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.
