Can Apartment Complexes Ban Guns?

[Birch Knoll]

As far as I know, you don't have to be a protected class to be discriminated against.

'As far as you know" is the operative phrase here. No, you don't have to be a protected class to be discriminated against, but only discrimination against protected classes is illegal.

 

[Zoogster]

I recall several public housing apartment buildings have had their gun bans overturned after the Heller and McDonald case.
And some public housing is private owned.

The government cannot contribute to discrimination of a Constitutional right, which firearm ownership has been declared, again, post Heller and McDonald.


Similarly though having nothing to do with the Constitution and rights, colleges and universities must teach a certain curriculum if they take any students receiving financial assistance or other government money. They lose their ability to teach whatever it is that they want to.



As for private dwellings, well there certainly could be valid legal challenges.
I think a lease stating a person had to abide by certain religious conduct, or not exercise their first amendment by refraining from talking about prohibited subjects, would be found unenforceable if taken to court.
The government still has to enforce the terms if it comes down to it, and the government is forbidden from doing so.
In some states it is more difficult to kick out tenants than in others. Some require a formal eviction process that can take months. Although on private property they can typically kick someone out if they don't want them living there, irregardless of the reason. They would simply have a hard time recouping certain compensation in court if the landlord claimed losses if the reason they kicked them out was for exercising a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As far as I know, you don't have to be a protected class to be discriminated against. Discrimination can be based on literally anything,..... Discrimination is discrimination.

But in general, discrimination is entirely lawful. For a more complete explanation see post 28.

...Discrimination can be based on literally anything, and you can tell me that it's not legally defined, but plenty of lawsuits have said otherwise....

This is not true. What evidence do you have to support your claim here? Can you cite lawsuits in which someone successfully sued a private person or entity for discrimination on some basis not expressly prohibited by statute?

...They would simply have a hard time recouping certain compensation in court if the landlord claimed losses if the reason they kicked them out was for exercising a Constitutionally protected right.

Really? Why? Citations? On the other hand, SCOTUS said (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991)):

...constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. ... One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....

 

[gofastman]

I've owned my own home for the last ten years, but am relocating to Bethesda, MD. I will rent for a few years, as I'm not sure I will like it there.

I was wondering if apartment complexes can LEGALLY ban firearms from the apartments. I haven't seen the lease yet, but I'm thinking in advance. I have to buy a safe now. I had a secret room in my old house and didn't have to worry. If the management sees a safe being delivered, they will know I have guns.

Anyone know for sure? I saw old threads on this, but I'm not sure if things have changed.

a landlord may NOT ban guns from an appartment in MN.

 

[njlawman]

Bobson - not correct. As ttolhurst points out you are violating private agreement. Not the law - there would be zero legal ramifications, unless they called the polic on you for disorderly conduct if you failed to leave due to the agreed upon policy. There would be no gun violations.

 

[jmstevens2]

I doubt owning a gun(s) would make any difference on renter/homeowner's insurance, it doesn't affect mine. As far a not allowing flammables I guess one couldn't fry anything in oil then. I suspect a lot of your clothes or newspapers are flammable. Flammables is a pretty vague classification. Why do you wish your lease stated no guns?

Actually it is not vague at all. It is defined in the fire code. Cooking oils are combustible, not flammable. It has to do with flash point. Flammable liquids are restricted in multi families by the fire code. The apartment complex has no choice there. The mention in the lease is to inform you not to restrict you. You are already restricted by law. Clothing also is not flammable it is also combustible.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...you are violating private agreement. Not the law - there would be zero legal ramifications,...

It's not entirely correct to say that there would be no legal ramifications. True, there would only very rarely be any criminal law issues. BUT if you violate any terms of a lease you are subject to eviction, which means --

1. If you don't leave when asked, the landlord will go to court to get an eviction order.
   
   
2. If the landlord goes to court for an eviction order and wins, you will probably have a judgment against you for at least the costs incurred by the landlord in getting that order.
   
   
3. If after the landlord gets an eviction order you fail to pay the judgment and return the apartment or house you leased, the landlord can have the sheriff seize the property and assets sufficient to satisfy the judgment (e. g., you wages can be garnished).
   
   
4. I believe that an eviction will be noted on your credit report and may affect your ability to (1) rent another place to live; (2) get a loan; and (3) get a job.

 

[brickeyee]

In general, discrimination is perfectly legal.

The only discrimination that is illegal is against the 'protected classes' that have been identified by law.

Race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, etc.

Any other group is fair game.

 

[xquercus]

I think a lease stating a person had to abide by certain religious conduct, or not exercise their first amendment by refraining from talking about prohibited subjects, would be found unenforceable if taken to court.

In the first case, you are absolutely correct. Though this goes back to the civil rights act of 1968 -- not the constitution as some might claim. The '68 act is the foundation of fair housing law in the United States and any landlord who expects to stay in business knows that, as far as housing is concerned, discrimination based on religion is prohibited. Catholics, Christian Scientists, atheists, etc. are all protected classes. On the other hand, I don't know of anything which would prevent a rental agreement from preventing the discussion of a certain topic. One probably can't prevent discussion of a religious topic, as that would likely violate the '68 civil rights act. On the other hand, I suspect a rental agreement which prohibited the discussion of firearms would be entirely enforceable. There is no protection of speech when it comes to private party contracts. A renter always has the option of simply not agreeing and finding other housing. Protection of speech only restricts political entities (the government) and agents thereof.

My rental agreements prohibit smoking. I've seen other agreements which prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Smokers and drinkers are not protected classes so this type of discrimination is perfectly legal. Likewise, in the states I'm familiar with, gun owners are not a protected class. As such, I believe prohibiting firearms by rental agreement would be enforceable.

 

[Ash_J_Williams]

'As far as you know" is the operative phrase here. No, you don't have to be a protected class to be discriminated against, but only discrimination against protected classes is illegal.

"As far as I know," IE, "I'm not a lawyer." Yourself?

 

[Frank Ettin]

'As far as you know" is the operative phrase here. No, you don't have to be a protected class to be discriminated against, but only discrimination against protected classes is illegal.

"As far as I know," IE, "I'm not a lawyer." Yourself?

I don't know about ttolhurst, but I am a lawyer. Ttolhurst is correct.

 

[Birch Knoll]

"As far as I know," IE, "I'm not a lawyer." Yourself?

Nope. Does that make me wrong?

 

[Ash_J_Williams]

I don't know about ttolhurst, but I am a lawyer. Ttolhurst is correct.

Then I stand corrected. That doesn't mean that someone couldn't sue for discrimination and win.

 

[Birch Knoll]

It's certainly true you can bring a lawsuit. Anybody can, for any reason. All you have to do is fill out the paperwork and pay a fee. If you wanna win, though, it helps to have the law on your side. "It's unfair!" isn't a winning argument.

Somebody once said that in every lawsuit there are four parties: The plaintiff, the defendant, the plaintiff's attorney and the defendant's attorney. In every lawsuit, there are two winners and two losers...

The lawyers never lose.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I don't know about ttolhurst, but I am a lawyer. Ttolhurst is correct.

Then I stand corrected. That doesn't mean that someone couldn't sue for discrimination and win.

Actually it essentially means that he will not win unless --

1. The plaintiff was discriminated against on a basis that is specifically prohibited by statute (e. g., race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, etc.).
   
   
2. The defendant is a person or entity expressly prohibited from discriminating on such grounds (e. g., employer, business open to the public, landlord, etc.).
   
   
3. The defendant doesn't have some recognized defense to the charge of discrimination. For example, an employer may discriminate on the basis of gender when gender is a bona fide occupational requirement (thus it's been ruled that a hospital may refuse to hire male nurses to work in maternity wards). Also, don't bother trying to join the Knight of Columbus unless you're a practicing Catholic.

The bottom line is that it is generally perfectly legal to discriminate unless it's been specifically made illegal.