stupid Antigun rental advice in chronicle.

[DocSkinner]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/RE3615DOOP.DTL

This article appeared on page K - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle


************************************************** ********************

[CSACANNONEER]

I don't see this as anti-gun advise as much as I see it as CYAWP advise in these sue happy times. Although, I think that it would be good to get the original letter writer to a range and teach him/her that firearms are not the safety issue that he/she is making them out to be.

[DocSkinner]

I don't see this as anti-gun advise as much as I see it as CYAWP advise in these sue happy times. Although, I think that it would be good to get the original letter writer to a range and teach him/her that firearms are not the safety issue that he/she is making them out to be.

sorry for mispost - Should have posted this in General:2ND, P &L

as they suggest the same measures as were just found illegal in DC v Heller, I think it is clearly antigun.

This person volunteered information about their job, and now get extra restrictions, biases, and possibly denial to let based upon their legal possession of a firearm.

The agent makes no statement about having checked that any other renters own firearms, and the Sentinel Project makes no statement that they should incorporate that language into all leases.

How does this agent think they can tell which renters own firearms, and which do not?


This lease agreement deals specifically with the person's home, and they want "written documentation of his right to carry a firearm" in his own house? It is called the 2nd AM, and Heller has clearly defined that it means that all people have the right, and that to require firearms being unavailable/inaccessible in one's own home is also illegal.

[Vectrexer]

I just had to leave a comment on that one!

[jmlivingston]

as they suggest the same measures as were just found illegal in DC v Heller

Please don't think I'm defending the Agent or the property owner, but I strongly disagree with your statement quoted above. The case of DC v Heller was regarding govt. restrictions and regulations; that is drastically different than a property owners rights to choose what occurs on their private property.

John

[DocSkinner]

Please don't think I'm defending the Agent or the property owner, but I strongly disagree with your statement quoted above. The case of DC v Heller was regarding govt. restrictions and regulations; that is drastically different than a property owners rights to choose what occurs on their private property.

John

I understand completely - and I still stand by my reasoning, and think you are missing the point.


If a rental agency thinks homosexuals are all child molesters and therefore present a danger, does he have the right to add restriction only to homosexual rentors?

If rental agency thinks all <insert whatever minority> renters are gang bangers and therefore pose a threat, can he add restrictions only to <insert whatever minority> renters?

If a rental agent thinks all middle eastern people are terrorists, can they add special "do no terror" language to only their middle eastern renters?





Apartments are not private property, per se - they are a business property and the units become the quasi personal property of the renter/occupant - such as how the landlord must still give notice and make arrangements to enter the property - as it is no longer purely THEIR personal property.
If this person wants to restrict guns in his own residence that he occupies - THAT is private property and therefore his right. If he is going too operate a business of renting property, then he must abide by all discrimination laws.

If this person is *that* worried about getting sued based upon what some tenant does, they should get out of the business. And if they are ONLY applying their paranoia to lawful gun owners, it is clearly antigun bias.

[Matt C]

Also, you may wish to request written documentation of his right to carry a firearm

Dear Apartment Manager,

Per your request for written documentation of my right to carry a firearm, please review the following federal law:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (part of the United States Bill of Rights) declares "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thank you for your understanding,

-Tenant

P.S.: **** off, commie *****

[CSACANNONEER]

Apartments are not private property, per se - they are a business property and the units become the quasi personal property of the renter/occupant - such as how the landlord must still give notice and make arrangements to enter the property - as it is no longer purely THEIR personal property.
If this person wants to restrict guns in his own residence that he occupies - THAT is private property and therefore his right. If he is going too operate a business of renting property, then he must abide by all discrimination laws.

If this person is *that* worried about getting sued based upon what some tenant does, they should get out of the business. And if they are ONLY applying their paranoia to lawful gun owners, it is clearly antigun bias.

It is the owners property plain and simple. Tenants may live there and be entitiled to certain rights but, the property owner still has certain rights and he/she can decide to or not to allow certain items to be stored on his/her property. Think RVs, boats, trailers, waterbeds, pets, etc. So, if the owner decided to put a no-firearms clause in the lease, it's up to the renter to decide if he/she want to live that way or not. Now, if we are talking about publicly owned, low income housing, the courts have already ruled that the government agency that owns those properties can not exclude tenants from owning/possessing firearms at those properties. In the case of the original question, I don't think the property owner can single out one tenant based on his occupation but, the property owner could start writting a new clause into new leases.

[jmlivingston]

The way I see it is that there's two things going on here:

1) The behavior is certainly discriminatory against a lawful gun owner.
2) This discrimination is being applied towards a single individual, rather than a class of individuals.

Regarding 2) above, are gun owners a lawfully protected group (i.e. race, religion, sec, etc)? Remember that even in some very gun friendly states with liberal OC/CCW policies that businesses still have the right to deny entry and service to patrons that are carrying. If this property agent is so worried about gun ownership it should be applied fairly across the entire group and not directed towards a single individual.

All that said, I agree that none of this should even be an issue.

John

[CSACANNONEER]

All that said, I agree that none of this should even be an issue.

John

I should have clarified my beliefs by adding this statement as well.

[Matt C]

Why should they even know you are a gun owner? I'm certainly not going to volunteer that information.

[DocSkinner]

It is the owners property plain and simple. Tenants may live there and be entitiled to certain rights but, the property owner still has certain rights and he/she can decide to or not to allow certain items to be stored on his/her property. Think RVs, boats, trailers, waterbeds, pets, etc. So, if the owner decided to put a no-firearms clause in the lease, it's up to the renter to decide if he/she want to live that way or not. Now, if we are talking about publicly owned, low income housing, the courts have already ruled that the government agency that owns those properties can not exclude tenants from owning/possessing firearms at those properties. In the case of the original question, I don't think the property owner can single out one tenant based on his occupation but, the property owner could start writting a new clause into new leases.

Key point - singling out 1 tenant, he could rewrite (make an addendum that all current lessors have to agree to) all the leases to incorporate that clause, possibly, but to just start adding it to new leases is also discriminatory. Pets cause damage and are allergy issues, Waterbeds often exceed apt. floor load limits.





and you have no guaranteed right to keep and bear boats, RVs etc. (plus those are usually public eyesore and space issues.)

The land lord can also not say you are forbidden from storing or displaying anything Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian in your Apt.


think about this - this IS Heller - so the SC says that DC can't keep a security guard from keeping his gun at Apt and available (Heller), so now then lets just sidestep and have all the landlords prohibit it. The courts stated that a person has the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and to have them available for self defense. A fundamental right - not a conditional right.

"Oh - I am sorry - you choose to exercise your 1st AM or 2nd AM rights? then I won't lease to you..."

This is like all gun banning laws - how is it enforced and does this mean the drug dealer in 3C is going to say "Oh - sorry - my nad, I will just now move..."

[Matt C]

The land lord can also not say you are forbidden from storing or displaying anything Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian in your Apt.

Because religion is a protected class and there are laws prohibiting discrimination. Nothing to do with constitutional rights.

think about this - this IS Heller - so the SC says that DC can't keep a security guard from keeping his gun at Apt and available (Heller), so now then lets just sidestep and have all the landlords prohibit it.

Just as the Head Janitor can restrict what we can say here without violating our first amendment rights, a private property owner can restrict you from bringing guns onto his property. The BoR does not apply to non-governmental parties.

Oh - I am sorry - you choose to exercise your 1st AM or 2nd AM rights? then I won't lease to you...

There may be other reasons the Landlord is not allowed to do this, but the 2nd does not prohibit it.

[DocSkinner]

Why should they even know you are a gun owner? I'm certainly not going to volunteer that information.

well, in this case I am sure they did the pre-lease screen and his job is "security guard" - so then panic button hit -

and so this is also discriminatory in that way - the person has a firearm related profession, so for that person, you are going add special conditions.

This just sounds like someone setting up for a lawsuit to test the limits of Heller.

[DocSkinner]

The way I see it is that there's two things going on here:

1) The behavior is certainly discriminatory against a lawful gun owner.
2) This discrimination is being applied towards a single individual, rather than a class of individuals.

Regarding 2) above, are gun owners a lawfully protected group (i.e. race, religion, sec, etc)? Remember that even in some very gun friendly states with liberal OC/CCW policies that businesses still have the right to deny entry and service to patrons that are carrying. If this property agent is so worried about gun ownership it should be applied fairly across the entire group and not directed towards a single individual.

All that said, I agree that none of this should even be an issue.

John

and it does bring up an interesting point about protected class - but I think that is a separate issue as this is not about a class, but about restricting someone's exercise of their constitutional rights. - I think the "protected class" is the wrong tack on this issue - My examples may have been misleading that way!