apartment complex no gun policy

[Cylarz]

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]

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]

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]

@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:

1. The Constitution does not regulate private conduct. That position is supported by Supreme Court precedents, one of which I've cited and quoted.
   
   
2. 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]

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]

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

[Meplat]

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]

...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]

OK!

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

I think we're done here.