Arrogant Bastard said:
What if the "no firearms" clause becomes so standard in a city or state that it's nearly impossible to find an acceptable rental place to live that allows firearms?
[1] First, there's the good old "free market."
If there's an excess of rental property on the market and a fair number of prospective tenants are gun owners, a "no guns" clause puts a landlord at a competitive disadvantage. You probably wouldn't see a wide spread use of "no guns" clauses in that sort of market.
If residential rentals are in short supply, there's high demand, and there are a lot of anti-gun landlord, you may see more use of "no guns" clauses. But then again, if a lot of people looking for rental housing are gun owners, it could be a great time for pro-gun folks to acquire property and put it into the rental market -- without "no guns" clauses. Pro-gun landlords could gain a very valuable competitive advantage marketing to gun owners in that sort of market.
Of course, if there are very few gun owners looking for rentals in a largely anti-gun community, the gun owners just might need to save their money to buy homes or look for somewhere more hospitable to live.
[2] Second, there's the legislative approach.
Gun owners could lobby for legislation prohibiting "no guns" clauses in residential leases. Apparently at least one state already has such a law on the books. Of course, successfully doing something like this requires a fair degree of political savvy and that gun owners be a significant political and economic force in the state.
Of course, the legislative solution can be tough. Here, "no pet" clauses in leases are common. Yet a compelling argument can be made that folks ought to be able to enjoy the companionship of a pet. Nonetheless, for years lobbying groups have been unsuccessful getting a law enacted to prohibit "no pet" clauses, even if the law would permit a landlord to require a pet owner to put up an additional deposit to cover any damage a pet might cause.
[3] And you are free to work hard, save your money and buy a house so you won't be subject to the vagaries of the residential rental market; to move somewhere you can more easily afford to buy; or move to where landlords are more welcoming of gun owners.
[4] It may be inconvenient at times, but that's the price we pay for freedom. I'd rather pay that price than the price of even more government meddling.