right to keep personal weapons being a divine right that no man has a right to violate. I also believe that free expression is such a right. (actually I think it is usefull to pay attention to those misguided and evil people who would seek to violate my rights and them having free expression makes it easier to keep up with my enemy.) With these two sacred rights in question I would have to refuse to let them rent office space. I feel that it is a greater evil to provide space to a group that would seek to cut our collective throats than it is to let them use their first amendment rights. Though an anti gun group and NAMBLA are probably the only people I would not let rent space:) .

GuyWithQuestions
March 17, 2008, 01:02 AM
Could I go up to someone who owns guns and say, "I'll pay you $50,000 if you decide not to own any guns for a whole year." The other person, "Okay". Then we sign a contract (two-way conditional agreement)? I'd never do that because that would go against my morals and would be the most stupid agreement ever. Would that be legal?

Now lets say that person who receives the $50,000 starts missing his guns after about a month. :( He says, "This is stupid, I'm going to go out and own some guns. This is so unconstitutional!" Can he keep my money if he goes out and starts owning guns again (we have an official contract signed)? Would he have to give it back? At the very least if I took him to court, he wouldn't get to keep all of the $50,000 I gave him, or would he?

Instead of the landlord signing something saying he'll give the tenant money, he signs a contract saying that he'll lease the apartment and provide certain services to the tenant if the tenant agrees to follow some very limited rules set forth and pay some money. If the tenant later on breaks the rules or doesn't pay all the rent payments, is the landlord obligated to let "the ownership of the use of" the apartment stay transferred over to the tenant (renting) and provide the services promised in the contract? At the very least, shouldn't the landlord be allowed to go through an eviction process and be backed up by the courts?

The Bill of Rights says Freedom of Speech. A landlord can't refuse to sign a lease agreement with someone because of their race (because there's a specific law that restricts that in non-government private citizen transactions), but the landlord can refuse to sign a lease agreement with a tenant if they don't like the fact that the tenant has a picture of Barney on their shirt (which is a freedom of expression, freedom of speech). An employer can't refuse to hire someone because of race, but can because they don't like how their dressed. When hiring, an employer can also have an employee sign something saying that they will follow a dress code while at work, because the Bill of Rights restrict the government, not private transactions by citizens. In the state I live in, the law says you can have a loaded firearm at your place of residence, even temporary place of residence like a camp or hotel. When I emailed my .gov, they said the only way a landlord could restrict it is if it's in a contract and they take you to court for breach of contract.

Elm Creek Smith
March 17, 2008, 01:27 AM
What I'd do is cross out the section forbidding firearms, and send it back to the landlord. If he accepts it than you're fine.

Often times when you're sitting down with the guy and you have a check written out to him in your hand, he'll gladly change the terms of the lease.


The lease isn't written in stone until you've signed it.

-Zundfolge


+10

ECS

hybridgenius
March 17, 2008, 03:04 AM
Can't we all just get along? You guys definitely took the thread to a whole new level and flooded it. Here are the FACTS: If you sign the contract and it states "no guns" then the landlord CAN use that against you and ONLY kick you out. Other than that... it is NOT ILLEGAL to own a gun, even on the landlord's private property because the property is not "federal property". Being a trespasser and living as a resident on someone's property are 2 totally different things. We all know LAWS have many ways around them... it practically makes sense for BOTH parties and is why... you never know what will happen in court. Now to get "back on subject", I would suggest your daughter move out to a gun friendly environment or ask the landlord if haveing firearms could be possible. Lets all get along people.

Kentak
March 17, 2008, 08:48 AM
I'm still waiting for those taking a position different from mine to respond to my office building scenario. Thing is, they can't. They can't maintain that a landlord who refuses to rent to gun owners violates 2nd A rights and maintain that their refusal to rent offices to anti-gun groups doesn't violate the groups 1A rights.

K

che_70b
March 17, 2008, 10:32 AM
I did not say that I would not violate the anti gun groups rights to free speach, I said that I concider thier outlook evil enough to work against them.

I would also point out that my contention was that it was ok to decieve people who wanted to violate your sacred rights. I generaly think it acceptable to decieve and mistreat evil people and would actually go out of my way to make their day a little worse. I include anti gunners who won't convert to be evil people who want to control others. I would find the same level of deciet acceptable to be used against landlords that wanted to deny housing to other groups of people they found unacceptable (minorities, gays, unmarried couples, children, etc). I also see a difference between a residential building and commercial ofice building. There is a difference between a group pushing an agenda and individuals seeking a place to live. If you are renting out living space your only concern should be how well the tenent takes care of the place and if they pay their rent on time.

yahkohb
March 17, 2008, 01:11 PM
I love the logic here. by most people's reasoning, I should be able to conduct a pro-Hillary rally in their front yard. hey, it's my first amendment right afterall and they (the property owner) cannot prevent me from exercising that.

another interesting point: willingly entering into a lease agreement which includes as a condition "no firearms", is no different than agreeing to the THR Forum Rules, which include as a condition "All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues". Is the THR denying me my right to free speech because I can't have a discussion here about Catholicism or the Yankees or Boston Terriers? No, because I agreed to the terms. Just like when I accepted my offer of employment I agreed to allow my office to be sniffed by a drug dog at random; or when I bought my home in a particular subdivision, I agreed to limit the size and number of political signs in my yard.

A lease is no different. if you agree to waive a right, either in part or in full, then your right wasn't denied or violated.

che_70b
March 17, 2008, 02:27 PM
Yahkohb, I have actually made a clear distinction between a persons private residence and situation involving leased out living space. I would agree with a persons right to not have protests on their front yard. I would even agree that you have a right to tell someone not to bring a gun into your home.

My contention that was the desire to excert controls on lives of your tenants was an evil action and that it was perfectly ok to decieve those who would do so.

I would also like to say that there is a great flaw in the "if you don't like the terms live somewhere else" arguement. Most of the people I know do not have the financial ability to live whereever they want to live. The cost of the residence in realation to where they need to be are the main factor in choosing housing. Many people do not have the option to rent somewhere else or to buy a house beacouse the landlord wants to enact unethical controls on them in their residence. The only of the recorse for people in this postistion is decieve the landlord.

It is a great test of persons true charecter to see how they react to the opportunity to oppress someone else. This applies to government personel as well as private individuals. It seems to me that many people here relish the opportunity to put their boot on someone elses thoat.

Ed Ames
March 17, 2008, 02:50 PM
First: You (and others) keep attempting to personalize this... to say that people posting in this thread want to add those terms to leases. That's not true and has been specifically addressed several times. By keeping up with the "many people here relish the opportunity to put their boot on someone else's throat" type statements you are lowering the quality of the discussion without furthering your own point.

Second: there are costs to freedom. Those costs can be small or large... but it is your responsibility as a free person to bear those costs. One example is the cost of owning and learning to operate a firearm... that ain't nothin close to free but anyone who wants the self-sufficiency firearms enable must bear those costs. Another cost is choosing who you will do business with. There are all sorts of businesses that make excellent products I will never buy because I disagree with what they do. That can cause me all sorts of problems... just a week ago some coworkers wanted to get pizza and I had to give my, "I'm in as long as it isn't Domino's" answer. The result? I didn't join in. Yep... I earned outcast points because I chose not to support a business that does things I disagree with. That's a real cost of freedom. A small cost, when viewed alone, but cumulatively those little costs add up. They are worth paying though.

Same is true when I pay for housing. I'm not going to support a business that is actively against me.

Those of you who sign the leases though... who sign leases that bar you from possessing firearms, and pay your rent, and break the terms of the lease... you are supporting your enemies. Supporting my enemies too. You think you are getting away with something but every month you are putting more money in their pockets. Worse, you are making it easier for them to mess with you later. More money in their pockets plus they can evict you if you ever need to use the firearm and that's just the start.

So explain to me why it's such a good and honorable thing to give money to people who are trying to get you to give up your rights? Explain to me how you are doing anything but aiding our foes by funneling money into the pockets of anti-gunners. Explain why you are really doing the right thing as you not only sit silently by as your rights are restricted, not only fund the antis, you also offer yourself as a potential news story of someone who was keeping an arsenal in an apartment before getting evicted.

I'd like to hear that.


Actually I wouldn't. I think it's BS. I think you want to take the easy way, the cheap way, and you don't really care about the harm you are doing to the RKBA cause. You want to claim character but you don't want to pay the costs of freedom. You want the benefits of freedom but you don't have the courage to take a real stand to defend that freedom.

Freedom isn't free... sometimes it costs blood. In this case, all it costs is moving a little farther away... maybe not even farther, just to a different place. A cheap cost and you won't pay it... and still you have the nerve to claim that you are the righteous ones? Pathetic.

che_70b
March 17, 2008, 04:04 PM
Ed, I agree about not giving money to the antis actually. Giving them money does aid them, unfortnately people do not always have the option of paying more money and living somewhere else. I myself am in a possition to afford to do what I want to, however I know MANY people who cannot. I'm not talking about an inconvience, I'm talking about scraping by each month to keep a place to live.

On the personalizing:

1. Actually I do not assume that most of those arguing in favor of the landlords here would put in that particular restriction. My claim is that the desire to be able to control your tenents in such a manner is indicative of a wicked mindset.

2. My boot to throat statement. I entered into this discussion entirely beacouse of the people on the other side of the debate making disparaging comments to those who would rent where they unfortunatly had to and quietly keep their weapon anyway. The personal attacks started on your side (though not from you as I recall) and I call 'em like I see 'em.

Ed Ames
March 17, 2008, 04:41 PM
I've been there with the scraping by... it's tough... but I still see more options.

As to the personalizing... yeah, it's gone too far on both sides and I have said a bit I shouldn't have. It's natural.

I really don't see it as a desire to control tenants though. I see it as a desire to understand what can really go on so you can make informed decisions.

A final note and then I'll bow out...

You really can sign away your rights... take that as a given. You can sell or lease your ownership rights to a property. You can waive your 5A rights when talking to cops. You can agree to restrictions of your 1a rights as part of a lawsuit settlement "gag order". When you sign them away, or sell them, the simple act of doing what you agreed not to do does not "restore" that right to you. You may have a gun but you still don't really have the right any more. What's the difference?

If you still had the right then exercising it wouldn't jepordize your financial future.

If you settle a lawsuit with someone and the settlement terms say they pay you money and you shut up about what happend there really isn't anything stopping you from telling your friends, writing about it, and so on. You may not be caught and you may get the money from the settlement.... but you didn't have a right to talk and if it is found out by the wrong parties you will be penalized for doing something you had no right to do.

If you didn't give up that right, didn't agree to be gagged, you have a right to speak. You can do exactly the same amount of talking in either case but if you have the right to speak you aren't risking your financial future to say what's on your mind.

Same is true with guns and leases.

I have a right to have firearms in my apartment. I checked the lease, I checked the laws, I did some research to know the limits and restrictions, and I considered my beliefs when I made my choice of where and how to live. I can exercise that right without fear of eviction, arrest, or other penalty. I can defend myself in my home without the landlord coming around and throwing me out.

I don't have a right to stop taking out my garbage. My lease actually says that I must take out the garbage at least once a week and failing to honor that part of my lease could get me evicted. You know what? Nobody is checking... and in fact I've let my garbage go two whole weeks (it was just paper) without any problems. I did it but I didn't really have a right to do it... I just got away with it... and the fact that I got away with it doesn't give me the right to keep doing it. I willingly gave up that right because frankly it doesn't matter to me one way or the other... I want to take my garbage out more than once a week anyway. It was a right, like the right to my rent money, that I was willing to give up in exchange for a place to live.

I just don't think it is smart to ignore your word like that as a policy. If you sign the lease you HAVE given up your right even if you exercise it anyway. You shouldn't have done that. If you intend to do that you certainly shouldn't say so because that indicates bad faith and signing a contract in bad faith is, well, bad.

To me... I'd rather live in a tent or a busted down trailer that was really my home with all the attendant rights than sign a lease that gives those rights away. I'm willing to pay for that decision by lowering my quality of life if I can't afford to pay for it by increasing the rent I pay... and I pay it because I really want the right, not just to do what I could do if I had the right.

What others do isn't really my lookout... but there are real reasons for not paying rent to antis and letting them strip your rights away even if you have no intention of giving up your guns. There is a real reason for discouraging others from giving up their rights. I don't see any real reason to support the idea of anti-gun leases at all... and I can't see signing one as anything but supporting it.

But that's just me. :)

yahkohb
March 17, 2008, 04:59 PM
I would also like to say that there is a great flaw in the "if you don't like the terms live somewhere else" arguement. Most of the people I know do not have the financial ability to live whereever they want to live. The cost of the residence in realation to where they need to be are the main factor in choosing housing. Many people do not have the option to rent somewhere else or to buy a house beacouse the landlord wants to enact unethical controls on them in their residence. The only of the recorse for people in this postistion is decieve the landlord.

while I agree with your sentiment, with the housing market down it is actually a renter's market right now. lots of people who can't sell are trying to rent. increased supply + fixed demand = lower prices.

It is a great test of persons true charecter to see how they react to the opportunity to oppress someone else. This applies to government personel as well as private individuals. It seems to me that many people here relish the opportunity to put their boot on someone elses thoat.

willfully entering into a contract is not oppression. it is an agreement between consenting adults. and I never meant to imply that such clauses were moral or ethical, only that they were legal and did not constitute any denial of constitutional rights.

it's also an oversimplification to characterize these situations as an anti-gun landlord just trying to enact unethical controls on a tenant. it's real easy to sit there at a keyboard and accuse some abstract notion of a landlord or commercial property group of just trying to cover their butt and oppress people. it's an entirely different matter when it's your assets and your retirement savings and your kids' college funds that could possibly be up for grabs in a civil suit. there is nothing abstract about that.

again, I don't mean to imply that I consider such clauses moral or ethical. but if you're in the rental property business, and your not a mega-bucks corporation, you need to protect yourself. fortunately I can cover just about anything with my tenants under a generic illegal activity clause (e.g. an ND constitutes discharging a firearm within city limits, which is illegal except for approved ranges or self-defense).

jaholder1971
March 17, 2008, 07:30 PM
Quote:
Bottom Line: You're pro RKBA for yourself yet have no problems with others being denied theirs if you feel like writing it into their lease. Hypocrisy.
Jarholder,

Before I answer you, please read my post #116 and suppose you are the office building owner. How would you react to the situation described there?


Simple. These people are attempting to remove our civil rights and I see no reason to rent them property based on this.

wahsben
March 17, 2008, 07:57 PM
An armed peacful citizen does nothing to deny anyone of their property. Those that would expect them to disarm deny them not only their right to bear arms, but also their property ie. their gun and also deny them the best means of self defense.
The founders put shall not be infringed because infringements cause an imbalance of power that favors the criminal and tyrant. Those that deny others the right to keep and bear arms are nothing less than tyrants.

Kentak
March 17, 2008, 08:29 PM
Simple. These people are attempting to remove our civil rights and I see no reason to rent them property based on this.

But, there is nothing unconstitutional about advocating against gun rights. The 1A right of free speech isn't conditional on the subject of the speech. They might argue your refusal to rent is an abridgment of their 1A right. It's not, of course. You have, as the property owner, the right to limit the kinds of speech your property is used for. You could even write restrictions in your lease if you wanted to. Just as a landlord can restrict gun possession on his property with a lease.

As for your comment. I can see where you would consider a landlord who wants RKBA for himself but denies it to his tenants is hypocritical. However, the landlord would only be a hypocrite if he believed a similar lease restriction shouldn't be allowed to apply to him.

Back to the office leasing situation. We've both agreed you are within your rights to refuse renting to the anti-gun group. If *you* were the head of a RKBA group and were refused office space on those grounds, would you complain the owner was infringing your first amendment right?

K

che_70b
March 17, 2008, 11:22 PM
quick note. I also never said it that the lease couses were illegal or unconstituitional, I said it was evil and morally acceptable to decieve them.

Kentak, they probably would feel like I had been unfair to them and I would not disagree that I was working to limit their ability to speak. I just believe their position is bad enough to work against, in much the same way I think it is ok to go against the desires of landlords who think it is ok limit peoples civil rights in a rented residence.

TwitchALot
March 18, 2008, 03:32 AM
If that's your take, then by your standards, I am a LIAR, too! And I'm Damn proud of it! In fact, I feel quite Righteous about it...as is morally healthy for any man who values his freedom and life.

I laugh at your sense of ethics - which would render good men defenseless.

NASCAR

I laugh at yours- for purposely putting yourself in that position and then complaining about it, and then pretending you are somehow righteous or ethical in your actions by purposely violating your contract.

Don't like it? Don't sign it. No one's forcing you to give up your rights except you.

See, I believe the right to defend my existence is not to be signed away or negotiated. You obviously don't.

NASCAR

Then... don't sign it away...?

My contention was that it was completely honorable to lie and violate a lease on a person who thought it was acceptable to deny you access to basic human rights.

Lying to yourself is not the issue. Lying to someone else in violation of your contract is the issue. YOU are the one who thought it was acceptable deny yourself "access" to basic human rights. YOU were the one who decided to sign the contract, and YOU were the one who voluntarily waived your rights. Whose fault is that but yours?

I am of the opinion that most things we think of as wrong are ONLY wrong in certain contexts (killing being a very obvious example). Decieving someone who attempts to attack your rights and put you at a possition of dissadvantage is not wrong.

I'll pass on the "exceptions to rules" argument because that would be unnecessary and time consuming. The fact is no one is attempting to attack your rights and put you in a position of disadvantage. No one is forcing you to live there under the owner's rules but yourself. No one is forcing you to not have guns in the area but yourself. It is YOUR choice.

If you choose to forfeit certain rights and privileges for a particular living space, that is no one's fault but your own. Find another place to live- you don't have a right to be on someone else's property.

I would also like to say that there is a great flaw in the "if you don't like the terms live somewhere else" arguement. Most of the people I know do not have the financial ability to live whereever they want to live. The cost of the residence in realation to where they need to be are the main factor in choosing housing. Many people do not have the option to rent somewhere else or to buy a house beacouse the landlord wants to enact unethical controls on them in their residence. The only of the recorse for people in this postistion is decieve the landlord.

So what? This is irrelevant, as are all emotional arguments in such instances.

Yahkohb, I have actually made a clear distinction between a persons private residence and situation involving leased out living space. I would agree with a persons right to not have protests on their front yard. I would even agree that you have a right to tell someone not to bring a gun into your home.

And what if it's both a private residence and a leased out living space?

It is a great test of persons true charecter to see how they react to the opportunity to oppress someone else. This applies to government personel as well as private individuals. It seems to me that many people here relish the opportunity to put their boot on someone elses thoat.

Well that's awfully ironic, unless you were talking about yourself.

cassandrasdaddy
March 18, 2008, 08:28 AM
its not often a person owns up to being a liar. then in the same breath talks about being proud righteous and morrally healthy as a resut of iut. matter of fact i didn't think there were too many firsts left in my life but i was mistaken.

Kentak
March 18, 2008, 08:55 AM
The only posters in this thread who are anti-freedom and anti-rights are those who would deny--apparently, by force of law--the right of landlords to use their property as they wish. It's not those of us who uphold the principle of individuals to freely, openly, and non-coercively make voluntary agreements. And, with the expectation of integrity that both parties will honor their agreement.

I'm done. Said it all.

Have a good day.

K

Art Eatman
March 18, 2008, 11:22 AM
Eight pages of goin' 'round in circles makes a fella plumb dizzy. Too much wanderin'...

Enuf.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Apartment lease ban on guns California" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!