Apartment lease ban on guns California

[NASCAR_MAN]

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]

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]

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!

Got any other names you want to call me?

NASCAR

 

[Ed Ames]

Not really. Just seems kinda ironic that you would be claiming righteousness and boasting of lying in the same paragraph.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

a stereotype fulfilled

 

[BryanP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It is a business decision

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]

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]

I'm so sad. No one wants to respond to my office building owner scenario. I wonder why.

K

 

[Ed Ames]

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]

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]

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]

Here's a question:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I love the logic here. by most people's reasoning, I should be able to conduct a pro-Hillary rally in their front yard. [sarcasm] hey, it's my first amendment right afterall and they (the property owner) cannot prevent me from exercising that. [/sarcasm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.