PDA

View Full Version : apartment complex no gun policy


rather_die_standing
05-21-2012, 12:50 AM
Long time reader first time poster. Recently I needed to change apartments. I was in a time and money pinch and needed to get in a new apartment in short order as my options in the area were limited. While filling out the paperwork I saw a document stating that I was not permitted to have a firearm in my apartment. I signed it as I wasn't in the mood too go back apartment hunting. I have a storage unit and so just put my guns there, but it has been eating at me. Is it legal to deny my supposed inalienable rights because I do not own the property, but merely rent it?

woods
05-21-2012, 12:59 AM
Wow who are you renting from?

I don't know legally, but we should know who we are dealing with so we can educate them.

Full Clip
05-21-2012, 1:07 AM
What if they'd told you to suspend using your rights protected by the 1st Amendment? Would you still have signed?
Storage unit? Erg...

rather_die_standing
05-21-2012, 1:15 AM
Wow who are you renting from?

I don't know legally, but we should know who we are dealing with so we can educate them.

they are: http://www.kcmapts.com/Harbor-Terrace/Resident-Services

Not being able to afford a lawyer, do you think calgunsfoundation or anyone else for that matter would even be interested? I really haven't a clue what to do other than eventually move. Damnable place is walking distance from my work, at least for my subjugation I am not paying much for gas these days.. lol.

rather_die_standing
05-21-2012, 1:17 AM
What if they'd told you to suspend using your rights protected by the 1st Amendment? Would you still have signed?
Storage unit? Erg...

At that moment, as desperate as I was, I probably would have. But I'm starting to come to my senses.

tpuig
05-21-2012, 2:00 AM
How are they going to know?

dominic
05-21-2012, 3:01 AM
None of their business if you own firearms. Go ahead and put them where you want them and if (only if) someone makes a big deal about it then you can get the lawyers involved.

Besides, why were you desperate? I thought the housing market was a dream for renters, open units sitting unrented for years now.

MrEd
05-21-2012, 3:02 AM
I have seen quite a few apartment buildings put in a clause t ban firearms on property .
A few years ago I received a letter from my insurance company inquiring if they were firearms in my property , I replied that I did not have any knowledge about what my tenants own or not and that I am not about to ask .
Their response said that if they were fireamrs they might raise my premiums , I asked them how could I possibly prohibit my tenants from exercising a Constitutional right and that should they raise my premium I would be more then happy to pass that information to the NRA .

They eventually backed off , I guess they figured because the building is located in San Francisco I would be more then happy to ban firearms , they were wrong .

MrEd
05-21-2012, 3:05 AM
The problem would be if they do figure out you have a gun , they would have to serve you a three day notice to cure or quit and if you still have it after that then they would have to file for an eviction . I do not know about LA and if you are in a rent controled building , here in San Francisco it would be a hard thing to do as there are only very few reasons to evict someone .

lugar
05-21-2012, 4:20 AM
I remember when I was studying tort laws that provisions of a contract that required you to give up a civil right were unenforceable. However, (yes there's always a 'however' lurking somewhere) the question here might be one of property rights and the landlords willingness to test this in front of a judge. A landlord can only evict you with a judgement, not just a whim. He can do an 'effective eviction' by making your live miserable hoping you'll move.
Keeping your lawfully owned property and keeping quiet might be a reasonable choice.

Darklyte27
05-21-2012, 4:29 AM
I would just keep them locked up in your apt and not say anything your life and safety comes first.

SilverTauron
05-21-2012, 4:31 AM
Never assume malice when mere incompetence is the better explaination.

Many corporate businesses ban firearms as a legal CYA tactic.Joe Moron decides to have an ND and shoots someone,the survivors can't target the building manager for a wrongful death suit.

As far as rights are concerned,the property manager owns the land and apartment.Thus they are free to ban whatever they like on the grounds.A building manager actually can infirnge on a tenants 1st Amendment rights;no 'loud and offensive music' ring a bell?Just like Aunt Mable can exercise her property rights to ban guns under her own roof during thanksgiving dinner,so can the apartment building owner(s).

If one is shooping for housing in an anti-gun city ,looking for a place which *doesnt* ban guns can be impossible.I know in Chicago Id have better luck finding free housing at the Trump Tower Penthouse Level than I would locating an apartment manager who didnt ban guns.My current landlord doesnt;but I live in rural America.Finding a pro gun apartment can be impossible in some places;in that event ,take care to avoid leaving your firearms in plain sight,and keep your gun collection on the general DL.

The War Wagon
05-21-2012, 5:13 AM
They eventually backed off , I guess they figured because the building is located in San Francisco I would be more then happy to ban firearms , they were wrong .

BULLY for you!!! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing016.gif

littlejake
05-21-2012, 5:37 AM
The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, only says what the government cannot do to you. Unfortunately when you do not own the property you live in, the landlord can set the rules; and some of those rules can restrict the exercise of a civil right. No one would dare tell you that because you live in their building, you could not vote; but, it seems they can and do restrict the 2A.

SASchnell
05-21-2012, 6:20 AM
If Public Housing cannot enforce no firearms claus in their rental agreement, I don't see how any other landlord can.

QQQ
05-21-2012, 6:27 AM
No one would dare tell you that because you live in their building, you could not vote; but, it seems they can and do restrict the 2A.Exactly. Contracts between private parties which require a person to sign away his rights shouldn't be legally binding. Whether they are binding or not in real life is another matter.

ckprax
05-21-2012, 6:36 AM
Just be discrete, what they don't know won't hurt them. A storage locker is one of the last places I would leave firearms.

Chaos47
05-21-2012, 6:39 AM
I have had such clauses removed by simply stating that I have firearms and that if that was an issue I would go else where.

Done it twice now, both times they struck it out with no argument...

Bruce
05-21-2012, 6:45 AM
Interesting how as a private party a landlord can violate your civil rights because it is private property and the Constitution doesn't apply to him. Yet if a landlord were to refuse to rent to you based on your race, religion, gender, or national origin, there would be an unholy row about how un-Constitutional it was for him to do so.

littlejake
05-21-2012, 6:54 AM
Interesting how as a private party a landlord can violate your civil rights because it is private property and the Constitution doesn't apply to him. Yet if a landlord were to refuse to rent to you based on your race, religion, gender, or national origin, there would be an unholy row about how un-Constitutional it was for him to do so.

That's in the Fair Housing Act -- unless the 2A gets incorporated into a similar act, they can do it. (Won't happen.)

This is not the first thread on this subject.

There are some landlords that request a list of one's guns. Some complexes use resident managers. I had a brother-in-law who was a property manager. He just finished 10 years in Snake River Correctional Institution -- going from there straight to California State Prison, Corcoran. Just the kind of person one would want to have access to one's personal info. The S.O.B better die in prison!

40 years ago, we had adult only complexes. Some people just don;t want to live in close proximity to other people's uncontrolled rug rats. That was declared illegal. I'm surprised we still have senior only housing.

If you are young, I suggest you move to a free state. Given California's financial state, it's going down the toilet.

Bhobbs
05-21-2012, 6:55 AM
If Public Housing cannot enforce no firearms claus in their rental agreement, I don't see how any other landlord can.

Because public housing is controlled by the government which the Constitution applies to. The Constitution does limit private individuals. See the threads about Calguns violating everyone's 1A.

littlejake
05-21-2012, 7:16 AM
Because public housing is controlled by the government which the Constitution applies to. The Constitution does limit private individuals. See the threads about Calguns violating everyone's 1A.

Much of the low-income housing in San Francisco is under control of non profits such as Community Housing Project San Francisco. They control treasure Island; and they have a non guns on the island policy.

Gray Peterson
05-21-2012, 7:22 AM
Interesting how as a private party a landlord can violate your civil rights because it is private property and the Constitution doesn't apply to him. Yet if a landlord were to refuse to rent to you based on your race, religion, gender, or national origin, there would be an unholy row about how un-Constitutional it was for him to do so.

That's because there's positive coverage legislation covering so under the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Certain states prohibit landlords from banning private possession of firearms and the use of them in lawful self defense. Off the top of my head, Virginia and Ohio do this, and a few others.

When the anti-gunner are completely shut out of the government, I expect them to go full tilt on private housing corporations to get them to ban guns. It'll result in the NRA and other organizations demanding the Legislature give the same protection to the protected constitutional choice in arms in the same way they protected choice on religion.

littlejake
05-21-2012, 7:37 AM
That's because there's positive coverage legislation covering so under the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Certain states prohibit landlords from banning private possession of firearms and the use of them in lawful self defense. Off the top of my head, Virginia and Ohio do this, and a few others.

When the anti-gunner are completely shut out of the government, I expect them to go full tilt on private housing corporations to get them to ban guns. It'll result in the NRA and other organizations demanding the Legislature give the same protection to the protected constitutional choice in arms in the same way they protected choice on religion.

Cannot come too soon!

Haplo
05-21-2012, 7:45 AM
What guns?
There is no good reason why the management should even know. Worst case scenario if they did find out, they need to give you a 3 day notice to cure or quit, you put them in the storage container and continue living there, and eventually your guns will find their way back in the apartment.

SJgunguy24
05-21-2012, 8:06 AM
So can you sue if there was a robbery or home invasion and your family members were hurt or killed. It was their policy that kept you from having the proper tools to defend yourself.

littlejake
05-21-2012, 8:31 AM
So can you sue if there was a robbery or home invasion and your family members were hurt or killed. It was their policy that kept you from having the proper tools to defend yourself.

You can bring a civil suit for just about anything. Prevailing is another story.

glbtrottr
05-21-2012, 8:31 AM
Awesome thread.

We chose to rent this time around, and moved into a great place with 14,000 sq feet of yard. The idiot landlord demanded things from us we were not comfortable with, but...whatever.

One person in the house is legally disabled, and IN WRITING he demanded medical records, and stated he should have been notified in advance. Moreover, he implied he would have made a different decision on his rental if he had known about it.

He was at the house installing tile (that we paid for) after the move, and it became obvious to him that we have guns. When you keep a number of safes and at least one is over 6' tall, it's difficult to disguise it.

The guy is deathly afraid of them, doesn't own them, etc.

A neighbor dispute ensues where our next door neighbor, nice guy, discovers upon trying to replace our crappy fence for a block wall, that the property line is off, and he deserves 5-6' into our yard - end result? Our landlord threatens the next door neighbor that he would come and defend his property "with guns and ammo", recorded and confirmed and repeated by his ex wife.

So the very same douchebag who would just as soon deny me guns given his hypocrisy would just as soon use them to defend a property dispute where the cops had to be called to defend Mr. Surveyor...

Idiots abound.

HK4113
05-21-2012, 8:41 AM
Awesome thread.

We chose to rent this time around, and moved into a great place with 14,000 sq feet of yard. The idiot landlord demanded things from us we were not comfortable with, but...whatever.

One person in the house is legally disabled, and IN WRITING he demanded medical records, and stated he should have been notified in advance. Moreover, he implied he would have made a different decision on his rental if he had known about it.

He was at the house installing tile (that we paid for) after the move, and it became obvious to him that we have guns. When you keep a number of safes and at least one is over 6' tall, it's difficult to disguise it.

The guy is deathly afraid of them, doesn't own them, etc.

A neighbor dispute ensues where our next door neighbor, nice guy, discovers upon trying to replace our crappy fence for a block wall, that the property line is off, and he deserves 5-6' into our yard - end result? Our landlord threatens the next door neighbor that he would come and defend his property "with guns and ammo", recorded and confirmed and repeated by his ex wife.

So the very same douchebag who would just as soon deny me guns given his hypocrisy would just as soon use them to defend a property dispute where the cops had to be called to defend Mr. Surveyor...

Idiots abound.

Sounds like a sh*tty landlord. If I were you I would get a copy of that recording just in case your landlord gets mad at you and make false accusations to the police of you and your family and states that you threatened him with one of your guns. That way the recording might be helpful in proving he is a liar and a hot head. If you are on good terms with your neighbors they would be able to vouch for you then.

I find it amazing that he actually stated that he wouldn't of rented to a disabled person. Isn't that illegal? I am sure it is.

robcoe
05-21-2012, 8:53 AM
Long time reader first time poster. Recently I needed to change apartments. I was in a time and money pinch and needed to get in a new apartment in short order as my options in the area were limited. While filling out the paperwork I saw a document stating that I was not permitted to have a firearm in my apartment. I signed it as I wasn't in the mood too go back apartment hunting. I have a storage unit and so just put my guns there, but it has been eating at me. Is it legal to deny my supposed inalienable rights because I do not own the property, but merely rent it?

It's usually a CYA clause(numbskull plays with a loaded gun, has a ND and hurts someone in a nearby apartment, if that person sues they can point to the contract and say "not our fault, we banned guns"), I have had to deal with it a few times. What I did was strike out that clause and ask the manager/landlord/whoever is authorized to make the deal to sign and date that that clause is removed on both copies of the agreement, if not, I walk.

In your situation, buy a safe, keep the guns in there, and don't leave it open or them out in the open, the landlord can enter your apartment(with notice) but he can't open a locked safe. Storage units are horrible, back in the 60s my family lost about $10K work of stuff(that's 10 thousand in 1960s dollars) when the owners son decided to start selling everything in the building.

sfhondapilot
05-21-2012, 9:36 AM
The problem would be if they do figure out you have a gun , they would have to serve you a three day notice to cure or quit and if you still have it after that then they would have to file for an eviction . I do not know about LA and if you are in a rent controled building , here in San Francisco it would be a hard thing to do as there are only very few reasons to evict someone .

That would be the ultimate irony if the SF renters board were to defend against an eviction asserting that a tenant has a right to possess a firearm after all the City has done to try to take firearms away from its residents. As a landlord, I don't have any firearm restrictions in my lease form.

stitchnicklas
05-21-2012, 10:01 AM
I would just keep them locked up in your apt and not say anything your life and safety comes first.
^^^^^^^^^^
this

they can not search your apt with no cause and even then you are not required to open anything that you do not want to...

littlejake
05-21-2012, 10:11 AM
Awesome thread.

...One person in the house is legally disabled, and IN WRITING he demanded medical records, and stated he should have been notified in advance. Moreover, he implied he would have made a different decision on his rental if he had known about it...

He was concerned that he might have to make accommodations under the ADA. However, putting that in writing is inviting a suit under the ADA by the civil rights division of the US DOJ.

edit:
"The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on age, sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation."

gun toting monkeyboy
05-21-2012, 11:11 AM
Um... I was under the impression that once you were renting a place, it was YOUR home. Unless you live someplace where having guns is actually illegal (e.g. a college campus), there isn't f***-all that your landlord can do about it. They can restrict things like smoking because it decreases the value of their property. But constitutional rights can't be denied simply because somebody gets a wild hair up their @$$ about you having guns. And I was also under the impression that you can't sign away those rights. Especially not in your own residence. How well do you think somebody trying to enforce an agreement like that would go over? Probably about the same as them saying that you couldn't worship the diety of your choice. Good luck with that. Pesronally I would just ignore that and put your guns in a safe in your place.

-Mb

saki302
05-21-2012, 11:18 AM
..and I offered apartment units in NoHo to Calguns members with no takers.. :shrug:

Granted, most of our units are larger (3br, 4br), but some of our renters are roommates. It would have been awesome to see a calguns brotherhood roommate unit with a community safe :D

Well.. I'll lit them here again in the future if we have a vacancy. I only need a list of guns- if you're selling :D

-Dave

robcoe
05-21-2012, 11:20 AM
. And I was also under the impression that you can't sign away those rights. Especially not in your own residence. How well do you think somebody trying to enforce an agreement like that would go over? -Mb

Don't ever move into an HOA.

SilverTauron
05-21-2012, 12:00 PM
Um... I was under the impression that once you were renting a place, it was YOUR home. Unless you live someplace where having guns is actually illegal (e.g. a college campus), there isn't f***-all that your landlord can do about it. They can restrict things like smoking because it decreases the value of their property. But constitutional rights can't be denied simply because somebody gets a wild hair up their @$$ about you having guns. And I was also under the impression that you can't sign away those rights. Especially not in your own residence. How well do you think somebody trying to enforce an agreement like that would go over? Probably about the same as them saying that you couldn't worship the diety of your choice. Good luck with that. Pesronally I would just ignore that and put your guns in a safe in your place.

-Mb

The fly in the ointment is a little thing called Property Rights.

If an entity owns the land, that entity has the right to establish any rules they see fit inside the boundaries of the property. A government agency or employer cannot legally discriminate against a homosexual -one because of enacted civil rights law and the other because of laws governing commerce and business, but any of us can say "no gays under my roof" and legally that's our right. Bigoted, shortsighted, and ignorant a policy though it may be, we still posses the right to set rules within our properties.

So it is with landlords, who own the land the apartment is built on. They can set rules regulating music, certain activities, -heck on base I stayed in a place which banned members of the opposite sex from staying overnight.Me and an ex were repeat violators of that rule, but thats just an example of things property owners can do which people in government agencies cannot do . As another member put it, the U.S. Constitution limits the ability of government with regard to citizens, not private entities to other private entities.

A landlord may be backwards and ignorant for banning guns under their roof, but that's just it-its their roof to set the rules under.If I as a tenant don't like it, I can move somewhere else. Enough tenants vote with their wallets and landlords may reconsider a gun ban on account of lost money & revenue, but this isn't a place where the Law can step in. For what its worth, even if the Landlord bans firearms they cant sweep in like the Gestapo and seize them. As long as the tenant has some level of discretion its unlikely the building super will discover firearms in the residence.

cindynles
05-21-2012, 12:39 PM
I have mixed feelings about this issue.

1. You signed the agreement, so you should live up to your end of the deal.

2. You do have a right to defend yourself and your family.

Honestly, if you pay rent on time and don't trash the place, I really doubt anything would happen even if the landlord saw your guns. The eviction process in California is expensive and lengthly (especially if the tenant fights it). No one with any kind of business sense is going to evict a good renter over something like this. Good renters are hard to find and most places will do there best to keep them.

Personmans
05-21-2012, 12:50 PM
^ LA is the same as SF, both have very few reasons to evict. Pain in the *** for the landlord, but does protect an innocent tenant.

The problem would be if they do figure out you have a gun , they would have to serve you a three day notice to cure or quit and if you still have it after that then they would have to file for an eviction . I do not know about LA and if you are in a rent controled building , here in San Francisco it would be a hard thing to do as there are only very few reasons to evict someone .

gun toting monkeyboy
05-21-2012, 1:02 PM
The fly in the ointment is a little thing called Property Rights.

If an entity owns the land, that entity has the right to establish any rules they see fit inside the boundaries of the property. A government agency or employer cannot legally discriminate against a homosexual -one because of enacted civil rights law and the other because of laws governing commerce and business, but any of us can say "no gays under my roof" and legally that's our right. Bigoted, shortsighted, and ignorant a policy though it may be, we still posses the right to set rules within our properties.

So it is with landlords, who own the land the apartment is built on. They can set rules regulating music, certain activities, -heck on base I stayed in a place which banned members of the opposite sex from staying overnight.Me and an ex were repeat violators of that rule, but thats just an example of things property owners can do which people in government agencies cannot do . As another member put it, the U.S. Constitution limits the ability of government with regard to citizens, not private entities to other private entities.

A landlord may be backwards and ignorant for banning guns under their roof, but that's just it-its their roof to set the rules under.If I as a tenant don't like it, I can move somewhere else. Enough tenants vote with their wallets and landlords may reconsider a gun ban on account of lost money & revenue, but this isn't a place where the Law can step in. For what its worth, even if the Landlord bans firearms they cant sweep in like the Gestapo and seize them. As long as the tenant has some level of discretion its unlikely the building super will discover firearms in the residence.

I don't know if property rights apply. Yes, they own the building. But it is your place of residence. You are paying to live there. I was under the impression that your right to do what you want in your residence trumps their property rights in so much as it comes to your rights. They can make a case for things like smoking because it isn't a protected right. But post Heller, how exactly are they going to say that you can't have a firearm in your residence? As for HOAs, they can't say you can't have firearms either. They can put limits on the appearence of your house. And your use of the street for parking. But they can't influence what goes on in your home for the most part. And no, I made damned sure that didn't live some place that had them because I think they are evil as hell.

-Mb

SilverTauron
05-21-2012, 1:59 PM
I don't know if property rights apply. Yes, they own the building. But it is your place of residence. You are paying to live there. I was under the impression that your right to do what you want in your residence trumps their property rights in so much as it comes to your rights. They can make a case for things like smoking because it isn't a protected right. But post Heller, how exactly are they going to say that you can't have a firearm in your residence?

That's where The Lease comes into play. Its an agreement between two private parties as to the commercial rental of a dwelling. The agreement specifies what's permitted and what's not. Because its an agreement between two private individuals, case law which applies to Constitutional restrictions on *government* entities does not apply. The City of San Fransisco cannot ban guns. A landlord who owns a house privately in San Fransisco can, if the tenant agrees to the restriction in the form of a signature on the lease.

gun toting monkeyboy
05-21-2012, 2:11 PM
That's where The Lease comes into play. Its an agreement between two private parties as to the commercial rental of a dwelling. The agreement specifies what's permitted and what's not. Because its an agreement between two private individuals, case law which applies to Constitutional restrictions on *government* entities does not apply. The City of San Fransisco cannot ban guns. A landlord who owns a house privately in San Fransisco can, if the tenant agrees to the restriction in the form of a signature on the lease.

But is such a lease enforceable? Can a landlord get a court to evict you for that any more than they would be able to evict you for being Jewish or Hindu? Even if you signed such an agreement?

-Mb

SNCaliber
05-21-2012, 2:14 PM
yup just be discreet, and keep em hidden in the apt, and when going to the range just use a discreet rifle case, what they dont know wont hurt them.

G60
05-21-2012, 2:23 PM
yup just be discreet, and keep em hidden in the apt, and when going to the range just use a discreet rifle case, what they dont know wont hurt them.

This is all fun and games until you catch your apartment/property managers & maintenance people going into people's places while they're not home.

Some sort of video surveillance is a small investment (cheap webcam + free vitamin D software), and something no renter should do without.

calif 15-22
05-21-2012, 2:31 PM
That's where The Lease comes into play. Its an agreement between two private parties as to the commercial rental of a dwelling. The agreement specifies what's permitted and what's not. Because its an agreement between two private individuals, case law which applies to Constitutional restrictions on *government* entities does not apply. The City of San Fransisco cannot ban guns. A landlord who owns a house privately in San Fransisco can, if the tenant agrees to the restriction in the form of a signature on the lease.

OK I may get flogged but here goes: Silver Tauron is correct.

I'm a landlord and own 3 Duplexs in the area. As the owner you try to look out for the best interests of not only yourself but the other tenants as well. As the owner I can and I do list things not allowed. For example:
1. No Pets (while I love pets, I don't want them in my units do to damage and barking)
2. No Smoking - (This is getting more mainsteam but 15 years ago this was a tough one. Now people like the no smoking)
3. No Section 8 - That's right I get to decide who I rent to. I am not required to take county deadbeats as tenants.
4. No parking cars on the driveway - This keeps if free for eveyone.
5. No motorcycles - I ride motorcycles but don't want them at my rentals. Loud and the other tenants complain.
6. No loud music after 10pm - Just seems resonable.
7. No guests over 30 days without being added to the lease.
8. Only 2 cars allowed per unit
etc etc.

Never really thought about not allowing guns?? As an building owner I think the only reason to ban them MIGHT be if a ND caused an injury to another tenant you could be sued. With or without the clause you probably will be named in a ND lawsuit anyway so not sure what good it has to ban.

Interesting topic though . . . any other pro gun landlords that ban guns??

sakosf
05-21-2012, 2:38 PM
If you signed a lease, then you may be stuck with your current situation until the lease period is up. You could move your firearms into your apt and hope the landlord does not find out and if he does, hopefully he will not try and evict you. Are they all handguns? From what you posted, I would suggest planning on moving in the near future.....if you signed a lease, then move when the time is up.
I live in San Francisco and currently the rental market is very tight. Not uncommon for there to be many applicants for an apartment......unless it is really undesirable. In this type of market, the property owners have the upper hand in regard to rental cost and what type of restrictions they can impose. There was no firearms restrictions in the lease I signed for my apt....but, that was years ago. I am very discreet about the fact I own firearms and I doubt anybody else living in the 5 unit apartment building knows that I own firearms. When I moved to SF, I made sure to rent an apartment that had a garage that could be entered from within the apartment building. The apt I chose had such a garage that is shared with just one other tenant

calif 15-22
05-21-2012, 2:42 PM
But is such a lease enforceable? Can a landlord get a court to evict you for that any more than they would be able to evict you for being Jewish or Hindu? Even if you signed such an agreement?

-Mb

Heres' the thing while you can not evict for being Jewish or Hindu (those are protected under the law) you can always find a way for other reasons. All my month-to-month leases say "either party can terminate the agreement in writing with 60 days notice". My lawyer had me add that so if I got some SOB who was causing grief to the other tenants I could evict as needed.

I did use once a few years ago on a guy who was being weird (eyeing the other tenants kids). Never stepped over the line but was just a weird dude. Gave him 60 days noticed and off he went.

jdberger
05-21-2012, 2:49 PM
OK I may get flogged but here goes: Silver Tauron is correct.

I'm a landlord and own 3 Duplexs in the area. As the owner you try to look out for the best interests of not only yourself but the other tenants as well. As the owner I can and I do list things not allowed. For example:
1. No Pets (while I love pets, I don't want them in my units do to damage and barking)
2. No Smoking - (This is getting more mainsteam but 15 years ago this was a tough one. Now people like the no smoking)
3. No Section 8 - That's right I get to decide who I rent to. I am not required to take county deadbeats as tenants.
4. No parking cars on the driveway - This keeps if free for eveyone.
5. No motorcycles - I ride motorcycles but don't want them at my rentals. Loud and the other tenants complain.
6. No loud music after 10pm - Just seems resonable.
7. No guests over 30 days without being added to the lease.
8. Only 2 cars allowed per unit
etc etc.

Never really thought about not allowing guns?? As an building owner I think the only reason to ban them MIGHT be if a ND caused an injury to another tenant you could be sued. With or without the clause you probably will be named in a ND lawsuit anyway so not sure what good it has to ban.

Interesting topic though . . . any other pro gun landlords that ban guns??

How many of the above are constitutional rights?

Reilandlaw
05-21-2012, 3:12 PM
The Constitution is enforceable only against the government. In fact, unless specifically stated by the Supreme Court, it only applies to the Federal Govt - not the State. That's why the McDonald vs Chicago case was so important - it was what decided that the 2nd Am does apply to the states and not just the fed.

Bill

gun toting monkeyboy
05-21-2012, 3:13 PM
How many of the above are constitutional rights?

Exactly. Heller made it perfectly clear that you were allowed to have firearms in your residence. And since it is a Right, how exactly is it any different than a clause that says "No Jews, Hindus or Scientologists"? You, as a private citizen, can not tell somebody else what they can or can not do in THEIR place of residence. You may own it, but you are giving up certain rights to have access or control it the second you agree to lease it to them. It is NOT your exclusive domain where your word is law. You are not a feudal lord. You can say that the renter can't do X, Y or Z as long as you are not depriving them of their rights. In as much as X, Y, or Z somehow have the real potential to damage your property. Or disturb the peace. But saying that they can't exercise one Constitutionally protected right is just the same as saying that they can't do another. Do you think there is any court that would enforce a clause that says "No X religion"? How is that any different than saying "No guns"?

-Mb

MrEd
05-21-2012, 4:01 PM
Let's be honest here , if I had a no gun clause in my leases and discovered a tenant had a gun but otherwise was a great tenant , would I go through the headaches and high expense of evicting him/her ? I wouldn't personally .

fiddletown
05-21-2012, 4:16 PM
...Heller made it perfectly clear that you were allowed to have firearms in your residence. And since it is a Right, how exactly is it any different than a clause that says "No Jews, Hindus or Scientologists"? You, as a private citizen, can not tell somebody else what they can or can not do in THEIR place of residence. You may own it, but you are giving up certain rights to have access or control it the second you agree to lease it to them. It is NOT your exclusive domain where your word is law. You are not a feudal lord. You can say that the renter can't do X, Y or Z as long as you are not depriving them of their rights. In as much as X, Y, or Z somehow have the real potential to damage your property. Or disturb the peace. But saying that they can't exercise one Constitutionally protected right is just the same as saying that they can't do another. Do you think there is any court that would enforce a clause that says "No X religion"? How is that any different than saying "No guns"?...Not exactly.

[1] Unless we're talking about government property, the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The Constitution does not regulate private conduct. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614, (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added:"....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). 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. ...

[2] Yes, a "no guns" clause in a residential lease is discrimination, but in general discrimination is perfectly legal.

Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurants discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge.

Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal.

[3] To the extent it may be illegal for a landlord to discriminate, it's because of a statute and not the Constitution.

There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases such as race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and some others, illegal -- at least if you're a landlord, a business open to the public, an employer or in some other specified category. These various anti-discrimination laws only prohibit discrimination on those various specified grounds. Having a gun isn't one of them.

The leasing of residential property is also heavily regulated by statute. There are laws about clauses that have to be in a lease and about clauses that may not be in a lease. There are laws about the rights of tenants. But I've not seen a statute that prohibits a residential landlord in California from putting a "no guns" clause in a lease.

[4] Conflicting rights often rub against each other, and when they do, it's been customary in our system for a legislative body to decide priorities and enact laws to ameliorate the rubbing.

Landlords renting residential property are subject to substantial regulation. The various requirements, regulations and rules to which a residential landlord is subject arose through the political process in which interested parties can participate; and they therefore reflect a considered determination by a legislative body or authorized administrative agency that as a matter of public policy the public interest served by the requirement, regulation or rule was sufficient to justify impairment of the property rights of the landlord.

[5] Absent a statute or case law in California specifically prohibiting a residential landlord from having a "no guns" clause in a lease, such clause in a lease would be valid and enforceable if agreed to by the tenant.

stix213
05-21-2012, 4:26 PM
I would have crossed out the firearm ban on the lease, initialed next to it, and then signed the bottom. Not much you can do now though I expect.

alfred1222
05-21-2012, 4:42 PM
This is all fun and games until you catch your apartment/property managers & maintenance people going into people's places while they're not home.

Some sort of video surveillance is a small investment (cheap webcam + free vitamin D software), and something no renter should do without.

This for sure

Catalyst81
05-21-2012, 6:32 PM
While it's unfortunate that the management company includes that provision in their lease, its legal. Fiddletown did a good job describing why above so I won't go into it. To be honest and a little blunt, its your own laziness that put you in this situation, but I think you know that. Would you get caught if you kept them in your unit? - not likely unless the management company entered your unit in an emergency type situation and somehow found them while making repairs. You agreed to not keep firearms in the unit. My advice is to live up to your agreement or move. Another option is to request to have the terms of the lease amended. Might be a good idea to get on the property managers good side first before asking though.

Kid Stanislaus
05-21-2012, 7:02 PM
Just be discrete, what they don't know won't hurt them.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

far from tactical
05-21-2012, 7:04 PM
if they dont know it will not hurt them

gun toting monkeyboy
05-21-2012, 7:19 PM
Well it looks like the other guys are right on this one. I will toss in the towel on the arguement before I get trounced some more. ;)

-Mb

IrishJoe3
05-21-2012, 7:24 PM
Just be discrete, what they don't know won't hurt them. A storage locker is one of the last places I would leave firearms.

This and this.

IMO, the only time they they would (should) find out is if someone breaks in and you shoot them. And at that point, what is the worst they can do, evict you? Who cares! You're alive...

Josey Wales
05-21-2012, 7:34 PM
Just be discrete, what they don't know won't hurt them. A storage locker is one of the last places I would leave firearms.

This and this.

IMO, the only time they they would (should) find out is if someone breaks in and you shoot them. And at that point, what is the worst they can do, evict you? Who cares! You're alive...

QFT!

Catalyst81
05-21-2012, 8:32 PM
This and this.

IMO, the only time they they would (should) find out is if someone breaks in and you shoot them. And at that point, what is the worst they can do, evict you? Who cares! You're alive...

if they dont know it will not hurt them

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

No, no, no. IMO, have some integrity and live up to your agreement.

rather_die_standing
05-21-2012, 11:15 PM
Well I read and read and read, and then read some more. The wealth of your collective knowledge, perspectives, advice, and personal experience taught me a great deal about the situation I now find myself in. Truly the saying to live and learn applies here, and indeed I have.

It is one of those not knowing what's around the bend till you are around the bend things. I just never imagined this sort of thing so had no frame of reference to prepare for it. From growing up in a small northern Californian town many years ago, to finding myself in the middle of a multicultural megapolis several years ago. My oh my the culture shock.

I grew up in an environment when everything associated with guns was seen as a positive thing, from the raw excitement of them, to learning the added responsibility required to be trusted with one, to them bringing all manner of meat to the table, to being trained with one to aid in the defense of my country, to being bombarded by nothing but negative coverage of their destructive potential in the local news while being surrounded by people who believe them to excusively be akin to instruments of evil and being aghast when learning I own them. My past now seems like a dream of a different world, and it is a harsh reality of this world I now live in which daily I must contend.

I won't let poor preparation, procrastination, and ignorance blind side me again. I have been an exemplar tenant and when my lease comes up for renewal I will assert my needs, and if they are not met I will politely thank them for services rendered an take my leave. Lesson learned.

Thank you all.

snobord99
05-22-2012, 12:00 AM
Um... I was under the impression that once you were renting a place, it was YOUR home. Unless you live someplace where having guns is actually illegal (e.g. a college campus), there isn't f***-all that your landlord can do about it. They can restrict things like smoking because it decreases the value of their property. But constitutional rights can't be denied simply because somebody gets a wild hair up their @$$ about you having guns. And I was also under the impression that you can't sign away those rights. Especially not in your own residence. How well do you think somebody trying to enforce an agreement like that would go over? Probably about the same as them saying that you couldn't worship the diety of your choice. Good luck with that. Pesronally I would just ignore that and put your guns in a safe in your place.

-Mb

Just an FYI...most of your impressions are wildly incorrect. SO much of what was said was incorrect that it leads me to think that you have many other "impressions" that are also incorrect so may I suggest for the future, when you think you have what appears to be an impression, do some research? Education > impression.

Edit: looks like you already did :p

snobord99
05-22-2012, 12:04 AM
How many of the above are constitutional rights?

How many constitutional rights are applicable against private entities?

Gray Peterson
05-22-2012, 12:47 AM
fiddletown is absolutely correct. Protections based on race, religion, and orientation against housing landlords, "public" accommodations, or employers are creations of pure statutory law.

choprzrul
05-22-2012, 5:38 AM
Well it looks like the other guys are right on this one. I will toss in the towel on the arguement before I get trounced some more. ;)

-Mb

Send a letter to your property management:

Per our lease agreement, I am not able to be in possession of firearms for the purpose of self defense. Your lease has separated me from my civil rights and ability to defend myself. As such, all responsibility and liability for my personal safety and security has been transferred to your organization. I am making a copy of our lease available to my family. In any event involving severe bodily harm or death, I have instructed them to bring state and federal civil action against your organization.

If nothing else, it should get you out of your lease :D

Have another apartment lined up before sending your letter.

I firmly believe that any entity that separates me from exercising my civil rights takes full and complete liability for my personal safety and security.

.

Scarecrow Repair
05-22-2012, 9:56 AM
So it is with landlords, who own the land the apartment is built on.

The landlord does not have unlimited power over that rented or leased apartment. They can't give the police permission to search it. They have to give 24 hours notice before entering for maintenance unless it's an emergency (broken pipe flooding the apt below). They can't dictate what radio and TV stations you can tune in, or what books you read, or what clothes you wear, or what friends you invite over. They can require deposits for pets, but that's for cleaning. They can limit the number of people living there, presumably for the extra water usage, which cannot be billed to individual apartments.

I doubt very much they'd get away with an eviction for having legal guns on the premises, if the evictee wanted to fund a lawsuit challenging said eviction.

FX-05 Xiuhcoatl
05-22-2012, 10:00 AM
"my house my rules"

fiddletown
05-22-2012, 10:03 AM
....I doubt very much they'd get away with an eviction for having legal guns on the premises, if the evictee wanted to fund a lawsuit challenging said eviction.And on exactly what do you base that contention?

In general, the various limitations on a landlord's power flow from existing and specific statutory restrictions or market realities.

Scarecrow Repair
05-22-2012, 10:04 AM
The City of San Fransisco cannot ban guns. A landlord who owns a house privately in San Fransisco can, if the tenant agrees to the restriction in the form of a signature on the lease.

There is some law with respect to firearms and rentals, now that I think about it. I remember only that there is some distinction between RAWs and other firearms; to bring your RAW to a friend in an apt, the friend needs the landlord's permission. But no permission is needed for non-RAW firearms.

However, that's the limit of my memory on this. And I do not believe that a landlord can ban guns generally any more than they can limit what you listen to on the radio, watch on TV, visit on the internet, or what books you read, or what friends visit, or a zillion other things, regardless of any statutes on the matter.

Scarecrow Repair
05-22-2012, 10:05 AM
And on exactly what do you base that contention?

In general, the various limitations on a landlord's power flow from existing and specific statutory restrictions or market realities.

Do you believe a landlord could limit your books, radio, TV, or Internet access?

fiddletown
05-22-2012, 10:28 AM
There is some law with respect to firearms and rentals, now that I think about it....And exactly what might that law be -- if it even exists?

...However, that's the limit of my memory on this...However, it appears that your memory is an unreliable basis upon which to draw any conclusions about what the law is.

...And I do not believe that a landlord can ban guns generally any more than they can limit what you listen to on the radio, watch on TV, visit on the internet, or what books you read, or what friends visit, or a zillion other things, regardless of any statutes on the matter.In other words, you have no clue what the law is. You only know what you'd like to believe. Of course, the mere fact that you believe something doesn't make it true. So it looks like there's no reason to take you seriously.

There actually at least one State in which there are laws restricting a landlord's ability to enforce a "no guns" clause in a residential. I believe in Michigan, a landlord may not prohibit a tenant with a Michigan LTC from having a gun in his leased dwelling. There may be others.
Do you believe a landlord could limit your books, radio, TV, or Internet access?Beats me. As I sit here, I can't immediately think of any particular law which would prevent it, although there may be such a law; but I'm not interested in doing the research. Certainly, however, any such limitations would probably make a residential property unmarketable as a practical matter.

On the other hand, if an apartment were not wired for cable or satellite, a landlord could prohibit alteration of the premises to accommodate a cable TV or a satellite TV hook up.

FalconLair
05-22-2012, 10:41 AM
^ LA is the same as SF, both have very few reasons to evict. Pain in the *** for the landlord, but does protect an innocent tenant.

thats not really true, any month to month tenant can be given a 60 notice to vacate without any reason, so if a owner really wants to get you out, they can...and its not really that expensive either, it can be done for less than $500.00 in court fees...now a tenant can make it more expensive if they want to fight it, maybe prolong the process, but that can be more expensive for the tenant, especially since the law does allow you to be asked to move without even having to state a reason...

how do i know? well, i've used this tactic to get rid of tenants who became "undesirable" in my opinion at my apartments...one was selling drugs, im sure of it, but had no proof, so instead of trying to evict for selling drugs I had to take a different approach and just give the 60 notice without having to state a reason...its fairly easy and I need no legitimate reason for asking them to move out, other than "I want to take back possession of the unit"...the court has nothing else to rule on, its my right as a owner...i dont know too much about the legalities of prohibiting guns, I have no such provision in my rental agreement, but I would think that as the owner of the property, i could have that right, no one is forcing you to rent from me, provided I let you know in advance and its contained in the written rental agreement...i've heard about some apartment complex's having no smoking agreements written into their rental contracts and they seem to be enforceable, iono

Scarecrow Repair
05-22-2012, 10:52 AM
... a lot of snark ...

Do you enjoy giving lawyers a bad name?

I may not remember the penal code id of the law, but I have read on here several times that bringing a RAW with you to visit a friend requires the landlord's permission, but any other firearm is up to the tenant only.

Saying property rights trumps all is nonsense. They can't tell you what food to eat, what clothes to wear, what books to read, or web sites to visit. It's perfectly reasonable to extend that to having firearms, as opposed to pets or smoking or loud music or motorcycles.

My experience has been that snark usually means "I don't know." If it means something else in your case, please provide a dictionary.

fiddletown
05-22-2012, 11:12 AM
...My experience has been that snark usually means "I don't know." If it means something else in your case, please provide a dictionary."Snark" is your word, not mine. My words are set out in full for all to read. You have apparently interpreted my words as a snarky response to your posts. That of course is your right, but it is still only your interpretation.

...Saying property rights trumps all is nonsense....And exactly where have I ever said that? What I did say, in that regard here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8619801&postcount=52) is:

There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases such as race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and some others, illegal -- at least if you're a landlord, a business open to the public, an employer or in some other specified category. These various anti-discrimination laws only prohibit discrimination on those various specified grounds. Having a gun isn't one of them.

The leasing of residential property is also heavily regulated by statute. There are laws about clauses that have to be in a lease and about clauses that may not be in a lease. There are laws about the rights of tenants. But I've not seen a statute that prohibits a residential landlord in California from putting a "no guns" clause in a lease. And I also said this in that post:

Landlords renting residential property are subject to substantial regulation. The various requirements, regulations and rules to which a residential landlord is subject arose through the political process in which interested parties can participate; and they therefore reflect a considered determination by a legislative body or authorized administrative agency that as a matter of public policy the public interest served by the requirement, regulation or rule was sufficient to justify impairment of the property rights of the landlord.

...It's perfectly reasonable to extend that to having firearms, as opposed to pets or smoking or loud music or motorcycles....Again, the fact that you might think it's perfectly reasonable doesn't make it true. If there is some law that makes what you think is reasonable true, please cite it.

...I may not remember the penal code id of the law, but I have read on here several times that bringing a RAW with you to visit a friend requires the landlord's permission, but any other firearm is up to the tenant only...But if you can't, or don't, cite it we can't see whether our reading and understanding of the law coincides with yours.

sakosf
05-22-2012, 11:38 AM
It is not easy at all to evict a tenant in SF. My landlady tried to evict a problem tenant in our apartment building and she lost the case in court..... the landlady used a lawyer and since then has seen other lawyer and was told it would difficult to get a judge to rule in her favor. This tenant has caused all kinds of disturbances, at all hours of night and other good tenants, have moved out because of this tenant. I still have the 2 dents in my front door from years ago, when this tenant took a hammer to my front door, supposedly because George Bush was in my apartment and I was spying on her (the problem tenant) on his behalf.......very difficult to evict a elderly women with schizophrenia. She does always pay the rent on time

FalconLair
05-22-2012, 11:49 AM
It is not easy at all to evict a tenant in SF. My landlady tried to evict a problem tenant in our apartment building and she lost the case in court..... the landlady used a lawyer and since then has seen other lawyer and was told it would difficult to get a judge to rule in her favor. This tenant has caused all kinds of disturbances, at all hours of night and other good tenants, have moved out because of this tenant. I still have the 2 dents in my front door from years ago, when this tenant took a hammer to my front door, supposedly because George Bush was in my apartment and I was spying on her (the problem tenant) on his behalf.......very difficult to evict a elderly women with schizophrenia. She does always pay the rent on time

sounds like your landlady could use some better lawyers...i've used the 60 day vacate without cause twice in about 6 years and never had any issue in court with it at all...AND i do it "in pro per" which is without a lawyer...they might be able to file some motions and prolong it, but, in the end, getting the unlawful detainer should not be that hard...but I will say you better have all your paperwork in order or your case can get tossed fairly easy, since she is using lawyers that should not be happening though

on another note, if she is trying to evict "for cause" then, yes, the burden of proof falls upon your landlady and her lawyers to prove their case and if they have insufficient proof, then, yes, I could see where Mrs. Schizo might get the upper hand.

calif 15-22
05-22-2012, 12:14 PM
Do you enjoy giving lawyers a bad name?

I may not remember the penal code id of the law, but I have read on here several times that bringing a RAW with you to visit a friend requires the landlord's permission, but any other firearm is up to the tenant only.

If the tenant has a "No guns on premises" clause in his lease then he is in violation when you visit with your firearm (RAW or not). It might not seem fair due to your 2A rights (which I agree) but it is the law nevertheless. 2A rights are granted by the Feds and THEY cannot infringe on them. I as a private landlord can. You can choose not to rent from me but I get to say what goes on in my unit. Now I can't not rent to you based on Race, Religion, Sex, Kids, Disability, etc. BUT I can choose to not rent to you based on any number of things including having guns. May not be right, but it is legal. I've turned away dozens over the years because I just didn't like them.

Saying property rights trumps all is nonsense. They can't tell you what food to eat, what clothes to wear, what books to read, or web sites to visit. It's perfectly reasonable to extend that to having firearms, as opposed to pets or smoking or loud music or motorcycles.


Seems reasonable that they "shouldn't" be able to, but in fact and in the law, they can and do have the right. The 2A rights don't extend to private entities as so well said by others. Does that make it right? No . . . But it does give landlords the right to decide who gets to live in their units. I wouldn't want it any other way.

But to your statement about "They can't tell you what food to eat, what clothes to wear, what books to read, or web sites to visit" you are right to a extent. I have one duplex that has a "No BBQ" clause. Why because there are not backyards and I don't want BBQs on hte driveways. So in a way I get to tell tenants what they can't do for food. I also can't tell you what clothes to wear, but I can evict you for not wearing any. I can't tell you what books to read or web pages to visit, but I pay for cable and can choose not to offer it in my units.

We all want rights when they meet our needs, but remember those rights also go both ways. I want the right to rent to whomever I want to. I personally have no problem with guns and have no such ban in my leases but I could see where some landlords may feel differently and have the right not to rent to gun owners. Heck maybe I should list my units as "Gun Friendly" and get more rent :-)

sakosf
05-22-2012, 12:16 PM
It would require just about all the other tenants to testify in court. The problem tenant was given free legal aid. Although this tenant has caused a lot of disturbances, I don't think all the other tenants were willing to be part of an effort to evict an elderly women, with no living realives, with a mental disease that is not her fault. She has been taken to SF General Mental Hospital against her will, at least 2 times that I know of.

AK all day
05-22-2012, 12:26 PM
Can somebody explain the difference between an owner of a building saying you can't Have guns, and you can't live there if your say "white"?

Gray Peterson
05-22-2012, 12:39 PM
Can somebody explain the difference between an owner of a building saying you can't Have guns, and you can't live there if your say "white"?

fiddletown explained it.

downdiver2
05-22-2012, 12:42 PM
Can somebody explain the difference between an owner of a building saying you can't Have guns, and you can't live there if your say "white"?

google 'CA fair housing laws'.

FalconLair
05-22-2012, 12:42 PM
Can somebody explain the difference between an owner of a building saying you can't Have guns, and you can't live there if your say "white"?

if you dont know the difference i wont waste my time trying to explain...when does your "right" to have a gun trump someone elses "right" for you to not possess one on their property? I'm all for gun rights and 2A but in believing so does not give me the right to trample on someone elses right to limit what they will allow on their personal property...

even if california did eventually come to their senses and restore citizens 2A rights to carry private business would still have a right to "not allow" guns into their place of business...and you would have the right to not patronize that particular business...thats called equal rights i would believe and that is the way it is supposed to be and what we should be fighting for

when you realize that you can retain your rights while at the same time having the ability for respecting the rights of others then you've achieved true equality

fiddletown
05-22-2012, 12:47 PM
Can somebody explain the difference between an owner of a building saying you can't Have guns, and you can't live there if your say "white"?There are specific statutes that say a landlord can't discriminate on the basis of race. There is no law in California, nor most other States, that says a landlord can't enforce a "no guns" clause in a lease. That was all covered in post 52.

HBrebel
05-22-2012, 12:49 PM
protect your rights no matter what. The more steps you take in retreat the more they gain in victory. Keep your guns wherever you want them. If you can't defend your rights, do you really have them?

calif 15-22
05-22-2012, 1:27 PM
if you dont know the difference i wont waste my time trying to explain...when does your "right" to have a gun trump someone elses "right" for you to not possess one on their property? I'm all for gun rights and 2A but in believing so does not give me the right to trample on someone elses right to limit what they will allow on their personal property...

even if california did eventually come to their senses and restore citizens 2A rights to carry private business would still have a right to "not allow" guns into their place of business...and you would have the right to not patronize that particular business...thats called equal rights i would believe and that is the way it is supposed to be and what we should be fighting for

when you realize that you can retain your rights while at the same time having the ability for respecting the rights of others then you've achieved true equality

I think FalconLair summed it up pretty well here. Nice job!

glockman19
05-22-2012, 1:58 PM
There are specific statutes that say a landlord can't discriminate on the basis of race. There is no law in California, nor most other States, that says a landlord can't enforce a "no guns" clause in a lease. That was all covered in post 52.

We have discussed this adnauseum...Fiddletown and I have legal answers and real world answers...

YES a private individual can add any clause to any contract and he can even move to enforce it...however, it is unlikely any court would enforce such a clause.

If you like the place sign the lease. Keep your guns private, (they should be anyway), and move on.

As a landlord I care about the rent being paid on time, no disruption of other building residents and leaving the apartment in the condition they recieved it...beyond that do as you please...Most landlords and managers feel the same way.

Basically legal but unenforceable.

sakosf
05-22-2012, 2:09 PM
rather_die_standing, next time take your time to find an apartment that does not have a firearms prohibition in the rental/lease agreement. Having second thoughts is too late after you have already signed the agreement with the prohibition clause. Fortunately, we are not at the point where only property owners can have a gun in their home. You might be better off staying away from the large apartment complexes and/or those managed by property mgnt companies.

jimx
05-22-2012, 2:19 PM
..and I offered apartment units in NoHo to Calguns members with no takers.. :shrug:

Granted, most of our units are larger (3br, 4br), but some of our renters are roommates. It would have been awesome to see a calguns brotherhood roommate unit with a community safe :D

Well.. I'll lit them here again in the future if we have a vacancy. I only need a list of guns- if you're selling :D

-Dave

how much are your units?

vincewarde
05-22-2012, 2:36 PM
The Constitution is enforceable only against the government.

100% WRONG - just ask anyone doing time in the federal pen for "violating or depriving" someone of their civil rights. I am old enough to remember the 1950s and 1960's civil rights movement. Check it out and you will find that - in the complete absence of specific law - the feds were able to use that angle to put a lot of racists in prison when the state would not prosecute. No specific federal crimes were committed - but if these private parties violated someone's specific civil rights, that was all they needed.

Do you think that a landlord could refuse to rent to anyone who did not agree with his or her politics? How about renting only to atheists or Christians? That would not fly even in the absence of the fair housing act.

If I lived there, I would keep my guns and if they tried to evict me I would get a good lawyer.

calif 15-22
05-22-2012, 3:41 PM
100% WRONG - just ask anyone doing time in the federal pen for "violating or depriving" someone of their civil rights. I am old enough to remember the 1950s and 1960's civil rights movement. Check it out and you will find that - in the complete absence of specific law - the feds were able to use that angle to put a lot of racists in prison when the state would not prosecute. No specific federal crimes were committed - but if these private parties violated someone's specific civil rights, that was all they needed.

Do you think that a landlord could refuse to rent to anyone who did not agree with his or her politics? How about renting only to atheists or Christians? That would not fly even in the absence of the fair housing act.

If I lived there, I would keep my guns and if they tried to evict me I would get a good lawyer.


You would hire a good lawyer and lose. The landlord would present the lease you signed stating "no guns allowed". The judge would ask you "did you read and sign this and is this your signature" "You would say "yes your honor". The judge would then rule in favor of the landlord as you were in violation of your lease.

As gun owners we may not like it . . . but as land owners we want the right to do with as we please with our rentals.

FYI . . .

Right or Wrong, you can refuse to rent to someone for many different reasons. Financial ability to pay, credit history, references come back bad etc. You can even decide not to rent to someone because you don't like people with tattoos, people that drive Fords, people that stink, people I just don't like, people that that hate guns, people that like guns, people with red hair, etc. You just can't refuse to rent based on the 7 elements of the Fair Housing Act.

"The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin. Its coverage includes private housing, housing that receives Federal financial assistance, and State and local government housing. It is unlawful to discriminate in any aspect of selling or renting housing or to deny a dwelling to a buyer or renter because of the disability of that individual, an individual associated with the buyer or renter, or an individual who intends to live in the residence."

Nowhere does it mention Constitutional Rights . . .

NoHeavyHitter
05-22-2012, 3:52 PM
A storage locker is one of the last places I would leave firearms.

If you find yourself forced to use a storage unit, pack your firearm for "long-term storage" by applying plenty of extra grease and lubricant. Then place the gun in an "ALockSak" and suck out all the air.

The wide temperature swings in those storage units will cook off oil in the heat and leave untreated metal (during the winter) exposed to condensation. I've had to go through this crap before and it just plain sucks..

fiddletown
05-22-2012, 4:13 PM
The Constitution is enforceable only against the government.100% WRONG - just ask anyone doing time in the federal pen for "violating or depriving" someone of their civil rights. I am old enough to remember the 1950s and 1960's civil rights movement. Check it out and you will find that - in the complete absence of specific law - the feds were able to use that angle to put a lot of racists in prison when the state would not prosecute. ....And Vince, you're 100% wrong.

How about providing details. I think you'll find those prosecutions were under various, well established civil rights statutes, including 18 USC 241 and 242, both of which go back to at least the 1940s.

In any case, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution doesn't regulate private conduct. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614, (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added:"....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). 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. ...

snobord99
05-23-2012, 8:56 AM
100% WRONG - just ask anyone doing time in the federal pen for "violating or depriving" someone of their civil rights. I am old enough to remember the 1950s and 1960's civil rights movement. Check it out and you will find that - in the complete absence of specific law - the feds were able to use that angle to put a lot of racists in prison when the state would not prosecute. No specific federal crimes were committed - but if these private parties violated someone's specific civil rights, that was all they needed.

Do you think that a landlord could refuse to rent to anyone who did not agree with his or her politics? How about renting only to atheists or Christians? That would not fly even in the absence of the fair housing act.

If I lived there, I would keep my guns and if they tried to evict me I would get a good lawyer.

Posts (and threads) such as this remind me that it's scary that so many people know so little about how their government and their laws work.

fiddletown
05-23-2012, 9:12 AM
Posts (and threads) such as this remind me that it's scary that so many people know so little about how their government and their laws work.Well, I guess maybe the upside for you and me is that if folks knew more, it could be harder for us to make a living. :D

Reilandlaw
05-23-2012, 9:36 AM
I can't state it any better that fiddletown and calif 15-22 did, so I won't beat a dead horse.

Bill

FalconLair
05-23-2012, 10:34 AM
Basically legal but unenforceable.

iono, i've yet to hear a judge use those same two words while making a ruling unless you're in the wrong court or wrong jurisdiction...in fact, the exact reason we have the courts is so that they may enforce what is LEGAL

FalconLair
05-23-2012, 10:54 AM
in addition to my standard rental agreements i also include a list of "House Rules" that all my tenants must read, agree to and sign, things which include no loud music after 10:00pm, no hanging around on the balcony (i hate that ghetto crap) lol, no parking in unassigned spaces, nothing as drastic as the "no guns allowed on premises" rule, yet, all enforcable rules which, if violated, can be cause for eviction

none of these "House Rules" are illegal, per se, but, i can pretty much assure you that if it winds up in court as a "cause" for eviction, there is no legal ground for not sustaining the complaint...when you sign on the dotted line you are entering into a binding contract...if as with any other contract, you don't like the terms you dont enter into the agreement...the only reverse side of this would be, if, in the contract I ask you to do something that is illegal, then, that would make the contract unenforcable, because you cannot legally ask someone to do something that is illegal.

its pretty clean cut and simple, not hiding anything. If you wanna live on a complex that I own, then, these are the rules set forth for EVERYONE and if you don't wanna adhere to these rules you are free to go live somewhere else...no hard feelings

nothing4u
05-23-2012, 1:32 PM
If you sign a contract to give up some rights so you can live there that's your problem not theirs. That complex is private property where all the tenants agreed to not have firearms. Don't like it don't live there.

jl123
05-23-2012, 2:00 PM
****ty situation, but, their property, their rules.

jl123
05-23-2012, 2:01 PM
I don't know if property rights apply. Yes, they own the building. But it is your place of residence. You are paying to live there. I was under the impression that your right to do what you want in your residence trumps their property rights in so much as it comes to your rights. They can make a case for things like smoking because it isn't a protected right. But post Heller, how exactly are they going to say that you can't have a firearm in your residence? As for HOAs, they can't say you can't have firearms either. They can put limits on the appearence of your house. And your use of the street for parking. But they can't influence what goes on in your home for the most part. And no, I made damned sure that didn't live some place that had them because I think they are evil as hell.

-Mb
He signed a contract that said he would use the property in a certain way. They didn't put a gun to his head and make him sign.

sakosf
05-23-2012, 2:13 PM
rather_die_standing;
Hopefully next time you will not find yourself in a perceived desperate situation, when you move. Often when somebody feels that way, they don't make the best decisions for themselves. Moving is a hassle & expense. You want to be in the position to be able to spend as much time as needed to find the place that is right for you to move in to. When you are ready to move again, give a 30 day notice to your current landlord only after you have found another place that is right for you
A coworker of mine recently moved after spending 5 months looking for an apartment in San Francisco. He became frustrated from time to time during his search.....but, in the end he found a place he really liked.

calif 15-22
05-23-2012, 3:00 PM
He signed a contract that said he would use the property in a certain way. They didn't put a gun to his head and make him sign.

They couldn't put a gun to his head anyways since guns are not allowed on the property per the lease :rolleyes:

Sorry I couldn't resist

glockman19
05-23-2012, 3:46 PM
iono, i've yet to hear a judge use those same two words while making a ruling unless you're in the wrong court or wrong jurisdiction...in fact, the exact reason we have the courts is so that they may enforce what is LEGAL

The second a Judge upholds such a clause they, the court, is violating your rights and as Fiddletown points in the post above "the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution doesn't regulate private conduct." and the second they move to enforce it they step beyond their legal authority and viloate your 2A.

In theory it sounds great in practice it is UNENFORCEABLE.

fiddletown
05-23-2012, 4:38 PM
...and the second they move to enforce it they step beyond their legal authority and viloate your 2A...Nope, they are enforcing a judgment on a private contract. First, you had voluntarily agreed to the terms of a private contract. Second, you have had due process.

FalconLair
05-23-2012, 6:12 PM
The second a Judge upholds such a clause they, the court, is violating your rights and as Fiddletown points in the post above "the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution doesn't regulate private conduct." and the second they move to enforce it they step beyond their legal authority and viloate your 2A.

In theory it sounds great in practice it is UNENFORCEABLE.

glock, the Supreme Court doesn't hear your everyday average unlawful detainer (eviction) cases...those are generally handled by your local Municipal Court or Superior Court and there are already plenty of case law precedents in place justifying their rulings...its not their first rodeo on any of this, this stuff has played out in the court rooms since people first started signing rental agreements...in theory, the Supreme Court is basically saying that through private agreement you may legally "waive" your Constitutional right to something, which is what you are doing when you sign such a stipulation on your rental agreement

not everything in life is covered by your "Constitutional Right", if it was, there would be no need for 2 party contractual agreements, since everything would already be covered within the Constitution...glock, next time you go buy a new car just tell the dealership to write up your purchase contract "according to your Constitutional rights" and see what kind of look you get on that ;)

QQQ
05-23-2012, 6:14 PM
Just because it's legal for the landlord to it doesn't make it right.

And I think you need to do what's right.

fiddletown
05-23-2012, 6:16 PM
Just because it's legal for the landlord to it doesn't make it right.

And I think you need to do what's right.And I suppose that you claim to be the ultimate arbiter of what is right.

FalconLair
05-23-2012, 6:37 PM
Just because it's legal for the landlord to it doesn't make it right.

And I think you need to do what's right.

QQQ, i won't say you are wrong about that, but, I have one question for you, if you agree to it, especially in writing, then who else do you have to blame, other than yourself? You can't expect the court to give you a mulligan (a do over) because you suddenly don't like what you signed

fiddletown
05-23-2012, 6:52 PM
And if it's a question of doing the right thing, in my view the right thing is living up to your agreements.

kcbrown
05-23-2012, 8:34 PM
"The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin.

But not political beliefs.

Now that is interesting.

QQQ
05-23-2012, 8:43 PM
QQQ, i won't say you are wrong about that, but, I have one question for you, if you agree to it, especially in writing, then who else do you have to blame, other than yourself? You can't expect the court to give you a mulligan (a do over) because you suddenly don't like what you signed

Breaking a private contract isn't a criminal offense. Or at least it shouldn't be.

At worst, the consequence for breaking a written contract should be a loss of reputation and reparations for the actual losses incurred by the other party. That's it.

kcbrown
05-23-2012, 8:51 PM
And Vince, you're 100% wrong.

How about providing details. I think you'll find those prosecutions were under various, well established civil rights statutes, including 18 USC 241 and 242, both of which go back to at least the 1940s.


18 USC 242 is about deprivation of rights under the color of law. Quite clearly, that is applicable only to government actors.

That leaves 18 USC 241, which reads:


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


Now, if the original lease agreement contains a "no firearms" provision and you sign it, the above probably doesn't apply because you have not established your home yet and, furthermore, the landlord will be basing your eviction on the violation of the lease agreement. But if the original does have a "no firearms" clause not but the new revised one does, then the above quite possibly could apply, because the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment protects firearms ownership most notably in the home. Of course, that presumes that there is more than one person involved on the owner's side of the equation.

Of course, here in California, you'll get no such protection. 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 are essentially dead letters today.

FalconLair
05-23-2012, 9:43 PM
Breaking a private contract isn't a criminal offense. Or at least it shouldn't be.

At worst, the consequence for breaking a written contract should be a loss of reputation and reparations for the actual losses incurred by the other party. That's it.

unlawful detainers are civil actions, there is no criminal liability...and the "reparations" or "remedy", as the court calls it, is the granting of the unlawful detainer or the writ of possession to the plaintiff

and thats pretty much what all of this has been about...there is a legal precedent which allows landlords/owners to evict tenants for violating the written language in a rental agreement...keep in mind the eviction isn't for having the gun, but for violating the written agreement to NOT have it

Meplat
05-23-2012, 9:48 PM
But not political beliefs.

Now that is interesting.

I think it also mentions creed in there. That could be interpreted to include political and philosophical beliefs.

Meplat
05-23-2012, 10:00 PM
And if it's a question of doing the right thing, in my view the right thing is living up to your agreements.


If you were in Austria in 1940 and you had to sign a lease that said you would turn in any suspected Jews you came across, would you hold to it?

FalconLair
05-23-2012, 10:28 PM
If you were in Austria in 1940 and you had to sign a lease that said you would turn in any suspected Jews you came across, would you hold to it?

this coming from a guy with over 5,000 post? Shame on you, you should know better

snobord99
05-24-2012, 1:33 AM
If you were in Austria in 1940 and you had to sign a lease that said you would turn in any suspected Jews you came across, would you hold to it?

Seriously? You're going to compare someone agreeing to not keep a gun in their rental when they probably had tens, if not hundreds, more places they could have chosen to turning in Jews in, in essence, Nazi Germany? It's these kinds of ridiculous comparisons that make pro-gunners look completely unreasonable.

snobord99
05-24-2012, 1:35 AM
Well, I guess maybe the upside for you and me is that if folks knew more, it could be harder for us to make a living. :D

True, but I'd hate to get a client that didn't even understand something this basic ;)

Cylarz
05-24-2012, 2:39 AM
Let me preface by saying that I'm not going to get into what is and isn't legal. I don't know and don't care enough to research it, since at present I am in an owner-occupied dwelling and am neither landlord nor tenant. What follows is my opinion, as a practical (not legal) matter:

I say roll the dice and take your chances. Put me down in the "what he doesn't know won't hurt him" column. The absolute worst case scenario is that you are evicted, have to move, and (possibly) get a bad reference when your next landlord decides to check up on your past while reviewing your rental application. In that case you can decide whether you want to tell the truth, or be vague about it...like I am in a job interview when the interviewer wants to know why I got fired from such-and-such job years ago.

That said, do all that you can to avoid pissing the landlord off. Be a nice guy, be friendly, obey the rest of the rules about parking, pets, noise, guests, smoking, etc.

By that I mean, keep your guns in the apartment and hope nobody notices them. If the landlord does find out about them, he might not choose to make an issue of it.

If he does, try to convince him that they're harmless, being stored securely and all that.

If he won't listen, threaten him with legal action. Even if these legal-eagle fellows here are right in their contention that landlords can kick you out and that your case would go nowhere, maybe you'll at least make him think twice about how far he wants to escalate this. It still costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit, even if the plaintiff hasn't got a leg to stand on. Anybody can sue anybody for anything.

It might not even go to court - sometimes all it takes is having your attorney write a threatening letter filled with lots of obscure legal references. Your landlord might decide this is more trouble than it's worth and back down.

If he doesn't and he succeeds in kicking you out, then make sure the last thing you say to him is: That he's just ejected an otherwise stellar tenant.

Lastly, go to http://www.apartmentratings.com/ and tell the entire world how you were treated. Finally, fire off a letter of complaint to whatever governmental body it is that governs the use of rental housing. I'd go out of my way to cause as much trouble, expense, and embarrassment as I could. If it's a corporate owned-unit (a large complex and/or a chain of complexes), make darn sure that the onsite manager's/landlord's corporate overlords get an earful.

Make an example of him if you can. See what you can do to scare off other potential renters, and make other landlords think twice about hassling their tenants in this way. Be "bad for business." Raise a ruckus. I'm sure you get the idea.

To all the landlords posting here who've assured the original poster that they're well within their rights to refuse to rent to anyone who doesn't fall within the seven protected classes, remember that there's a difference between refusing to offer a rental contract...

...and actually evicting a tenant who is already in the unit. We can argue all day long about how big of a deal it is to kick someone out, but the difference is undeniable. My understanding has always been that CA law is generally on the renter's side, not the landlord's, absent a very compelling reason. I spent fifteen years living in rental housing - from my second year of college all the way up until a couple years back - and never heard of anyone getting booted out except for the most egregious violations -nonpayment of rent, drug activity, serious stuff like that. I don't buy that you can evict someone for 500 bucks, easy as pie. I thought it took you a couple of months, a sheriff, and a ream of paperwork. Landlords don't do this without a good reason.

It's one reason I've been reluctant to take on boarders, even though I own my house and have empty bedrooms. I'm afraid I'd never get them out if things went bad...or even if I could, that they might cause legal trouble for me, or even return and vandalize my property after losing in court. (That's one more thing your landlord needs to take into consideration - disgruntled former tenants. Don't actually threaten him with this...duh.)

Tell you one thing...you guys make me darn glad I finally bought a house and don't have to deal with this.

Cylarz
05-24-2012, 3:09 AM
Seriously? You're going to compare someone agreeing to not keep a gun in their rental when they probably had tens, if not hundreds, more places they could have chosen to turning in Jews in, in essence, Nazi Germany? It's these kinds of ridiculous comparisons that make pro-gunners look completely unreasonable.

I don't know, I think it's kind of an interesting question actually. At the very least, it forces to you ask what's right, not just what's legal. Lots of things are and have been legal, even required, which went against any common understand of what's right.

Breaking a private contract isn't a criminal offense. Or at least it shouldn't be.

It's not. It's a civil matter. It's why you sue someone instead of having him arrested.

@fiddletown:
And I suppose that you claim to be the ultimate arbiter of what is right.

Stop playing word games. You know perfectly well what he means. It's bad enough that you've been inexcusably rude to the posters who don't agree with your absolutist point of view, the one that states their 2nd Amendment rights apparently end where your front door begins. Your reasoning doesn't at all convince me that's the case and I think one could easily argue the other way - that the McDonald SCOTUS decision applies to private parties within the borders of states, not just state governments.

DannyInSoCal
05-24-2012, 3:57 AM
How were your rights violated?

It was your choice to sign the agreement.

The fact you were "tired of looking at apartments and in a hurry" is a weak argument at best.

Now make another choice: Ignore your contract, leave your firearms in storage, or move.

Wanting free legal advice/representation to solve an issue you knowingly created is not what the CGF is for -

Stop whining and decide...

calif 15-22
05-24-2012, 7:08 AM
Let me preface by saying that I'm not going to get into what is and isn't legal. I don't know and don't care enough to research it, since at present I am in an owner-occupied dwelling and am neither landlord nor tenant. What follows is my opinion, as a practical (not legal) matter:

I say roll the dice and take your chances. Put me down in the "what he doesn't know won't hurt him" column. The absolute worst case scenario is that you are evicted, have to move, and (possibly) get a bad reference when your next landlord decides to check up on your past while reviewing your rental application. In that case you can decide whether you want to tell the truth, or be vague about it...like I am in a job interview when the interviewer wants to know why I got fired from such-and-such job years ago.

That said, do all that you can to avoid pissing the landlord off. Be a nice guy, be friendly, obey the rest of the rules about parking, pets, noise, guests, smoking, etc.

By that I mean, keep your guns in the apartment and hope nobody notices them. If the landlord does find out about them, he might not choose to make an issue of it.

If he does, try to convince him that they're harmless, being stored securely and all that.

If he won't listen, threaten him with legal action. Even if these legal-eagle fellows here are right in their contention that landlords can kick you out and that your case would go nowhere, maybe you'll at least make him think twice about how far he wants to escalate this. It still costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit, even if the plaintiff hasn't got a leg to stand on. Anybody can sue anybody for anything.

It might not even go to court - sometimes all it takes is having your attorney write a threatening letter filled with lots of obscure legal references. Your landlord might decide this is more trouble than it's worth and back down.

If he doesn't and he succeeds in kicking you out, then make sure the last thing you say to him is: That he's just ejected an otherwise stellar tenant.

Lastly, go to http://www.apartmentratings.com/ and tell the entire world how you were treated. Finally, fire off a letter of complaint to whatever governmental body it is that governs the use of rental housing. I'd go out of my way to cause as much trouble, expense, and embarrassment as I could. If it's a corporate owned-unit (a large complex and/or a chain of complexes), make darn sure that the onsite manager's/landlord's corporate overlords get an earful.

Make an example of him if you can. See what you can do to scare off other potential renters, and make other landlords think twice about hassling their tenants in this way. Be "bad for business." Raise a ruckus. I'm sure you get the idea.

To all the landlords posting here who've assured the original poster that they're well within their rights to refuse to rent to anyone who doesn't fall within the seven protected classes, remember that there's a difference between refusing to offer a rental contract...

...and actually evicting a tenant who is already in the unit. We can argue all day long about how big of a deal it is to kick someone out, but the difference is undeniable. My understanding has always been that CA law is generally on the renter's side, not the landlord's, absent a very compelling reason. I spent fifteen years living in rental housing - from my second year of college all the way up until a couple years back - and never heard of anyone getting booted out except for the most egregious violations -nonpayment of rent, drug activity, serious stuff like that. I don't buy that you can evict someone for 500 bucks, easy as pie. I thought it took you a couple of months, a sheriff, and a ream of paperwork. Landlords don't do this without a good reason.

It's one reason I've been reluctant to take on boarders, even though I own my house and have empty bedrooms. I'm afraid I'd never get them out if things went bad...or even if I could, that they might cause legal trouble for me, or even return and vandalize my property after losing in court. (That's one more thing your landlord needs to take into consideration - disgruntled former tenants. Don't actually threaten him with this...duh.)

Tell you one thing...you guys make me darn glad I finally bought a house and don't have to deal with this.

FAIL!! Break the contract? Intimidate him? Threaten him? Really?? Why because you signed a lease agreed to his terms then "Ooops" I read the lease and now don't like it. Give me a freaking break! This is what's wrong with society today. No one takes repsonsibility for their own actions. Reminds of the ball players that sign a contract to play for a price, then hold out for more money.

I've been a landlord for going on 25 years. I've had some really great tenants and have had more than my share of crappy ones as well. You have prescribed rules in leases so there are no questions later. The OP is not being threatened with eviction, he is trying to ignore a clause in his lease and bring his guns to his new place. He is free to do that and most likely will not have an issue. However if the landlord does find out, the landlord is within his rights to evict. He may choose not to, but it is within his rights to do so. The OP has the right to move. He has the right to ask his current or future landlord if guns are allowed.

He even has the right to violate the terms of his current lease. He has that right but with that right comes the potential consequence of exercising that right. That being he could get evicted.

And it is very very easy to evict someone (with some exceptions like in SF). I've done probably 5 times in 25 years. Sheriff arrives with notice to vacate. Tenant is shocked. "What are you serious! Just becasue I haven't paid in 4 months you're kicking me out" "Where will I go".

Tenant gets their crap out and usually threatens to sue. They never do because these days everything is in writing. They know it, you know it. You end up renting to another person because there is such a high demand for rentals that "apartmentratings.com" doesn't even hit the radar.

Please rethink your stance on landlords. Some are crappy I will give you that. Others are decent people who have a TON of cash on the line trying to protect their investment and make a living doing so. Not all are big corporations with thousands of units. Some are just average guys with their life savings on the line.

fiddletown
05-24-2012, 7:16 AM
@fiddletown:

...It's bad enough that you've been inexcusably rude to the posters who don't agree with your absolutist point of view, the one that states their 2nd Amendment rights apparently end where your front door begins....[1] As for my being rude, I prefer to think of it as being blunt, but you have a right to your opinion.

[2] As far as being absolutist, the only "absolute" positions I've taken are:


The Constitution does not regulate private conduct. That position is supported by Supreme Court precedents, one of which I've cited and quoted.


There is no law in California prohibiting a "no guns" clause in a lease or which would make such a clause unenforceable. I stand by that. If you disagree, provide a citation to the law.


I've stated current law in California. The law can be changed. But unless and until it is changed, it is what it is. I've ventured no opinion on whether or not it should be changed.

...Your reasoning doesn't at all convince me that's the case and I think one could easily argue the other way - that the McDonald SCOTUS decision applies to private parties within the borders of states, not just state governments.You could argue anything you want. That doesn't mean that any court will pay attention to your argument. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution does not regulate private conduct.

...18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 are essentially dead letters today.You missed the point.

In post 90 vincewarde challenged the position that the Constitution didn't regulate private conduct by pointing to prosecutions for violation of civil rights back in the '50s and '60s. He was apparently implying that those prosecutions were solely under the Constitution. I noted that there were applicable federal civil rights statutes in force at the time.

I never suggested that those laws might be applicable to the residential lease question.

taperxz
05-24-2012, 7:28 AM
Put it this way. EVEN IF, you have a right to have a firearm in your apartment after a lease says "NO FIREARMS". You would still be in violation and subject to breaking the lease if you were caught carrying in the gun or taking it out of the apartment in the owners common areas which you have no entitlement to.

You can use the owners access to theses areas but are subject to their rules.

Meplat
05-24-2012, 9:57 AM
this coming from a guy with over 5,000 post? Shame on you, you should know better


I really don’t understand what transgression I made that was so shameful? I was just trying to point out that when dealing with oppression, or mindless bureaucracy, sometimes the more noble thing is to fudge a bit.

If you can point out what I said that was shameful I would be happy to apologize.

This thread has been, it think, the finest example of folks on one side trying mightily to explain the facts to the other side that does not want to hear them. There is none so blind as he who will not see (I forget who wrote that). The amount of folks trying to use; “That doesn’t seem right so it must be illegal”; to refute quoted statute is staggering! Heck, substituting feelings for facts is one of the biggest reasons we have an anti gun problem to start with.

Meplat
05-24-2012, 10:32 AM
Seriously? You're going to compare someone agreeing to not keep a gun in their rental when they probably had tens, if not hundreds, more places they could have chosen to turning in Jews in, in essence, Nazi Germany? It's these kinds of ridiculous comparisons that make pro-gunners look completely unreasonable.


It was exaggeration for emphases. It was a hypothetical to point out that there is a point for everyone after which they would break their word. Everyone has his own threshold of righteous indignation. I picked one that, most probably, all could agree on, to illustrate the point. Weather the present situation is beyond that threshold for the OP, only he can answer. It would be for me. I would point out that thousands of people who could actually afford to pay their mortgage after the bubble burst, reneged and walked away, simply because their home was no longer perceived by them to be a good investment. That I would not do. But when it comes to protecting my family, yes, that’s enough for me to violate a private contract. But that’s just me, YMMV.

I was in no way implying that fiddletown would actually do such a thing. To any, including fiddletown who may have perceived it as such; I apologize.

fiddletown
05-24-2012, 11:16 AM
...I was in no way implying that fiddletown would actually do such a thing. To any, including fiddletown who may have perceived it as such; I apologize.I didn't perceive it as such. But your post did serve as yet another proof of Godwin's Law.

We really do need to have some sense of proportion. We're not talking about rounding up Jews, Gypsies, etc., and herding them wholesale into gas chambers.

Librarian
05-24-2012, 11:21 AM
OK!

Everyone has now appropriately made nice. Those who can be persuaded have been persuaded.

I think we're done here.