Guns banned in Rentals

[Yankee Traveler]

http://http://www.theleafchronicle.c...r-breakingnews

Tennessee's Attorny General seems to have the "opinion" that a landlord may ban firearms. Granted, it's not law but just his opinion, but it does reveal where his head is at....I'll leave the visualizations to you...

This seems to fly in the face of the castle doctrine, where you can defend ANY residence. I can understand an owner of property such as a mall, shopping plaza, restaurant, etc to ban firearms. but not your place of residence.

[knight0334]

Just about anywhere in the US of A, landowner rights prevail. Also, tenants that sign such agreements do so on their own accord and freely.

It has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine, but rather property rights - which is the prime basis to nearly all other rights.

[Frank Ettin]

The link doesn't work.

In any case, in general a tenant's right to the property he rents is subject to the terms of the lease, to the extent they are valid and enforceable under the law of the place where the property is located. In some states, there may be statutory or case law prohibiting "no guns" clauses; but absent such laws, a "no guns" clause would be valid and enforceable.

If it is valid and enforceable, the tenant is risking eviction if the landlord finds out. It's probably unlikely that he will find out, but unlikely things happen from time to time. How lucky does the tenant feel?

Whether or not the landlord is likely to act if he does find out will depend in part on how strongly he personally objects to tenants having guns. He may be using a form lease and not have even thought about that clause, or he could be virulently anti-gun. And whether or not he takes action will also depend on current market conditions where the property is. If there are few vacancies, he can probably count on finding a new tenant right away if he tosses a tenant out. But if there's a lot available residential rentals around, he'll be less likely to put a tenant out on the street (where he probably won't stay too long) and wind up with an empty apartment for an extended period of time.

Note that the Constitution does not regulate private conduct. It regulates government conduct.

[Technosavant]

When apartment hunting, I read over the lease rather closely for any restrictions on firearms. There were none, so we signed. Had there been some, we'd have kept looking.

Precious few places have only one or two landlords looking to rent. Even in the current real estate market with people going from owning to renting, there's a glut of rental properties. If a landlord wants to be anti-gun, let them sit on their empty property.

[azredhawk44]

I had a landlord in AZ try to change my lease mid-way through the term after an idiot in a neighboring town tried to assemble a pipe bomb in his apartment and blew up the unit.

The new restrictions he tried to put in place specified no guns, ammo, oxygen bottles (any angry old people at that one?), carbide (get carbide wet and it released acetylene gas), propane/butane tanks (even the little backpacker/camp stove ones), gunpowder, primers, gasoline and several other things.

I took great offense to it and refused to sign, and got into an interesting exchange. Civil, polite and respectful, but interesting.

I didn't contest his right to do it, though I was tempted to. I contested his right to do such a dramatic change to the existing lease mid-way through the lease. I would never have signed such a lease as an apartment shopper.

He agreed that it was probably a significant addendum to people that objected strenuously to it and "allowed" me to finish out my lease without signing it. I left the property to live in another place without such restrictions.

I value my private property rights now as a home owner in a non-HOA neighborhood... but I honor agreements I enter into willingly.

[KSFreeman]

This would never happen in Tennessee!

[CUBAN REDNECK]

I don't think that these clauses are legal or enforceable. Could a landlord write a clause banning certain ethnic groups and be legal? Of course not. Owning a firearm is a personal thing and frankly none of a landlord's business. I can buy whatever TV's, computers and any other sort of tools that I like, including fiearms.

[dondavis3]

I believe that the property owner can set the rules.

And if we don't like them we can move.

[KLRANGL]

Not in good ol Virginia. Any "no guns" clause in a rental agreement has no legal bearing at all. You really don't even have to tell the landlord, just sign it and keep your guns anyway. If he finds out and tries to evict you, he could face a lawsuit...
Right or wrong, that's how it is...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by CUBAN REDNECK

...Could a landlord write a clause banning certain ethnic groups and be legal? Of course not....

Such discrimination is prohibited by a variety of state and federal statutes. While statutes in some states may prohibit "no gun" clauses in leases, most states do not. Absent a law prohibiting such a "no guns" clause, it is valid and enforceable.

[OuTcAsT]

I believe that the property owner can set the rules.

He can, to a point, but he cannot set rules that restrict your constitutional rights and they remain enforcable.

Upon further reading of the AG's "opinion" he even admits that a violation of such rules would likely not be enforcable. This is basically "Bravo Sierra" From a notoriously liberal newsrag, intended to stir up the same.

When you "rent" a property you may have "reasonable" restrictions ( no pets, no smoking inside) in your lease, but the fact that you "rent" the property also means you are able to enjoy all the constitutional rights any other person enjoys in their home.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

He can, to a point, but he cannot set rules that restrict your constitutional rights and they remain enforcable....

The Constitution regulates government and not private conduct. The landlord is not restricted by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...the fact that you "rent" the property also means you are able to enjoy all the constitutional rights any other person enjoys in their home.

Nope. We enjoy our constitutional rights free from interference by government. The landlord is not restricted by the Constitution.

[jontz]

fiddletown, you've hit the nail on the head. There is a big difference between renting and owning.

[Crosshair]

Such discrimination is prohibited by a variety of state and federal statutes.

To play devils advocate on discrimination law, that comes back to backfire at times. There are a couple of places I know of where there is a shortage of rental properties because of a certain ethnic group. Not being able to discriminate against them results in high rents (to offset the damage they cause.), high security deposits (to offset the damage they cause.), and a shortage of rental units (As landlords don't want to take the risk and stop renting the units.) The end result is high rents, high security deposits, and lack of low cost housing for everyone because landlords have to charge everyone those prices lest they be charged with discrimination. One hates to be stereotypical, but sometimes those stereotypes have a grounding in reality.

Someone I know works at an audio store and it's kind of known that the security deposits and fees they charge for rentals vary depending on who you are because certain groups of renters are more likely to damage/blow out equipment than others. Who is more likely to blow out a set of $1200 speakers; the local Church fundraiser committee or some wannabe rapper who is setting up for a weekend party? At least here they don't discriminate based on skin color, but on other factors.

It's hard to go either way on this issue. I'm strongly pro-2nd, but also pro-property rights as well.

[csmsss]

There are a couple of places I know of where there is a shortage of rental properties because of a certain ethnic group. Not being able to discriminate against them results in high rents (to offset the damage they cause.), high security deposits (to offset the damage they cause.), and a shortage of rental units (As landlords don't want to take the risk and stop renting the units.)

Oh, those pesky caucasians. Can't we send them back to Europe?

[OuTcAsT]

The landlord is not restricted by the Constitution.

Really counselor?

I own some rental property, let us suppose I decide that I will rent to African-Americans only, and make it against the rules for anyone of another race to even visit, are you going to tell me that is somehow enforceable ? By whom ?
and by what means?

Or that I decide to require all tenants to a search of the premises at any time I see fit ? is that enforceable?

Or I decide that there will be no verbal, written, or electronically transmitted communication within the dwelling without prior written consent by management, what then?

Certainly you will concede that these are all civil matters ? and that the tenant has a choice whether he will agree to the "rules" in order to live on the property?

So, your opinion is that; because one chooses to rent, versus own that one must give up constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Please educate me as to exactly when one waives his constitutional rights when he rents an apartment?

[carguychris]

I own some rental property, let us suppose I decide that I will rent to African-Americans only, and make it against the rules for anyone of another race to even visit, are you going to tell me that is somehow enforceable ? By whom ?
and by what means?

Racially-biased leases and deed restrictions are a violation of federal law, but not a violation of the Constitution. They were commonplace in the South up until a few decades ago. IIRC they were specifically overturned by the passage of law, not by legal precedent or court action.

Or that I decide to require all tenants to a search of the premises at any time I see fit ? is that enforceable?

Yes, in fact it is. IIRC the Supreme Court upheld the landlord's right a few years ago when a landlord consented to a police search of a rental property and contraband was found. The renter claimed that his rights were violated but the court said otherwise and upheld his conviction. Can't put my finger on the specific case, so I'll get back to you on this.

Or I decide that there will be no verbal, written, or electronically transmitted communication within the dwelling without prior written consent by management, what then?

If the renter says OK, then so be it.

Certainly you will concede that these are all civil matters ? and that the tenant has a choice whether he will agree to the "rules" in order to live on the property?

Yes, it's called a legally binding contract.

So, your opinion is that; because one chooses to rent, versus own that one must give up constitutionally guaranteed rights?

If the lease says so, and the renter signs, then yes. And it's not just my opinion, it's a fact... the renter legally agreed to give up those rights.

Please educate me as to exactly when one waives his constitutional rights when he rents an apartment?

When one signs on the dotted line and agrees to give up those rights.

This is yet another reason why fine print must be read very carefully.

The Constitution regulates government and not private conduct. The landlord is not restricted by the Constitution.

+1. Only 2 provisions of the Constitution directly restrict the conduct of an individual citizen. I would bet you that only a handful of Americans know what those 2 provisions are.

• Under the 13th Amendment, an individual may not enslave another.
• Under the 21st Amendment, an individual may not transport alcoholic beverages across state lines in violation of the laws of the destination state.

That's it. Really.

[OuTcAsT]

So, your opinion is that; because one chooses to rent, versus own that one must give up constitutionally guaranteed rights?

If the lease says so, and the renter signs, then yes. And it's not just my opinion, it's a fact... the renter legally agreed to give up those rights.

That was not my point and
on this we have no disagreement, IF you sign a lease that stipulates each parties responsibilities then it is enforceable under civil law. ( this does not change my argument mind you! )

The question then becomes, can a landlord prohibit firearms on his property ?

Under a civil agreement (lease) he certainly can, and if you agree to it, you have waived your rights.

However, as a matter of common law, unless the lease you signed specifically prohibits firearms, the landlord has no legal basis to prohibit them within your home.

I merely want to make it clear that you need to read a lease agreement very carefully ! Then there are the all-too-common month to month rentals ( with no lease agreement ) What say you to these ? No stipulations are spelled out, other than "pay the rent, and you have a roof" ?

[OuTcAsT]

IIRC the Supreme Court upheld the landlord's right a few years ago when a landlord consented to a police search of a rental property and contraband was found. The renter claimed that his rights were violated but the court said otherwise and upheld his conviction. Can't put my finger on the specific case, so I'll get back to you on this.

No, I don't believe so...

I would be interested in this particular case.

The landlord could only consent to search if there was a search warrant that stipulated the particular address/apt. and search warrants are routinely executed on private residences when the owners are not at home here in TN. (they usually leave a copy in the ransacked rubble)

[treg]

I have a house that I rent out. It is in a rural setting with no other houses in sight. Unfortunatly there is really no safe place or direction to target shoot, plus you never know how careful they would be so I put a "no discharge of firearms" in the rental agreement. Felt kind of odd but that's the way its gotta be. Pellet guns and bows are ok and there's lots of National Forrest around to shoot guns in. The current renters are naive non-gun owners. I'd feel better for them if they had some sort of protection for themselves.

There's also a "the property shall not be guest to a convicted felon or CSC offender" clause in the agreement too.

[OuTcAsT]

I'd feel better for them if they had some sort of protection for themselves.

What would you "feel" was more "better" to you ?

Do you protect your family with a bow or pellet gun ?

Felt kind of odd but that's the way its gotta be.

Why ?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Really counselor?

Yes, really.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

I own some rental property, let us suppose I decide that I will rent to African-Americans only,...

There are statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

....Or that I decide to require all tenants to a search of the premises at any time I see fit ? is that enforceable?...

It would depend on law where the property is located. At one time, probably. But today all states have adopted fairly comprehensive tenants' rights statutes under which such a clause would most likely be void. But only a few states have adopted statutes prohibiting "no guns" clauses in leases.

Note, of course, that a landlord usually reserves in the lease a right to enter the property at any time in case of emergency, and upon some specified prior notice in other cases. Such clauses are permitted.

Note also that absent a lease provision allowing the landlord to enter the premises, his entry onto the premises would be unlawful NOT as a violation of the tenant's 4th Amendment rights, but rather as a tortious act -- trespass.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...Or I decide that there will be no verbal, written, or electronically transmitted communication within the dwelling without prior written consent by management, what then?...

Again it would depend on the law where the property is located, and the landlords ability to impose such limitations might well be limited under common tenants' rights statutes.

But landlords may still limit the uses of the property, and could very well prohibit public assemblies, for just one example.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...your opinion is that; because one chooses to rent, versus own that one must give up constitutionally guaranteed rights?...

You didn't pay attention. The Constitution protects no one's rights vis a vis another private party. It protects a person's rights vis a vis the government.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...Please educate me as to exactly when one waives his constitutional rights when he rents an apartment? ...

This is a meaningless question. The tenant retains all Constitutionally protected rights, but those rights relate only to the conduct of government. The landlord has absolutely no obligations under the Constitution to the tenant, nor is the landlord's conduct limited by the Constitution. With respect to the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the Constitution is irrelevant. (Well, actually I guess as carguychris pointed out, the landlord can't enslave the tenant, but that's it.)

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...unless the lease you signed specifically prohibits firearms, the landlord has no legal basis to prohibit them within your home...

True.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...Then there are the all-too-common month to month rentals ( with no lease agreement ) What say you to these ? No stipulations are spelled out, other than "pay the rent, and you have a roof" ?...

Most states now have statutes that build some at least minimum tenant protections into such arrangements.

[OuTcAsT]

This is a meaningless question.

Not quite, considering you conceded;

The tenant retains all Constitutionally protected rights

Thanks ! Especially in light of your assertion ;

Nope. We enjoy our constitutional rights free from interference by government. The landlord is not restricted by the Constitution.

And further;

There are statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc.

The landlord is bound by all laws of the land, he has no discretion which laws he chooses to be bound by, the only choice is which rights the tenant chooses to waive. That is the key here.

With respect to the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the Constitution is irrelevant.

And with respect to you, Sir, I disagree.

The point I continue to forward is that; Unless you waive certain rights under the (Civil) terms of a lease or rental agreement, you have the same rights in a rental property, as you do in a private home.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

The landlord is bound by all laws of the land, he has no discretion which laws he chooses to be bound by,...

You entirely miss the point. The tenant is also bound by all the laws. But what's your point?

A great many laws are entirely irrelevant to the landlord tenant relationship. The landlord is certainly not bound by the Constitution, nor is the tenant.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...the only choice is which rights the tenant chooses to waive. That is the key here....

No it is not the key. It's not a question of "waiving rights." Indeed, rights afforded to a tenant under tenants' rights statutes generally can't be waived by the tenant.

The relationship between a landlord and tenant flows entirely from the contract (lease). As with any contract, each party assumes certain duties to the other, and each acquires certain rights against the other. The respective rights and obligations of the parties are defined by the contract. The Constitution plays absolutely no part in it.

Some contract terms may be prohibited by statute, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

And with respect to you, Sir, I disagree.

You may disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the law. The Constitution regulates only government (with the minor exceptions noted earlier). A landlord, or any other private party, can simply not be charged with unconstitutional conduct, because, except as noted, the Constitution simply doesn't apply to him to regulate his conduct.

The Constitution defines how government is to operate. It also specifies certain things the government can do, and in some cases things the government can't do. The enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights, is stated in terms of things the government can't do or must provide for in its dealings with people.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

...Unless you waive certain rights under the (Civil) terms of a lease or rental agreement, you have the same rights in a rental property, as you do in a private home....

Nonsense. The Common Law recognized, and modern statutory law reflects, inherent differences in the rights arising under various forms of interest in real property. Someone who holds real property in fee has different rights from one who holds merely a leasehold interest in real property.

So I stand by my initial statement as set out in post #3

Originally Posted by fiddletown, post #3

...., in general a tenant's right to the property he rents is subject to the terms of the lease, to the extent they are valid and enforceable under the law of the place where the property is located. In some states, there may be statutory or case law prohibiting "no guns" clauses; but absent such laws, a "no guns" clause would be valid and enforceable.

If it is valid and enforceable, the tenant is risking eviction if the landlord finds out. It's probably unlikely that he will find out, but unlikely things happen from time to time. How lucky does the tenant feel?

Whether or not the landlord is likely to act if he does find out will depend in part on how strongly he personally objects to tenants having guns. He may be using a form lease and not have even thought about that clause, or he could be virulently anti-gun. And whether or not he takes action will also depend on current market conditions where the property is. If there are few vacancies, he can probably count on finding a new tenant right away if he tosses a tenant out. But if there's a lot available residential rentals around, he'll be less likely to put a tenant out on the street (where he probably won't stay too long) and wind up with an empty apartment for an extended period of time.

Note that the Constitution does not regulate private conduct. It regulates government conduct.

[treg]

Quote:
I'd feel better for them if they had some sort of protection for themselves.


What would you "feel" was more "better" to you ?

Do you protect your family with a bow or pellet gun ?

They can have firearms in the house, but choose not to.

Quote:
Felt kind of odd but that's the way its gotta be.

Why ?

Lawsuit prevention.