Apartment office with no gun sign

[ApacheCoTodd]

Common "nanny" re-print in Arizona.

All these weirdos in Arizona started re-printing and plastering these everywhere in response to the Governor's pro-firearms stance early in her first term.

In most cases, the "Arizona Revised Statute" does not actually apply and it defaults to the establishment's ownership/management declaring a personal point of view.

Me? I honor their wishes and have on more than one occasion thanked them for the clarity and asked them if they thought "your alternative business here" was a fine alternative business establishment?

You... that's just the administrative offices and I'll bet it is not the perspective of the ownership.

We have commercial properties around "the Valley" and every now and again we will have individual suite occupants attempt to impose their personal points of view upon the entire property.

You can imagine how well that goes over.

 

[Sunray]

It wouldn't take long to find contact info for the building owner. That'll likely be in public records in City Hall. Quite possibly through a net search or via the local land lords assoc.
In any case, the only important part is what your lease says.
I'd be open carrying, if that's legal where you are, in that office and hoping the building manager said something. I very much doubt a building manager has any legal right to put up a sign like that.

 

[Arp32]

You don't need to go anywhere to find the owner. OP, if you are interested, just google "maricopa assessor gis" and you'll find a map. Zoom in on the town lake until you find your apartment. Click on the parcel and it will list the owner. Probably an LLC in some other state.

 

[hammerklavier]

Interesting statute. I like how you can walk on in with your firearm to make sure they also have the sign posted by the liquor license. It also appears someone from another state can simply ignore such signs.

 

[george burns]

I don't live in Arizona, but routinely there is a big difference between your Residence, and Their office. The office is owned by a private company who apparently "for lack of information" employs a manager, who may have no legal rights to put up such a sign. He could just as easily have put up a sign that said, "No Hats".
Unless the owner is aware and in agreement that these are his policy it is not legal, "you need to check with the owner".
Also the laws governing the possession of a handgun, differ greatly from a Residence, even a House, Condo, or rental have different rules.
Yours may not be the same as mine so I could read your permit booklet or google it on the states website.
Normally you can have the weapon in the home, car and place of business without a license other than being a legal resident in my state. Common areas are tricky, like getting to and from your car, unless you have a CCW, or whatever your state calls it.
But what it sounds like is it applies only to the office, "if that", you need to check. Sometimes managers will overstep corporate policy, and try to dictate their own view, which the owner may not even know about.
You needed to check this stuff first, as we are assuming a lot here. It may be nothing but a pissy guys personal preference, or it could be enforceable, although it probably won't effect you if you were grandfathered in under you old lease.
You can't take peoples money and make new rules afterwards. You can if they are signing a new lease, or an addendum, but otherwise I highly doubt it.
I would call immediately and ask for a written confirmation from the owner or their attorney.
Sometimes that alone will prompt a phone call to the manager and tell him to remove the sign, as you may not be the only one who is calling. They don't want to lose tenants .

 

[Blue Brick]

No guns here....per the apartment lease

http://www.thealanteattheislands.com/

 

[Arizona_Mike]

No guns here....per the apartment lease

http://www.thealanteattheislands.com/

Warner and McQueen. Note to criminals.

Mike

 

[Frank Ettin]

... that's just the administrative offices and I'll bet it is not the perspective of the ownership....

That might not be such a good bet. There's a fair chance that the owner is a limited partnership or corporation, perhaps owning properties in multiple cities in multiple States. If that's the case, local management might have wide latitude with regard to on-site operational policy and practices as long as cost and revenue expectations are met.

The thing is that we just don't know, and we really can't make assumptions.

 

[paintballdude902]

is it in your lease? if not then i would keep on keeping on

 

[Indigo22]

No guns here....per the apartment lease

http://www.thealanteattheislands.com/

On their web site you can submit a review if you click on the "What You'll Love" section then scroll down and look on the right side of the page. Not sure if comments are reviewed prior to posting or not... likely are. Enough negative banter may change policy though.

 

[TimeIsRunninOut]

Apartments just gave us a 30-day notice of new policy adoption. We are no longer allowed to carry a firearm on the property. We have to have a locked case to transport are firearms from my apartment to an off premises location. I have only a locking safe, no locking transport cases as I have always used my manufactures case to move my firearm from one place to another under my own supervision. From what I understand in the new rules being put in place on September 27th, I have to remove my firearms from the premises. Anyone with advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[danez71]

Apartments just gave us a 30-day notice of new policy adoption. We are no longer allowed to carry a firearm on the property. We have to have a locked case to transport are firearms from my apartment to an off premises location. I have only a locking safe, no locking transport cases as I have always used my manufactures case to move my firearm from one place to another under my own supervision. From what I understand in the new rules being put in place on September 27th, I have to remove my firearms from the premises. Anyone with advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

I know quite a bit about the AZ landlord tenant laws.

Are you in the middle of a lease or are you month to month?


To find the owners ..... http://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/

 

[george burns]

At this point, if you intend on staying there, you need to speak to other tenements who may be like minded, and file a "stay", while you take this to court.
If you can get a sympathetic pro gun attorney, you can maybe save some money. But this is still probably going to cost some money. You need to see legally if he has the right to change the lease on pre existing tenants, "maybe a lawyer will tell you for free", I have run into some "good guys" who would at least tell you if you had a shot at this or if you were wasting your time.
Things like if he can do this, are not the question, obviously he can, but he may have to compensate you for moving or wait for your existing lease to expire.
I would ask my neighbors, and see what the climate is around the complex, you are going to find that there is a strong possibility that someone complained to management. If enough people are pro gun, it may turn the tables back in your favor. No landlord likes having a dozen or so apartments vacant, for any amount of time, and if you cannot comply, they would have to let you out of your lease. There are ways of non compliance that will fly in court
Things like you were threatened by someone, or had a prior break in or home invasion.
He may get his way, but the judge may invalidate all of the leases, allowing people to leave at will, which he deserves for being a worm.

 

[200Apples]

We have to have a locked case to transport are firearms from my apartment to an off premises location. I have only a locking safe, no locking transport cases as I have always used my manufactures case to move my firearm from one place to another under my own supervision.

Can't you padlock the manufacturer's case?

 

[TimeIsRunninOut]

danez71, I have four months remaining on my lease. The new policy wont take effect till I have three months remaining. I found the company that owns the apartments are based out of California, but also have an office in the Phoenix area.

200Apples, None of my manufactures cases are locking and several came with a simple gun rug. I have a pistol locker for my guns, however removing that anytime I would like to transport my guns seems a bit obsessive.

The address that was found for Arizona is a lawyers office out of Phoenix Az and the one for Oakland Ca is a house.

GAMMAGE & BURHAM PLC
2 N CENTRAL 18TH FL
PHOENIX, AZ
85004


PARDI PROPERTIES LE MIRAGE LLC
863 PARAMOUNT RD
OAKLAND CA
94610- 2436

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Apartments just gave us a 30-day notice of new policy adoption.

Since this is a change to the lease agreement, I hope you have the option to leave without penalty? If I were a renter, that would be a deal breaker.

 

[Mman]

Move. Why stay living in a ripe field for mugging and burglary and pay rent to a landlord of such bad judgment?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Blackhawk diversion line of gun cases are pretty good. I own the red version of the Racquet Bag. Opposing zippers that are lockable.

Perfect for a SBR/SMG, rifle with stock folded, or an AR with the upper and lower on either side of the padded divider.

Mike

 

[danez71]

danez71, I have four months remaining on my lease. The new policy wont take effect till I have three months remaining. I found the company that owns the apartments are based out of California, but also have an office in the Phoenix area.

<snip>

The address that was found for Arizona is a lawyers office out of Phoenix Az and the one for Oakland Ca is a house.

GAMMAGE & BURHAM PLC
2 N CENTRAL 18TH FL
PHOENIX, AZ
85004


PARDI PROPERTIES LE MIRAGE LLC
863 PARAMOUNT RD
OAKLAND CA
94610- 2436

If you want, send me a copy of the notice or at least tell me if it mentions ARS 33-1342.

You need to get familiar with http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/PUBLICATIONS/Landlord Tenant Act.pdf

Ignore the hotel/mobile home section unless that's where you live.

Particularly, ARS 33-1342. That's probably the angle they are playing.... to adopt new rules in the middle of a lease to promote safety for the tenants.

It starts by saying:

§ 33-1342. Rules and regulations
A. A landlord, from time to time, may adopt rules or regulations, however described, concerning the tenant's use and occupancy of the premises. Such
rules or regulations are enforceable against the tenant only if:


1. Their purpose is to promote the convenience, safety
or welfare of the tenants in the premises, preserve the
landlord's property from abusive use or make a fair
distribution of services and facilities held out for the
tenants generally.
2. They are reasonably related to the purpose for
which adopted.
3. They apply to all tenants in the premises in a fair
manner.
4. They are sufficiently explicit in prohibition, direction
or limitation of the tenant's conduct to fairly inform the
tenant of what the tenant must or must not do to
comply.
5. They are not for the purpose of evading the
obligations of the landlord.
6. The tenant has notice of them at the time the tenant
enters into the rental agreement.

Then ARS 33-1342 (B) says:
B. A rule or regulation adopted after the tenant enters
into the rental agreement is enforceable against the
tenant if a thirty day notice of its adoption is given to
the tenant and it does not constitute a substantial
modification of the tenant's rental agreement.

Typically the AZ courts rule that a 30 Days Notice is 30 Days from the rent due date. IOW, if your rent is due on the 1st, they need to give you notice before the 1st. If the notice is on the 2nd, then they effectively gave a 59 Day notice to you. The same works the other way around when you give 30 Day notice to leave.

Send them a Certified Letter stating that the new rule "constitutes a substantial
modification of your rental agreement" and does not satisfy the requirements of ARS 33-1342

There is a fairly good chance that they may back off by the simple fact that you can cite ARS's from the Landlord Tenant Act.



Hopefully, there hasn't been any gun related police calls to your complex so you can argue that there hasn't been a gun related safety issue if you needed too.

Just an FYI, they have to give to 2 days notice to enter unless there is something else in the lease OR there is some type of emergency like water coming out your front door.

There is a really good chance that you can live out your lease and then move if you wanted to.

At the end of the lease period, they can do what ever they want.

Also, you may want to check to see if the "lawyers" offices hold a valid real-estate license in AZ. I can find the statute if you want but basically its AZ law that an out of state owner MUST have an AZ licensed real estate agent IN THE STATE to do the property management for them. That law came about from out of state slumlords.

 

[armoredman]

I posted some sections of law earlier.
I would also fight this, as A), the NRA has won lawsuits against housing projects for violations of this type,(admittedly government run) and B), this runs counter to state law. If they wish to open themselves to lawsuits for violations of state law, I suggest you contact the NRA, GOA and SAF, to invite them to investigate for possible lawsuit. If this was MY landlord, I'd be all over this like stink on feces...but my land lord is VERY pro 2A. VERY pro 2A - I'll ask him what he thinks about it. At the least i would immediately make plans to move, and make sure the whole area knows via internet and flyers that this apartment complex wishes its residents to be unarmed victims. Wonder if they could legally be held liable for actions committed against unarmed residents who signed leases prior to the implementation of this rule change? SAF might have some fun with that one. Just a random thought.
BTW, that link to that Atlantea Apartments - this alone would turn me off,

Pet Policy. 2 pets Max , Height Max 36" -no aggressive breeds accepted

Define "aggressive breed"...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the NRA has won lawsuits against housing projects for violations of this type,(admittedly government run)...

Which make all the difference. As I noted previously, the Constitution regulates the conduct of government, not private entities.

....this runs counter to state law. If they wish to open themselves to lawsuits for violations of state law, I suggest you contact the NRA, GOA and SAF, to invite them to investigate for possible lawsuit....

Exactly how?

One law you posted earlier, ARS 13-3102, is inapposite and really has nothing to do with whether a private landlord may a lease limit of restrict the possession of guns in one's apartment, or by property rule limit of restrict possession of guns in public/common areas.

ARS 33-1342 relates to the landlord reserving by lease the right to adopt of change rules and regulations, as long as they do:

...not constitute a substantial modification of the tenant's rental agreement.

So the question becomes whether the adoption of a "no guns" rule is a substantial modification of the tenant's rental agreement. Certainly that would be the argument; but absent a ruling of an Arizona court of appeal to the that effect it can not be a foregone conclusion that it is.

So unless you can cite an Arizona court of appeals decision supporting your contention, or other applicable legal authority, you have no basis upon which to assert as a matter of fact that the landlord's action here:

...runs counter to state law...

At best what the OP has here is a decent reason to consider engaging a qualified Arizona lawyer to do the research and provide a professional opinion. It will, however, be fairly expensive.

...Send them a Certified Letter stating that the new rule "constitutes a substantial modification of your rental agreement" and does not satisfy the requirements of ARS 33-1342

There is a fairly good chance that they may back off by the simple fact that you can cite ARS's from the Landlord Tenant Act....

And that's a reasonable first step.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

There goes Frank, pulling out all that lawyer stuff again.

 

[danez71]

There goes Frank, pulling out all that lawyer stuff again.

I was going to edit my post again last night but forgot to.... Franks post reminded me of something I wanted to say.



Yeaaaa.... what Frank said.

Particularly his comments about 'until a judge rules'. It cant be stressed enough.

Keep my above post within context. Everything I have said or try to predict is based on my 1st hand personal experience in front of AZ judges for AZ tenant laws as a Plaintiff in said court cases.

A judge could just as easily rule it doesn't substantially alter the lease as rule that it does.



If the OP sends the letter to the landlord, they may back off... but I would fully expect the landlord to give OP a notice to Not Renew Lease.


Me.. personally...., I'd send the landlord the letter AND plan on moving too.

 

[armoredman]

I would hazard a guess that in a Constitutional Carry state, which you may or may not be familiar with, being in California, losing the right to carry a firearm in one's legally leased dwelling might be considered a "substantial modification of your rental agreement". I'm not a lawyer, (I just deal with their mistakes every day at work), so I don't know the fancy legal legwork, but I would think at the very least a person subjected to this "rule" should be able to terminate the lease and move out without penalty, at the very least. Perhaps I am completely wrong, been wrong before, will be wrong again, (ask my wife and my Captain), but being in THIS state, it ticks me off to the core of my twisted desert rat soul. Perhaps we need some of our 2A/Section 26 people up in Phoenix to address this little issue.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I would hazard a guess that in a Constitutional Carry state, which you may or may not be familiar with, being in California, losing the right to carry a firearm in one's legally leased dwelling might be considered a "substantial modification of your rental agreement"....

How nice that you guess. However, in the real world your guess doesn't mean anything.

In the real world one, when it comes to a legal question, one needs to be able to support an opinion with citation to applicable and controlling law. Absent that, a guess just a guess.

...I would think at the very least a person subjected to this "rule" should be able to terminate the lease and move out without penalty,...

Again, it's nice you think that. But, also again, without citation to applicable and controlling law it's still just a guess.

...it ticks me off to the core of my twisted desert rat soul...

And when it comes to legal issues that and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The bottom line is that in this case the change in policy at the OP's apartment complex regarding possession of a gun on premises may or may not constitute a
"material change to the terms of the rental agreement" so that it might not effectively be made by a rule change.

Personally I think there's a good enough chance that it will be considered such by a court to be worth some bit of further legal research. But if it turns out that the rule change is not effective, that result will be based on applicable and controlling Arizona case and statute law -- and not on Arizona being a constitutional carry State nor on your being ticked off.