PDA

View Full Version : Illegal to own firearm in federal funded housing?


em9sredbeam
10-10-2011, 2:16 PM
My Girlfriend works at low inome housing, and at a meeting the company was saying that you cannot have guns on the property, like in your place/apartment that you are renting and paying for. It is just cheaper for people who qualify as low income. they still pay rent though. Property managers get an apartment for free, but cant store a gun at their own place? That can't be legal is it?

morfeeis
10-10-2011, 2:28 PM
My Girlfriend works at low inome housing, and at a meeting the company was saying that you cannot have guns on the property, like in your place/apartment that you are renting and paying for. It is just cheaper for people who qualify as low income. they still pay rent though. Property managers get an apartment for free, but cant store a gun at their own place? That can't be legal is it?
i heard of this before and from what i understand it's not legal. but don't worry i don't think they will find any legal firearms....

Shellshocker66
10-10-2011, 2:39 PM
I think you are asking if it is illegal for the company employing your girlfriend to enforce a no gun rule at her place of residence? Which her place of residence is owned by her employer?

I would imagine that a legal tenant who is paying rent would have a better time fighting that, then an employee who is receiving free housing and it is stipulated in their contract.

Some of the legal guru's will be along shortly to answer more definitively.

B.J.F.
10-10-2011, 2:46 PM
They cannot bar a person from owning or possessing a firearm in assisted housing as you have a right to defend yourself and family in your domicile even if you do not own it if its a monthly rental. Hotels, motels, places that charge daily rates can bar you from staying there or evict you from a "lodging" location with a 24 hour notice. I went through that with employee housing where they charged a daily rate to employees renting a house from the company.

Librarian
10-10-2011, 2:53 PM
For residents, that's an illegal requirement - see http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4305 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Montag_Doe_v._San_Francisco_Housing_Authority and, related, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10313407778878388943

For employees?

em9sredbeam
10-10-2011, 3:04 PM
They company was saying for tenents, and managers that it is illegal, not company policy.

PsychGuy274
10-10-2011, 3:08 PM
It's illegal to ban guns per the San Fransisco Housing Authority Case. Federally funded housing cannot legally ban guns.

They can tell you they don't want you to have them all day long, but they have no legal backing to enforce this.

If I were you every time I bought a new gun I'd go into the office and say, "Hey! Wanna come over and check out my new AR-15 I just bought?!"

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-10-2011, 3:38 PM
For residents, that's an illegal requirement - see http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4305 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Montag_Doe_v._San_Francisco_Housing_Authority and, related, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10313407778878388943

It's probably a little more complicated. That was a 1983 action against a government agency, this is privately-owned, federally subsidized housing.

Peter.Steele
10-10-2011, 8:59 PM
It's probably a little more complicated. That was a 1983 action against a government agency, this is privately-owned, federally subsidized housing.



Riiiight.

Title IX and Cheerleading, anyone?

unusedusername
10-10-2011, 10:17 PM
It's probably a little more complicated. That was a 1983 action against a government agency, this is privately-owned, federally subsidized housing.

For tenants though, this is the same thing as a non-subsidized privately owned apartment complex though in that they can not ban tenants from possessing legal firearms.

I'm not sure how being government subsidized can even make any difference.

The bulk of the SF case was that the city argued that since they were not private that the law stopping private bans did not apply. Clearly, a subsidized but private complex can not argue this.

For employees, FGG is right, this IS a bit more complex. Employers do have the ability to fire you if they catch you with a firearm on their premises without having their permission to have it. Its complex because I doubt that the definition of where the "workplace" ends is probably not too well defined. Also it is likely that you have to walk through the "workplace" (grounds, ect) to get to your residence.

If you have one and keep it quiet, you'll probably never have any trouble, but if you have to use it is very likely you will get fired. (Then, maybe win in court, 2 years later).

Or maybe the CGF folks will chime in here and prove me wrong, it's happened before :chris:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-11-2011, 10:18 AM
Riiiight.

Title IX and Cheerleading, anyone?

Riiiight. Federal anti-discrimination legislation is the same as a private landlord's lease provisions.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-11-2011, 10:19 AM
For tenants though, this is the same thing as a non-subsidized privately owned apartment complex though in that they can not ban tenants from possessing legal firearms.

They can't? That's news to me.

safewaysecurity
10-11-2011, 10:23 AM
FGG where ya been? Lol we missed you.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-11-2011, 10:55 AM
FGG where ya been? Lol we missed you.

Lurking, and working too much!

Munk
10-11-2011, 4:43 PM
If you're always "on the job", and the company makes it a fireable offense to have a firearm at your place of work, would that mean that as a condition of employment she's effectively barred from exercising her 2a rights?

I think there's a decent conflict between tennancy and employment conditions here. Is her domicile actually considered a domicile or is it her place of work?

Kid Stanislaus
10-11-2011, 7:38 PM
It's probably a little more complicated. That was a 1983 action against a government agency, this is privately-owned, federally subsidized housing.

My bro-in-law manages a unit like that in Oregon and according to him they cannot keep tenants from having guns and I'm here to tell ya some of them folk have about as much business handling a firearm as a drunk does being a bartender!!

em9sredbeam
10-14-2011, 11:21 AM
About the domicile, she does not live there yet, just works there, but in the future that might change. She was saying the tenents arent supposed to own them there either.... That sounds pretty shady if you ask me. I'm just saying that If We end up there together becuase she gets a place provided...It will be a cold day in the fiery depths of Hell before I have someone tell me That I can't have a gun in the place I call my home. I would rather be skinned alive and burned at a stake than be disarmed by some anti-constitutional, anti-American worms. To put it mildly. I am a tax-paying, law-abiding, red blooded America, and the idea of this pisses me off.

tboyer
10-14-2011, 12:43 PM
It's probably a little more complicated. That was a 1983 action against a government agency, this is privately-owned, federally subsidized housing.
I don't know where the 1983 date came from?

ke6guj
10-14-2011, 1:05 PM
I don't know where the 1983 date came from?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html

moleculo
10-14-2011, 1:18 PM
I'm here to tell ya some of them folk have about as much business handling a firearm as a drunk does being a bartender!!

Hey now, Sam Malone was the best bartender ever! :) :)

dantodd
10-14-2011, 2:23 PM
I don't know where the 1983 date came from?

He didn't mean it was filed in 1983 but that it was an action based on 42 USC 1983

I think that Heller is pretty well on point here and the right to keep and bear an arm in your house is a right we all enjoy.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-14-2011, 3:20 PM
I think that Heller is pretty well on point here and the right to keep and bear an arm in your house is a right we all enjoy.

Unless you sign a rental agreement with a private landlord that restricts possession of firearms in the rental unit.

Here's an example of a federally subsidized tenant trying to bring a 42 USC 1983 action against a private landlord: Shell v Foulkes (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200912812.pdf). Not surprisingly the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case because there was no "state action" only "private action."

The HUD model leases and regulations for privately owned, subsidized housing do not have any "no-firearm" provisions. So if you're a tenant in subsidized, privately-owned housing and your lease says you can't have firearms, your private landlord is responsible for that, not the federal government.

California state judicial decisions affirm that private landlords can restrict constitutional rights, e.g., first amendment.

My point here is that the analysis is more complicated than if you are dealing with a landlord that is a public entity (e.g., local housing authority) and whose lease contains a no-firearms provision. Heller and the NRA case against SFHA don't resolve the issue. If it's a private landlord, and the tenancy is not subsidized, it's pretty cut and dried.

Librarian
10-14-2011, 4:04 PM
My point here is that the analysis is more complicated than if you are dealing with a landlord that is a public entity (e.g., local housing authority) and whose lease contains a no-firearms provision. Heller and the NRA case against SFHA don't resolve the issue. If it's a private landlord, and the tenancy is not subsidized, it's pretty cut and dried.

Agreed; if it isn't somehow government action, so far such no-firearms clauses do not offend a 'protected class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)', and are permissible.

In good circumstances, a renter/lessor can choose to be someplace else, or attempt to modify the occupancy agreement, but once one signs the agreement with the restriction, one is pretty much obligated to follow it, just as one is obligated to pay the rent.

Funtimes
10-14-2011, 5:34 PM
It's probably a little more complicated. That was a 1983 action against a government agency, this is privately-owned, federally subsidized housing.

I wish I could find info on "Federally owned and subsidized," but privately managed (Military housing, off-base).

They ban guns in our home.

BigDogatPlay
10-14-2011, 7:05 PM
Not a lawyer but "Federally owned" would mean that the United States government holds title of the property in the simplest of terms. As property owner they can make rules concerning access to and use of their property. And the government can be held accountable for violating civil rights.

"Subsidized" generally means that regardless of who owns the property, the government is using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the rent of the tenants, typically lower income folks who'd be living in far lower conditions if they had to live on the economy. As outlined above, private property owner rights still apply and if the landlord doesn't want pets, kids or guns on premise the remedies are limited.

From the experience of having worked for many years on military housing facilities as a LEO... military housing is a different story. On base is government owned and subject to the full authority of the local commander, as well as branch and DoD regulations. If the local commander does not want firearms in his / her family housing area and kept locked up in the post armory or the post shooting club or whatever, then that's how it is. No recourse.

Off base housing that is not owned by the government, where the government is applying the tenants housing subsidy to the rent, the rules can be different. But again, there is still the choice... if you don't like the rules in family housing you can take your allowance and live off post on the economy.