"No Guns" in lease. What to do?

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Make a County-Offer

No contract is a contract until it's signed by both parties. Scatch out the 'no guns' provision and replace it with 'Lessor agrees to provoide Lessee with 24/7 armed Security officer / Bodyguard during Lease Perioid'.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I disagree. SCOTUS just ruled that you cannot regulate firearms in a place of residence. So the contract is illegal and even if you sign it would be null and void as you cannot sign away a constutional rights.

The SCOTUS ruled that the government of Washington, DC, cannot prohibit the keeping of arms in the home for self-defense. The majority opinion specifically said (unfortunately) that the right to keep arms is subject to "reasonable regulation. A private owner of an apartment building is not an element of government at any level and is not in any way impacted by the Heller decision or the 2nd Amendment. This is a civil, contractual matter, not a Constitutional case. Unless the state in question specifically prohibits such clauses in leases (as it appears at least one state does), the landlord has every right to include such a clause, because "gun owners" is not a class of person legally protected against discrimination. It is unlawful to discriminate in housing on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, children (except for certain types of age-restricted project), and in some states sexual orientation. That's about it. No anti-discrimination protection for gun owners.

That's what is, folks. The choices are either (1) Accept the terms and abide by them; (2) Negotiate different terms; (3) Sign the lease, ignore the terms, and risk eviction; or (4) Find a different place to live.

 

[Javelin]

That's what is, folks. The choices are either (1) Accept the terms and abide by them; (2) Negotiate different terms; (3) Sign the lease, ignore the terms, and risk eviction; or (4) Find a different place to live.

I stand corrected.

 

[burk]

Sorry, but I believe many you are completely wrong when it comes to the "property owner's rights." The property owner is the owner of the property, when he leases it to someone, he leases the rights to that property. In other words, it is his house, but the tenant's home.

And in his own home, he has rights. You can't put in clauses that take away the tenant's right to privacy, their right to access, their rights to utilization, etc. The gun is NOT a damaging object, and it is the tenant's right to bring inanimate objects into the home as he sees fit.

Telling a tenant that he can't have a gun is like telling him he isn't allowed to bring in wood furniture because you're afraid of termites.

Your spot on this one. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you decide to rent an apartment. And this has nothing to do with property rights. Once you get into the rental business you can't chose to discriminate and deny others rights, it's just like any other business. Now renting a room in a house is a far different arrangement.

1) First ascertain if your firearms will be MD legal. They are not a gun friendly state

2) Send the rental contracts back with the clause stricken out, and a note saying that you do not intend to give up constitutional rights to rent from this landlord.

3) Check with the NRA, I think this would be a good case that they might be willing to help you fight. Suppose the contract had a clause saying you couldn't have a Koran or a Bible in the apartment? Or if it said you couldn't read certain newspapers or magazines? For grins and giggles you might ask the ACLU to take your case. I'd be interested to see what they'd say.

 

[mountaingun]

Maryland has a reputation for being firearm unfriendly, but Ohio just passed a law that prohibits landlords from banning firearms in rentals.
Too bad there isn't an equivalent at the federal level.

Mountaingun

 

[Frank Ettin]

....You do not give up your constitutional rights when you decide to rent an apartment....

The Constitution has nothing to do with it. The Constitution regulates the conduct of government. It does not regulate the conduct of private parties.

...Once you get into the rental business you can't chose to discriminate...

There are statutes, both federal and most likely state, prohibiting discrimination on the ground of gender, race, religion, notional origin, and age. There are no federal statutes, and probably no state statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gun ownership. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

...Suppose the contract had a clause saying you couldn't have a Koran or a Bible in the apartment?...

There are statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

 

[mp510]

Maryland Eviction law for breach of lease

http://www.peoples-law.org/housing/ltenant/legal info/breach of lease evict.htm

Eviction for Breach of the Lease

(Real Property Article, § 8-402.1)

If a lease provides that tenant may be evicted for breach of the lease, and if landlord should subsequently want to ask the help of the court to evict tenant, landlord must have given tenant one month's written notice that tenant has violated the lease and landlord wishes to repossess the premises. If however, the landlord felt that the tenant posed a danger to either themselves, other tenants, the landlord or the landlord's property, 14 days is sufficient notice. Acceptance of payment after notice of the breach is given, but prior to the eviction, does not constitute a waiver of the notice or a waiver of any judgment for possession, unless the parties so agree in writing.

If tenant does not leave in proper time, landlord may then file a complaint in District Court. The court will immediately summons the tenant or other person in possession to appear on the appointed day to show cause why the premises should not be restored to landlord. If either party is absent from the hearing, the court may continue (postpone) the case for from six to ten days, and will so notify the parties. If the court determines that tenant breached the lease and that the breach was substantial and warrants eviction, the court will order the sheriff or constable to give possession of the premises to the landlord,

and will give judgment for costs against the tenant. Either party may appeal within 10 days of the judgment.

If judgment is for landlord and tenant appeals and wishes to stay on the premises until the determination on appeal, tenant must:

1.

file an affidavit with the District Court that his appeal is not for the purpose of delaying the eviction;
2.

file sufficient bond with one or more securities, with the condition that he will diligently prosecute the appeal;
3.

pay all rent in arrears and all court costs in the case; and
4.

pay all losses or damages which landlord may suffer as a result of tenant remaining in possession.

The appellate court will set a day for the hearing not less than five nor more than fifteen days after application is made. Notice must be served on the other party or his counsel at least five days before the hearing.

Last date legally reviewed: 3/17/08 (PLL/M.A.J.)

Source: Baltimore Neighborhoods (BNI) - See main Landlord Tenant section for more information on BNI. Updated by the Maryland State Law Library, (MSLL).

 

[GRB]

I disagree. SCOTUS just ruled that you cannot regulate firearms in a place of residence. So the contract is illegal and even if you sign it would be null and void as you cannot sign away a constutional rights.

Sorry but you lack an understanding of Constitutional Law. What you are saying has nothing to do with the decision in Heller, and that decision has nothing to do with private property rights versus firearms' rights.

 

[ArmedBear]

If you sign the lease with that clause in it, keep a gun on the premises and the landlord finds out, you will no doubt be evicted.

That would depend on MD law.

However, one has to ask, "So what?"

You get evicted, at worst. (Many boilerplate leases have stuff in them that nobody cares about or pays any attention to. That's the real world.)

You won't: go to jail, pay a fine, be flogged, castrated or waterboarded.

You might, at worst, have to move out.

Big
F---ing
Deal.

The alternative is never to move in. So what would you be losing?

Do whatever you want. But some of you people sound like kindergarteners afraid of what's going to be on your permanent record.

How does the real world work?

Landlord wants to avoid legal liability. Landlord downloads boilerplate lease from dontpayalawyer.com and sends it to you. Landlord wants your rent. Evictions are messy and can be expensive. You won't be waving your gun around. He can't come looking for it because you have legal right to "quiet enjoyment" of the property while you lease it.

Nobody wants to evict you if you pay your rent and don't bother anybody. No sane landlord is looking for a reason to evict tenants who pay market-rate rent on time and don't bother anyone.

Again, do what you want. But the worst thing that can happen is you find another place.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...However, one has to ask, "So what?"

You get evicted, at worst....

[1] I believe that an eviction will show up on a credit report. Since most landlords, at least those I'm familiar with, require credit reports on a prospective tenant, a history of having been evicted may impair one's ability to rent in the future. It could also impair one's ability to secure credit in the future.

[2] Most leases include a clause permitting the prevailing party in any litigation (like an eviction) regarding the lease to collect attorney fees and costs. If a landlord evicts you, he would most likely obtain a judgment against you for his attorney fees and costs. That judgment will appear on your credit report. If it remains unpaid, that fact will also appear on your credit report. It will impair your ability to obtain credit.

[3] If you have a job, the judgment can be used to garnish your wages until the judgment is paid. Employers don't like dealing with garnishments. It's a hassle.

In short, one can not expect a history of having been evicted to do him any good.

 

[ArmedBear]

Real world: nobody will actually do this stuff to someone who doesn't refuse to leave the premises while not paying rent. A PITA and nobody expects to get any money from an evicted tenant. Dinging his FICO might be fun, but it's not very profitable. And it might be fraudulent, if someone reports that someone was evicted for not paying the rent, when he DID pay the rent.

If landlord really wants you out, you can most likely leave by mutual agreement.

Personally, I'd want to rent elsewhere, and tell this landlord why -- he will probably not like losing a prospective tenant since time is money, so maybe he'll rethink the lease.

But if I needed a place, and this was the only one, I wouldn't be shaking in my boots either.

 

[MT GUNNY]

I feel this has to be Illegal, Its like saying you cant live here if you drive a Ford!

 

[Frank Ettin]

Real world: nobody will actually do this stuff...

I don't know where you get this stuff, but I've known plenty of landlords who routinely and vigorously pursue every available remedy and a number of lawyers who have made a good living helping them do so.

...he will probably not like losing a prospective tenant since time is money,...

It depends on the market. If it's soft, you may be right. But if there's a shortage of rental property and the landlord has a long waiting list, he's probably not going to be interested in dealing. I have no idea what the market situation is in the relevant part of Maryland. Do you?

 

[Frank Ettin]

I feel this has to be Illegal, Its like saying you cant live here if you drive a Ford!

Actually, it probably isn't illegal to refuse to rent to someone who drives a Ford (or Chevy, etc.). Discrimination in private business transactions is, in fact, generally legal, except for discrimination on grounds expressly prohibited by statute, such as race, religion, age (with some exceptions), gender, national origin, and sexual orientation. Discrimination because of the kind of car you drive isn't good business, but not illegal. Discrimination on some other grounds, e. g., you have no money or income, may make good business sense and is still legal.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I feel this has to be Illegal, Its like saying you cant live here if you drive a Ford!

That's legal, too. Ford drivers are not statutorily protected against discrimination. If a Chebby driver doesn't want to rent to a Ford owner, he/she is perfectly able to refuse to do so.

 

[K-Romulus]

Advice re:Wheaton and Rockville

DO NOT move to Wheaton. It is the 'hood of MoCO - I know because I have to commute from the Wheaton metro station every day.

The part of "Rockville" that is east of Rt 355, south of Rt28 and north of the Beltway is just as bad.
Same for the Langley Park border area near PG County. I wouldn't live in Germantown, either.

Peruse the Gazette or Washington Post weekly crime reports to see what I mean about any of these places.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

Agreed. I love it how we're always so quick to crank up the battle cry when someone infringes on our rights, yet when it's the other way around, it's suddenly no big deal.

And before anyone starts going on about "it's not hurting anyone, what they don't know won't hurt them, blah, blah, blah..." that's not the point. The point is that it's their property, and they get to make the rules. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to hang your hat. Now, if you're already living there and then they change up the rules, that's another story. But if you haven't signed a lease, and you know they don't want/allow guns - either accept it, or keep looking. Simple, huh?

What if the "no firearms" clause becomes so standard in a city or state that it's nearly impossible to find an acceptable rental place to live that allows firearms?

 

[Frank Ettin]

What if the "no firearms" clause becomes so standard in a city or state that it's nearly impossible to find an acceptable rental place to live that allows firearms?

[1] First, there's the good old "free market."

If there's an excess of rental property on the market and a fair number of prospective tenants are gun owners, a "no guns" clause puts a landlord at a competitive disadvantage. You probably wouldn't see a wide spread use of "no guns" clauses in that sort of market.

If residential rentals are in short supply, there's high demand, and there are a lot of anti-gun landlord, you may see more use of "no guns" clauses. But then again, if a lot of people looking for rental housing are gun owners, it could be a great time for pro-gun folks to acquire property and put it into the rental market -- without "no guns" clauses. Pro-gun landlords could gain a very valuable competitive advantage marketing to gun owners in that sort of market.

Of course, if there are very few gun owners looking for rentals in a largely anti-gun community, the gun owners just might need to save their money to buy homes or look for somewhere more hospitable to live.

[2] Second, there's the legislative approach.

Gun owners could lobby for legislation prohibiting "no guns" clauses in residential leases. Apparently at least one state already has such a law on the books. Of course, successfully doing something like this requires a fair degree of political savvy and that gun owners be a significant political and economic force in the state.

Of course, the legislative solution can be tough. Here, "no pet" clauses in leases are common. Yet a compelling argument can be made that folks ought to be able to enjoy the companionship of a pet. Nonetheless, for years lobbying groups have been unsuccessful getting a law enacted to prohibit "no pet" clauses, even if the law would permit a landlord to require a pet owner to put up an additional deposit to cover any damage a pet might cause.

[3] And you are free to work hard, save your money and buy a house so you won't be subject to the vagaries of the residential rental market; to move somewhere you can more easily afford to buy; or move to where landlords are more welcoming of gun owners.

[4] It may be inconvenient at times, but that's the price we pay for freedom. I'd rather pay that price than the price of even more government meddling.

 

[kingpin008]

Pretty much what he said.

 

[BAT1]

Scratch the clause and mail it back. Keep looking. That place is probably owned by some anti. If they cancel, good. I've rented to LEO's in the past, they asked about that and I said you're welcome here. The pre-screening should rule out felons and such. Find another place where LEO's live. Every family has the right to defend their selves.

 

[joffe]

Scrap their offer and make sure you tell them in no uncertain terms why they lost your business and potentially a lot of other tenants as well.

 

[Ianp240]

Why not add a clause:-

That the landlord by denying your inalienable right to defend yourself or your family hereby accepts total and full responsibility for the safety and security of you and your family in any such event or happening, on or off his premises, and that if you or your family are injured or killed and are not in a position to sue his or her then your immediate family will take on the law suit.

Nothing like making them pay for restricting your right to self defense.

 

[ArmedBear]

I've known plenty of landlords who routinely and vigorously pursue every available remedy and a number of lawyers who have made a good living helping them do so.

For silent, invisible, behind-close-doors violations of clauses in boilerplate leases, where there is no damage to the structure, no complaints from other tenants, and the rent is being paid on time?

In what alternate reality would that be?

Your above post also assumes that the landlord has to evict someone. If the landlord informs a tenant that he has to move out, and he says, "Okay, I'll move out," NONE of the scenario you made up could happen. There would be no legal proceedings, nothing to pursue, no reason to report anything to a credit reporting agency. Zero, nada.

I know that your objective is to defend your original assertion come hell or high water. Enjoy yourself. You're having to invent extreme eviction scenarios, though, because as long as the tenant doesn't actively cause trouble if caught, refuse to leave, refuse to pay, etc., then you can't claim that, other than having to move, he will suffer any great loss -- because he won't. And that's assuming that the landlord would have any interest in enforcing the clause at all, which is dubious to begin with.

 

[kingpin008]

Why not add a clause:-

That the landlord by denying your inalienable right to defend yourself or your family hereby accepts total and full responsibility for the safety and security of you and your family in any such event or happening, on or off his premises, and that if you or your family are injured or killed and are not in a position to sue his or her then your immediate family will take on the law suit.

Because they're not denying your inalienable right to self-defense. You can defend yourself with a candlestick, a knife, a heavy book, a baseball bat, fists & feet, etc, etc. Not having access to a gun =/= defenseless.

 

[Thernlund]

Wow. You all are still at it, eh?

Topics like this always bring out the THR Stilt-walking Team.

Evictions are expensive. It's highly unlikely you'll get evicted. Most likely, as ArmedBear says, they'd do awful lot to avoid evicting you, especially if you're an otherwise good tenant.

Telling them "in no uncertain terms that they lost your business" might make you feel good if you're that kind of person, but at the end of the day they shrug and forget all about you, and you're still homeless.

I think some people think that a personal boycott is gonna make them chase you as you walk out the door begging for your forgiveness. Then when they don't get it they sit in a corner and cry their eyes out for hours.

Trust this: Say they lost your business and you'll be forgotten in about 5 minutes. You're going to be bothered over it alot longer than they are.

The high road is nice and all, but when it conflicts with common sense, don't be silly. Choose common sense.


-T.