Is there a discreet way to ask...

[rattletrap1970]

Find another place.

[alloy]

Remember that they have access to your apartment for periodic maintenance. Not much point in trying to skirt those rules, or you might be between a rock and hard place if one goes missing.

[twelve_eight]

Hey all,

Long-time lurker, but first time post. I just had to comment on this landlord issue.
Here in Minnesota we have that covered:

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or
possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

Problem solved; move to Minnesota.

[full.tang.halo]

This is from the Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership 2009 6th edition by Jon H. Gutmacher, If you live in the state of Florida and own any firearm it's the best $27 you'll ever spend.

Pages 94 & 95

Problems with condo's & apartments

Problem number one is when you live in a condo or apartment you must park in a common parking lot, go through common hallways, use common elevators, and have access to common facilities. By "common" -- I mean that almost everybody in the complex has the right to use it. Unfortunately, unless you have a concealed weapons permit, or coming back from a hunting, fishing or camping trip -- or one of the exceptions mentioned in F.S. 790.25 you can't legally carry while you're on or in any of these "common" areas, Concealed or otherwise.

Question: So how the heck am I supposed to get my firearm from my car to my apartment?

Answer: You're not! Go get a permit, or tell your state legislator that the law is stupid as written, and you want it changed. Heck, it certainly is.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by twelve_eight

...Here in Minnesota we have that covered...

I think there may be a few other States with similar laws, but they aren't common.

[KAK]

Get a good safe,

They dont have to know whats inside and you dont have to open it for them.

And yes some apts just throw that into the lease around college campuses. Its on mine... and my landlord has that "NO TRESSPASSING violators will be shot....." sign on her apartment door. I hardly think she cares if I have guns in my apt.

[firespectrum]

Yep, I'm just going to get a small biometric safe for my 9mm and .380 and the rifle is going to have to stay at my Dad's.

[Uncle Buck]

Fiddletown hit it on the head. I have not had our lawyer check our leases in a few years, but as the landlord I have the right to restrict certain behavior or items from my property. I can not remember the legal terms our lawyer used to explain all this.

As a renter, I expect you to comply with these terms or leave the premises.

There does not have to be a given reason for me to restrict or require certain things. Maybe I do not like purple cars, but once you sign the lease stating you will not park a purple car in my parking area, you are legally bound not to park it there.

I would talk to the land lord and ask her/him why this clause is there and if there is anyway around it. If it was me, and you promised to park the purple car and cover it, I would probably agree. (I really do hate purple cars.)

[firespectrum]

as the landlord I have the right to restrict certain behavior or items from my property.

So an atheist landlord could restrict a tenant from praying? Or from having a bible in his apartment?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by firespectrum

So an atheist landlord could restrict a tenant from praying? Or from having a bible in his apartment?

No, because there are federal (and generally state) statutes prohibiting discrimination in residential rentals on certain specific bases, including religion. However, except in a few cases, like Minnesota, cited above, there are no statutes barring discrimination in residential rentals on the basis of gun ownership.

[orangello]

There was a discussion in a recent thread in which some posters seemed to be of the opinion that the right to self defense was more important than property rights (honestly, i may have misunderstood). This was the "gun show hipocrisy" thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...=401418&page=3 . Of course, a gun show venue is open to the public, like the common areas or parking lot of an apartment complex, but unlike the interior of the apartments.

I am not sure that i agree with that logic as applied to concealed carrying a firearm at a gunshow, regardless of show rules. However, if ALL available area rental property restricted against having firearms in the rental units, i would probably go along with the theory of the "gun show hipocrisy" thread and just keep my firearms under wraps regardless of the property owner's wishes/rights. However, if there is a viable alternative for housing that did allow me to keep my firearms inside my rental unit, I believe i would have no reasonable/ethical choice but to rent at one of the properties allowing firearms. IOW, i would find another place to rent & avoid potential drama/expense of hurried relocation.

[BobbyT]

So an atheist landlord could restrict a tenant from praying? Or from having a bible in his apartment?

An atheist who owns a piece of land can say "the terms for letting you live on it is that you don't pray here", and you'd be free to agree to those terms or tell him to shove it and part ways in peace.

He could also say he's only willing to rent to people who wear purple hats. Or that he doesn't want anyone on his property who doesn't swear allegiance to Hitler.

Or any other set of completely arbitrary rules. If you agree with them then you two can do business; if not either can walk away--that's the miracle of property rights and individual liberty.

It also means he can't demand that you let him smoke in your house, or that you let him by the car you intend for your nephew. Neither of you has to be agreeable or "fair" with your property.

If you run your business foolishly or set terms that others find offensive, you'll lose clients. But whether you're looking for a tenant who fits an exacting list of criteria so you can be best buddies, or a stark raving racist, or just flat out crazy, it doesn't entitle someone else to dictate terms you aren't willing to agree to.

That's the difference between us and the anti-rights crowd: if someone doesn't value what we do, we don't seek to ram it down their throats, we just want to be left alone. The anti-rights types want to force their views on others, instead of convincing people voluntarily.

[firespectrum]

That's the same line of reasoning that allowed racial segregation to continue in this country for so long. "They're not welcome here and it's my right as a landlord or business owner to tell them so and they are free to go somewhere else." Only problem is the whole community thought the same. If all the landlords and businessowners of a community ban guns on their premesis (which is very possible in a college town) then they've effectively over-turned the 2nd ammendment in that community. If a landlord cannot violate the Bill of Rights by not allowing minorities into his building, how can he violate the Bill of Rights by compelling a renter to forgoe his 2nd ammendment rights?

[kilimanjaro]

Tell the landlord you will not rent from him due to the clause, then go find a really cheap place to live, save your money, and buy a house. You make the rules on your own property, same as the landlord does on his.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BobbyT

...An atheist who owns a piece of land can say "the terms for letting you live on it is that you don't pray here", and you'd be free to agree to those terms or tell him to shove it and part ways in peace.
.....
Or any other set of completely arbitrary rules. If you agree with them then you two can do business; if not either can walk away--that's the miracle of property rights and individual liberty...

Nope, it absolutely is not that simple.

Whether or not you like it or think it's proper, in every State, there is a large body of landlord-tenant law that among other things sets limits on what a landlord may require of a tenant. There are also federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination in the conduct of business (including the business of renting real property for residential use) on various bases, including race, religion, national origin, gender, etc.

On the other hand, except in a very few States, there is nothing preventing a landlord from imposing and enforcing a "no guns" clause in a lease.

Originally Posted by firespectrum

...If all the landlords and businessowners of a community ban guns on their premesis (which is very possible in a college town) then they've effectively over-turned the 2nd ammendment in that community...

Nope, (1) as of right now, the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government; and (2) even if we get a favorable result in McDonald, the 2nd Amendment, just as the rest of the Constitution, regulates the conduct only of government, not private parties.

Originally Posted by firespectrum

...If a landlord cannot violate the Bill of Rights by not allowing minorities into his building...

It is meaningless to talk about a landlord violating the Bill of Rights. As a private party, the Bill of Rights does not regulate the conduct of a landlord, so there is no way anything a landlord may do can violate the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights regulates only the conduct of the federal government (and in some cases the States indirectly through incorporation by way of the 14th Amendment).

A landlord may violate a state or federal statute by not allowing minorities, but not the Bill of Rights.

[imthegrumpyone]

Find another place to live, I don't deal with anyone that I knowingly has a problem with owning or carrying. It's just for the principal of it.

[firespectrum]

I don't expect private parties to respect my rights, but I did expect there to be some form of legal protection from a landlord who doesn't respect my 2nd amendment rights in the same way that there are protections against a landlord who doesn't respect my race, gender, or national origin - especially in Florida!

[Regolith]

I'd try and see if I could negotiate the clause off the contract, and if I couldn't, I'd find someplace else.

Luckily, my apartment, which is a mere block from campus, doesn't have a no-firearms policy. Then again, neither does the on-campus dorms*.

I love this town...


*they do require that you keep them in the firearms locker, which was in the basement of the dorms, though. And you have to have a trigger lock on the gun while it's physically on campus. However, I know of at least three people, including one RA (although I only suspect that he did), who ignored that rule...Also, OR law allows people to carry concealed on campus with a permit, but you are likely to be kicked out if caught, which is annoying...

[BobbyT]

Your "legal protection" from the landlord is to not do business with him.

Your rights are freedoms *from* infringements, not "rights" to be provided with something by someone else. By your logic, for you to refuse to deal with a Nazi who wants to publish on your website or broadcast on your radio station would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.

That's of course incorrect--he has the right to say what he wants and write what he wants, but not to do it on your servers, on your radio station, or in your office.

The same holds true for your right to carry a tool for self protection. No government or individual may come onto your land and forbid you from doing it, but you don't get to go onto his property uninvited (and whether the conditions of his invitation are that you're unarmed, that you're armed to the teeth, that you drink his brand of beer, or that you wear a swastika, you can come to an agreement or part ways peacefully).

The same holds for any other voluntary agreement--whether it's coming over for poker, or renting a piece of his property. You two can haggle, but you don't get to dictate terms he doesn't agree to any more than he can to you.

Once we forfeit property rights and the right of free- (and non-) association, what you can and can't do with your property and in your home becomes subject to government dictates. You may score a victory in requiring people to rent to you with your guns, and next year they reverse it so that any of your offended tenants can demand you rent to him and get rid of yours.

Or, they decide someone is entitled not to be offended by anything, so they can force you to rent to them (or hire them, or sell to them) while dictating what you can't say or display. Government is not a weapon to force others to do your bidding; it's there to make sure that when you disagree, you do so peacefully, and can't be forced to submit to someone else's views.

[firespectrum]

I see where you're coming from, I really do. On almost all issues I usually find myself on the side of limited government and laissez faire, but in this case I have to go the other way.

I think more government should be local and community standards are important; however, our system is meant to protect the rights of a minority while governing based on the majority. Under normal circumstances, the power of the consumer through his discretion would regulate the situation naturally (just go somewhere else!) but these people have a geographic monopoly.
Maybe I should move to Minnesota where gun ownership in a rental unit is accepted, right? Well I can't go to FSU from Minnesota. Most college students financially have no choice but live within a certain distance from campus. If all the landlords within that distance ban guns, the student does not have any bargaining power or options. In monopolies, laissez faire does not work. This is where minimal protective legislation comes in.

Maybe where you are the ant-gun hysteria isn't as bad, but there are communities where every establishment is "no guns" - and you can bet the farm it's only going to get worse. If you can't have your gun at work; at your school; where you eat; where you bank; and even your home because you can only afford to rent, do you really have the right to bear arms?

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by BobbyT

Government is not a weapon to force others to do your bidding; it's there to make sure that when you disagree, you do so peacefully, and can't be forced to submit to someone else's views.

Bobby, I refer you to this quote:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

As fiddletown said, every State has it own set of laws on what landlords and tenants can and can't do (as regards each other).

We, as a society, are way past the idea that your property is yours and you can essentially make whatever rules you like.

Go to any retail store to see the State in action. There are certain things they simply cannot do. Why? Because they have chosen to accommodate the public. This public accommodation leaves them open to regulation by the State. There is also federal action here. The various anti-discrimination laws, start at the federal level and are enforced by the State. In some cases, the State goes two or three steps further.

The overall effect is that by accommodating the public, in order to do business, your rights, as a property owner, are restricted. In some cases, severely.

The bottom line, if you don't like your property rights to be restricted or regulated, then don't do business with the general public.

[BobbyT]

I realize that our overbearing government has negated a lot of our property rights--that doesn't mean it's right.

Whether it's for stuff we generally agree with (discrimination is bad) or playing thought police (no criticism of group X allowed), it's wrong and should be fought.

The fact that in this case (you have to rent to me and let me bring my guns, even if you're opposed) we happen to benefit doesn't make it right. It's still trampling property rights, and it opens the door to an ever increasing loss of rights (now you have to rent to me, and get rid of your guns which offend me, and charge me an amount I consider "fair" that costs you money, and quit smoking because I don't like the smell...etc).

Just as the solution to government robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't for Peter to lobby for theft on his behalf, but to have government stop stealing, the solution to the fact that government negates some property rights isn't to try to get it to dictate more things that benefit us, but to honor individual rights.

And that means if someone's ignorance keeps you two from reaching an agreement, you take your business elsewhere and use reason to convince others to do the same. That's not a "monopoly", that's him having a right to be however irrational he chooses without you forcing yourself onto his property.

[firespectrum]

I don't think protecting the rights of a renter in this case is at the expense of the property owner. An apartment owner is a businessman doing business with the American public. It is not unusual or wrong for a private business to be subject to laws to prevent the exploitation of the American consumer. If he were a resturaunt owner he would be subject to laws compelling him to disclose the ingredients of the food he serves if asked. Even though he has freedom of speech he cannot legally make certain claims (false advertising) in his advertisements - to protect the rights of the consumer. I don't see how all this is acceptable, but protecting the 2nd ammendment rights of the consumer is somehow not acceptable.

** I do however see a distinction between an apartment complex owner and someone renting out a spare room in their house. The former should be subject to more scrutiny than the latter in much the same way that buying a gun from a dealer requires more scrutiny than a FTF transaction**

[DT Guy]

Line out those portions of the lease, sign it and hand it in. If they accept it, all's well. If not, move along and let them know why.

Larry

[blume357]

that forbids guns and see what they say.

heck, would they forbid someone who is an olympic athlete that is doing the shooting thing?