Tenants and Firearms
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2013, 10:22 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(08-08-2013 08:58 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Tenants rights tend to run more toward the upkeep of things provided with the rental, such as heat, water, plumbing.

Sometime there are litigious reasons behind it.

Take Pit Bulls, for instance. A lot of apartment complexes will let you have dogs, but Pits are a restricted breed. The reason: The landlord's insurance company did a study of fatal dog bites and found that pit bulls are at the top of that list, along with Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Belgian Malinois, and German Shepherds. They correlate this with data concerning the top civil torts filed against landlords and find that dog attacks/bites are way up there on that list as well. So the insurance agency states that it will not insure a landlord who allows tenants to keep these dog breeds on their property.

It's not that much of a stretch to consider that a study cold be conducted and determined that privately owned firearms presented X amount of increased risk of crime and liability torts against the insurer. Therefore, the insurance company will not write policies for a landlord who allows tenants to keep firearms on the premises.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(08-08-2013 10:22 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 08:58 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Tenants rights tend to run more toward the upkeep of things provided with the rental, such as heat, water, plumbing.

Sometime there are litigious reasons behind it.

Take Pit Bulls, for instance. A lot of apartment complexes will let you have dogs, but Pits are a restricted breed. The reason: The landlord's insurance company did a study of fatal dog bites and found that pit bulls are at the top of that list, along with Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Belgian Malinois, and German Shepherds. They correlate this with data concerning the top civil torts filed against landlords and find that dog attacks/bites are way up there on that list as well. So the insurance agency states that it will not insure a landlord who allows tenants to keep these dog breeds on their property.

It's not that much of a stretch to consider that a study cold be conducted and determined that privately owned firearms presented X amount of increased risk of crime and liability torts against the insurer. Therefore, the insurance company will not write policies for a landlord who allows tenants to keep firearms on the premises.

There are lots of hypotheticals and 'oughts ' going on, but I'm try to state what is.

In some states (e.g. Vermont) the right to firearms is constitutional - the state's constitution guarantees it. Don't even try.
In some states (e.g. Massachusetts) the courts have determined that the landlord may not restrict the right to keep firearms.
In some states, the courts have determined that even an employer's rights are limited - they cannot prevent you from having a firearm in your locked vehicle in their parking lot.
And so on. Property rights are no more absolute than any other rights.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
You don't have to rent from someone that has restrictions that go counter to your life or choices.

Unless there is explicit discrimination (race, citizen status) a landlord can pretty much put in the lease whatever they want. The difference is that you have a choice to agree or not.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
08-08-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
Dunno about here, but in California if you are in section 8 housing, you can't have firearms in some of the larger apartment buildings. It doesn't really stop anyone tho. Sad


Every year is getting shorter never seem to find the time.
Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines. Breathe; Pink Floyd

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-...th-tenants

This article address's this concern.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 11:47 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
Also, a Co-worker, who is also a landlord for 5 houses in 5 different states (military guy) said it like this: "Gun owners are not a protected class so it is not discrimination. This falls in the same category as saying no smoking. Just because the laws allow smoking and guns, does not mean that you have to allow it on your property. You can have what ever rules you feel are necessary as long as they do not break any laws."

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(08-08-2013 11:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 10:22 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Sometime there are litigious reasons behind it.

Take Pit Bulls, for instance. A lot of apartment complexes will let you have dogs, but Pits are a restricted breed. The reason: The landlord's insurance company did a study of fatal dog bites and found that pit bulls are at the top of that list, along with Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Belgian Malinois, and German Shepherds. They correlate this with data concerning the top civil torts filed against landlords and find that dog attacks/bites are way up there on that list as well. So the insurance agency states that it will not insure a landlord who allows tenants to keep these dog breeds on their property.

It's not that much of a stretch to consider that a study cold be conducted and determined that privately owned firearms presented X amount of increased risk of crime and liability torts against the insurer. Therefore, the insurance company will not write policies for a landlord who allows tenants to keep firearms on the premises.

There are lots of hypotheticals and 'oughts ' going on, but I'm try to state what is.

In some states (e.g. Vermont) the right to firearms is constitutional - the state's constitution guarantees it. Don't even try.
In some states (e.g. Massachusetts) the courts have determined that the landlord may not restrict the right to keep firearms.
In some states, the courts have determined that even an employer's rights are limited - they cannot prevent you from having a firearm in your locked vehicle in their parking lot.
And so on. Property rights are no more absolute than any other rights.

Well the critical argument for deciding whether this is a Second Amendment issue is whether you have the same domicile rights on a rental property as you do as a homeowner.

If the court decides you do, then this provision in the lease may be struck down on the grounds of the Second Amendment. Additionally, if the court decides that it is legal for a landlord to have these terms in a lease, it creates a precedent that the state can deny you the right to have a firearm in your home, which would be an airtight second amendment case.

If the court states that a renter does not have the same domicile rights as a homeowner, then, yes, it would be legal to prohibit a tenant from keeping a firearm on a rented property under the lease clause. After all, no one said you can't keep a gun; its just you can't have said gun on a rental property if the landlords don't want it there.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 01:30 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2013 02:13 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(08-08-2013 09:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is no longer strictly private property when it is available to let. Different rules apply.

You also seem to be confusing 'is' and 'ought'.

(08-08-2013 09:57 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  As soon as someone's paid rent, its their property as well for the duration.

You two have never rented then, because it is always the landlord's property.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
08-08-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(08-08-2013 01:16 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 11:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are lots of hypotheticals and 'oughts ' going on, but I'm try to state what is.

In some states (e.g. Vermont) the right to firearms is constitutional - the state's constitution guarantees it. Don't even try.
In some states (e.g. Massachusetts) the courts have determined that the landlord may not restrict the right to keep firearms.
In some states, the courts have determined that even an employer's rights are limited - they cannot prevent you from having a firearm in your locked vehicle in their parking lot.
And so on. Property rights are no more absolute than any other rights.

Well the critical argument for deciding whether this is a Second Amendment issue is whether you have the same domicile rights on a rental property as you do as a homeowner.

If the court decides you do, then this provision in the lease may be struck down on the grounds of the Second Amendment. Additionally, if the court decides that it is legal for a landlord to have these terms in a lease, it creates a precedent that the state can deny you the right to have a firearm in your home, which would be an airtight second amendment case.

If the court states that a renter does not have the same domicile rights as a homeowner, then, yes, it would be legal to prohibit a tenant from keeping a firearm on a rented property under the lease clause. After all, no one said you can't keep a gun; its just you can't have said gun on a rental property if the landlords don't want it there.

Right! That's what I was wondering about.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 12:57 AM
RE: Tenants and Firearms
(08-08-2013 01:30 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(08-08-2013 09:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is no longer strictly private property when it is available to let. Different rules apply.

You also seem to be confusing 'is' and 'ought'.

(08-08-2013 09:57 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  As soon as someone's paid rent, its their property as well for the duration.

You two have never rented then, because it is always the landlord's property.

You're wrong, I've rented for many years. I've never understood this mentality that even though the tenant pays for the right to live in the house, the landlord has the right to set the conditions of how they live there. After all, the building may be the property of the landlord, but its the tenant's home.

And their are plenty of countries where landlords aren't allowed to set these kind of restrictions. Frankly, I find it bizarre landlords would be allowed to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: