Illegal to own firearm in federal funded housing?

[em9sredbeam]

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

[morfeeis]

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

i heard of this before and from what i understand it's not legal. but don't worry i don't think they will find any legal firearms....

[Shellshocker66]

I think you are asking if it is illegal for the company employing your girlfriend to enforce a no gun rule at her place of residence? Which her place of residence is owned by her employer?

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

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

[Librarian]

For residents, that's an illegal requirement - see http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4305 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Mon...sing_Authority and, related, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...07778878388943

For employees?

[em9sredbeam]

They company was saying for tenents, and managers that it is illegal, not company policy.

[PsychGuy274]

It's illegal to ban guns per the San Fransisco Housing Authority Case. Federally funded housing cannot legally ban guns.

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

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

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

For residents, that's an illegal requirement - see http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4305 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Mon...sing_Authority and, related, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...07778878388943

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

[Peter.Steele]

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

Riiiight.

Title IX and Cheerleading, anyone?

[unusedusername]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Riiiight.

Title IX and Cheerleading, anyone?

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

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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

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

[safewaysecurity]

FGG where ya been? Lol we missed you.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

FGG where ya been? Lol we missed you.

Lurking, and working too much!

[Munk]

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

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

[Kid Stanislaus]

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

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