Can a lease agreement prohibit gun possession?
- Thread starter iceman7708
- Start date
- Status
Brad Johnson
Member
brickeyee said:
You exact words, posted by you, April 30th, 2008, 04:56 PM
brickeyee said:
Your statement is a blanket one, advocating the intentional breaking of a binding and legally enforceable contract that was entered into voluntarily and with full knowledge. In other words, you are stating, in very plain terms, that you don't care about living up to your obligations. You only care about not getting caught. And we're not talking about a "possible" violation of a lease. We're talking about signing a lease knowing full will you intend to violate it.
I ask again,
Anything is okay as long as you get away with it?
It's his place, it's his business. If you want to rent his place then you play by his rules. To advocate otherwise, especially by subterfuge, and justify it as being okay as long as the landlord doesn't find out, is to advocate irresponsible, anti-social, and potentially criminal behavior.
If you ever wanted to know why people consider gun owners a little shady sometimes, some of the comments in this thread are a perfect example.
Brad
Johannes_Paulsen
Member
The Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not individuals. (As of this point in time, the Sup. Ct. has NOT incorporated it via the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the States.) Therefore, it is not possible for a private individual (i.e., someone not operating under color of government authority) to deny your second amendment rights. The only part of the Constitution that specifically limits activities by a private individual is the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlaws slavery.
I do not know if this clause would be enforceable under Colorado law, so you would be best off consulting an attorney licensed to practice in that State...but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be. My advice to you would be to take your business elsewhere at the earliest opportunity, making sure management knows why you're leaving. There's nothing forcing you to live there, no?
bogie
Member
Brad, that's also assuming that the people making those comments are actually gun owners, and not folks assigned to rouse the rabble on this forum.
I swear some of the comments I've seen lately from some newer folks could be straight out of the Brady playbook.
I swear some of the comments I've seen lately from some newer folks could be straight out of the Brady playbook.
RNB65
Member
I'm afraid that I have to politely disagree with your assessment. Nothing suggested has been remotely illegal as long as the OP can legally own firearms. And apartment lease agreements are filled with page after page of lawyer mandated CYA clauses intended to protect the property owner from civil liability. I have no problem with violating a few of those lease clauses if I consider them to be unreasonable and I'm not creating a safety hazard in doing so.
-
Last edited:
blackcash88
member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 885
+1 if it's not illegal. One lease said I couldn't store more than X amount of flammable liquids in my apartment. Screw 'em. I flew R/C aircraft and had multiple gallons of fuel ranging from 15-30% nitro. 
Brad Johnson
Member
bogie said:
I noticed that, too. Makes you shake your head sometimes.
RNB65 said:
Correct, but it also means that clause is a legally enforceable condition willingly signed and agreed to by both parties. It was known to be part of the agreement before the agreement was signed. Not abiding by those terms because it's a "CYA clause" is selfish justification for not playing by the rules you knowingly agreed to.
RNB65 said:
Violating a lease clause is, in essence, breaking a promise. Except in this case the promise is in writing. Making a promise knowing that it isn't going to kept is called someting. A lie.
Brad
Blackbeard
Member
This is like having a contract with your cable TV operator that you won't wear brown shoes while watching their network. So what if you do? Are they going to cut off your cable for wearing brown shoes? Did you "lie" to the cable company knowing that you've got a closet full of hush puppies?
The only remedies at law available to the landlord are monetary damages or eviction. What damages is he going to show by you having firearms in your apartment? He could choose to void the contract and evict you, but why would he? Unless it's a rent-controlled building, he'd only be costing himself more money.
I'm not swearing before God when I sign the rental agreement. I don't sign my name in blood. I don't have to commit seppuku at dawn for breaking the terms of the lease.
Brad Johnson
Member
But you did give your word, in writing even, knowing that you intended to break it. A lie by another name is still a lie.
Brad
Cosmoline
Member
Generally speaking, he does, but the problem arises when he asks the STATE to use its power to enforce his personal law, in the form of an FED action or other suit.
Cosmoline
Member
Who is suggesting that tenants violate the law? You seem to be confusing boilerplate in a lease with the law. Those are two very different things. There's nothing "anti-social" about breaking foolish lease terms. Nor is it a "lie" to sign an adhesion contract knowing you won't abide by some of its terms. These are not freely negotiated contracts.
I would have no more qualms about violating anti-gun provisions in a lease than violating "no Mormon" clauses or "no Jew" clauses. The lease term is itself morally repugnant, and represents the same effort by landlords to control the personal lives of tenants as the other referenced terms. And if you're not free to eliminate it from the document, you can at least undermine it. Any landlord who would put such a term in the lease deserves a lot worse than a harmless breach.
Boyo, people have answered this multiple times. Not everything is okay as long as you can get away with it. Many things, such as setting up a meth lab, are illegal, immoral and pose an imminent safety risk to your neighbors. But bringing firearms into your own home in spite of lease terms (or for that matter restrictive CC&R's) is neither illegal nor morally repugnant. It's possible a landlord or homeowners association (in the case of CC&R's) will take steps against you if you violate the terms. But it's unlikely and if it comes to that you can always leave.
To use another example, breaking an anti-firearm lease provision or property covenant is no different from buying gun parts using pay pal or ebay. Breaking an unjust clause isn't morally wrong. It isn't even illegal. It just angers the jerk who wrote the term, but that makes it all the better.
So now you can stop repeating the same question.
I have no problem lying to some anti-gun landlord trying to subvert longstanding cultural traditions with lease provisions. Such a person does not have any right to my respect, nor do they have any right to know if I have firearms--let alone to force me to disarm. I'd personally avoid renting from them but sometimes you have little choice. A college kid just starting out, for example.
Or for example if I moved into some lower 48 neighborhood with anti-gun CC&R's on the property books, I wouldn't see anything unethical about moving my firearms there. Indeed if you own property you ought to take a look at your CC&R's. Folks would be shocked to see all the provisions they're supposed to be abiding by. Many older neighborhoods still have covenants banning blacks! I suspect you could find some back east banning Irishmen.
Blackbeard
Member
I suppose all the pet owners who violate their leases by keeping a cat are also considered "shady" sometimes. At least there's a valid reason for banning pets (noise, smell, damage to the unit). Unless you shoot holes in the walls there's no ill effects from having guns in your unit.
stevelyn
Member
Apples and oranges. Pets are live creatures with a brain and instincts of their own, capable of acting independently of their owners.
Guns are inanimate objects that'll just sit there until you pick it up and place it into operation.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
"Generally speaking, he does, but the problem arises when he asks the STATE to use its power to enforce his personal law, in the form of an FED action or other suit.
for some reason you imagine a landlord should be denied recourse through the courts? why?
for some reason you imagine a landlord should be denied recourse through the courts? why?
rbernie
Contributing Member
And I imagine that they will continue to be, so long as nobody actually does anything silly like COMPLAIN or suggest that they'd vote with their feet rather that sign an obviously rancid contract. When a landlord starts getting the feeling that their income stream may be perturbed by clauses that are largely throw-away, maybe that clause eventually gets thrown away.
There is a subtle war on against the gun culture every day, portraying gunnies as a danger to those around them. In my opinion, if we don't start actually participating in push-back against the negative stereotypes of gun owners, in another generation we won't HAVE a gun culture.
A few followups on Cosmoline's wise and accurate post.
What the hell is "anti-social" anyway? That's got to be one of the silliest accusations I've ever seen.
"Anti-social" means going to an underground poetry reading or playing video games instead of going to the prom.
And "illegal"? There's nothing illegal about doing something that's not against the law.
Furthermore, what people don't seem to "get" is that the landlord is also "lying." The whole thing is a lie, and grownups understand this.
The landlord really wants to agree to a few things:
1. You pay the rent on time so he can pay his own bills.
2. He never hears about you from other tenants, unless it's "What a considerate, polite, respectful guy you found for Apartment Q!"
3. You don't sue him, or give cause anyone else to sue him.
That's about it. Everything else is inherently disingenuous. Sure, as a libertarian, one might figure that the landlord can stipulate what sex positions you can use if you want to rent his bedroom. But as a grownup, I know that, unless he is certifiably insane, the landlord doesn't give a ****.
There's a two-way understanding here, about what is really being promised, and by whom. Our court system and the boilerplate leases people use may cause different words to be used, but it's a lot of BS. The real agreement, understood by both sides, is as above.
Sometimes, I think that there are people here, people who are clearly intelligent and articulate, who know about as much about the real, adult world and what goes on in it as if they were born sometime last March. I don't get it.
What the hell is "anti-social" anyway? That's got to be one of the silliest accusations I've ever seen.
"Anti-social" means going to an underground poetry reading or playing video games instead of going to the prom.
And "illegal"? There's nothing illegal about doing something that's not against the law.
Furthermore, what people don't seem to "get" is that the landlord is also "lying." The whole thing is a lie, and grownups understand this.
The landlord really wants to agree to a few things:
1. You pay the rent on time so he can pay his own bills.
2. He never hears about you from other tenants, unless it's "What a considerate, polite, respectful guy you found for Apartment Q!"
3. You don't sue him, or give cause anyone else to sue him.
That's about it. Everything else is inherently disingenuous. Sure, as a libertarian, one might figure that the landlord can stipulate what sex positions you can use if you want to rent his bedroom. But as a grownup, I know that, unless he is certifiably insane, the landlord doesn't give a ****.
There's a two-way understanding here, about what is really being promised, and by whom. Our court system and the boilerplate leases people use may cause different words to be used, but it's a lot of BS. The real agreement, understood by both sides, is as above.
Sometimes, I think that there are people here, people who are clearly intelligent and articulate, who know about as much about the real, adult world and what goes on in it as if they were born sometime last March. I don't get it.
The discussion is about a particular clause in a lease that may or may not comport with applicable state law (and I am not going to try and research, the OP can hire a lawyer if he thinks the clause may be invalid).
Try and confine your thinking to this idea of a lease clause involving a prohibition of firearms and you will make more sense.
We are not discussing things that may actually cause damage to the landlord like pets or excessive occupants.
You are a perfect example of why attorneys (and I am married to one) hate even trying to give answers without being paid $$ to exhaustively research the issue at question.
iceman7708
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4
Thanks everybody for responding. I think that I will just keep my firearms in a small safe. Both of my roommates are fine with it and they too will be posessing firearms. My landlord has no legal right to search my personal property and if he ever asks what's in the safe i'll politely tell him to **** off.
This exact topic was the subject of a hotly debated thread a few weeks ago. While a lot of folks expressed deep resentment of landlords trying to deny "2nd Amendment rights," it's not really a Constitutional issue. It's a matter of contractual law. A lease agreement can stipulate all kinds of restrictions on the tenant other than things that might be specifically forbidden by state landlord/tenant laws. If there is a no gun clause in the lease, and the tenant signs it, he or she is bound by contract law to honor the provisions. If the tenant does something restricted by the lease, he or she may be subject to whatever penalties the lease provides, such as eviction
K
K
Flyboy
Member
This is probably the closest to the truth. F4GIB points out that Minnesota law prohibits such clauses. Many other states consider rented property--or at least rented living space--to carry the full battery of rights allowed a property owner on to the lessee, so it'd depend on your local situation.
To those who said that anything in the lease is enforceable, why don't you add a clause allowing you to kneecap anybody whose rent is late, and let me know how that works out for you. Alternatively, just take a look at your last (or sometimes penultimate) clause--the severability clause. If everything in the contract were enforceable, why would you need a clause stating what was to happen in the event a clause was found unenforceable?
The truth of the matter is that some rights cannot be signed away, and those rights vary by jurisdiction. Consult your (local) attorney for a solid answer.
As for those suggesting that it's unethical or dishonorable to sign a contract with the intent to break it, I agree with you up to the point that I know the clause is unenforceable--if I know the clause is bad on its face, I don't feel bound by it. For example, a lot of contracts include clauses indemnifying one party even in cases of gross negligence. These contracts are almost always completely unenforceable, but signing the contract means you promise not to sue even in the event of gross negligence. Would you feel bound by such a contract if, for example, your surgeon amputated the wrong leg (yes, it happens)? I sure wouldn't.
Yes, if they put it in he special provisions section, you look at it and sign it, it is enforceable. Sounds like they might of had problems before there, or they don't want any. I never put that clause in any of my lease signings, it was the yuppie part of town and well, I had a gun. If you have one, keep it locked up some where. [Safe] If they enter for maintenance, or pest control, they should leave an entry note. Those spot checks by the fire dept for fire alarms working is your main worry. Out of sight and out of mind.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Interesting moral code: If I read you correctly, your moral compass says it's okay to lie to the other guy if you think what he's asking you to sign away is not counter to YOUR idea of what's moral.ArmedBear said:
Are you okay with people lying to you when they think what you're asking is unreasoable according to THEIR idea of what's "right or wrong"?
This sort of begs the question: If the clause is such a stinker, why would you sign the contract in the first place? I wouldn't.Flyboy said:
Brad Johnson
Member
In which case he will probably tell you politely to get the **** out of his place.
The tenant mindset befuddles me sometimes. You are paying rent. You are living in someone else's place. They are, in exchange for money, allowing you to put your crap inside and habitate. All under the conditions agreed to in the contract.
For some reason many tenants think having a key means they suddenly think they own the damn place and can do whatever, whenever. Sometimes they have to be reminded, in court, that the name on the deed isn't theirs and their priviledges extend only as far as the lease contract allows for.
My best friend works in the student legal deparment at a university. She's show me the stats on their stuff. A big majority of their caseload is landlord/tenant disputes. When I asked her if there was a common factor among them she didn't hesitate... stupid renters. People will suddenly get the idea that the lease terms mean nothing and the landlord can kiss their behind if they don't like it. Nine times out of ten the tenant gets a nice reminder that, yes, they did sign a lease agreement and, yes, it does mean exactly what it says and, no, they don't own the place nor can they just do whatever the heck they want because they don't like the rules.
Just this afternoon one of my investor clients learned, much to their surprise, that one of their tenants has four dogs. The tenant, much to his surprise, now has a nice pet rent assessment, retroactive to day one of his lease. His parents, much to their surprise, just realized that they are also liable because they co-signed the lease, and that their "darling child" had lied to both them and the landlord about the dogs.
Want to guess what his justification was? "I thought it was stupid to make me pay pet rent. Yeah, so I like, lied a little when I said I didn't have dogs. I paying them rent anyway so what's their ****ing problem?"
Brad
- Status
Similar threads
