You cant have or keep a gun here

How many of us have lived in apartment buildings or a housing community that has told you it is forbidden to keep a gun in your home ?

Is this legal ?
It sounds like a direct challenge against our rights.


If anyone is in the know about this subject please sound off and reply

I think it would depend. If you buy into an complex that has an assosiation, you are agreeing to the rules set forth. My uncle lives in a planned city in the LA area. Called Ranch Santa Margarita. Its a planned city and there are rules that had to be agreed upon when you bought your home. Like no car work in the street stuff like that. So if you buy into a community like that then I think you are bound by the rules.

I know that if I owned an appartment building that I would not allow guns in it. And every tenant would have to sign a contract that forbids them to have guns in their appartments.

Yes it is legal for such places to not allow you to own a weapon, while in residence there.

I for one think it is wrong though, and should be something that they cant make laws about.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
I know that if I owned an appartment building that I would not allow guns in it. And every tenant would have to sign a contract that forbids them to have guns in their appartments.

Funny you mention this, we have a home in San Jose that we rent and this is part of the rental agreement .

What are they going to do; search every apt. for guns?

The only way they would find out is when you shot sombody. But then you probably would have a FREE place to stay anyway. The accomadations might be a little more stark and the parties might be a little different.

Oh, maybe thats why they don't want you to keep a gun.

I wonder if you can keep it in your car?

Originally posted by iori_komei
I for one think it is wrong though, and should be something that they cant make laws about.

Why is it wrong? Why is a landlord not allowed to forbid weapons on his property???

I myself have never come across this before but looking into it I found this.

2004- Lincoln Park Housing Comm'n v. Andrew, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a public housing agency may bar its tenants from possessing guns

It is recognized that public housing authorities have a legitimate interest in maintaining a safe environment for their tenants. Infringements on legitimate rights of tenants can be justified by regulations imposed to serve compelling state interests which cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. Restrictions on the right to possess weapons in the environment and circumstances described by plaintiff are both in furtherance of a legitimate interest to protect its residents and a reasonable exercise of police power

It might be different for every state I dont know. You could have a very good case that these are unconstitutional conditions if you took a landlord with these rules to court.

The defendant in this case it seems failed to make any allegation she feels physically threatened or in danger as a resident of plaintiff's complex necessitating her possession of a weapon to defend herself.

That to me seems like a mistake on her part and hurt her case.



volokh.com...

Why is it wrong? Why is a landlord not allowed to forbid weapons on his property???

Because it is our right to own a weapon (guns), and it is an infringement on that constitutional right.

Originally posted by iori_komei

Why is it wrong? Why is a landlord not allowed to forbid weapons on his property???

Because it is our right to own a weapon (guns), and it is an infringement on that constitutional right.

No it is not. No one is forcing you to rent my house or apartment. You have the constitutional right to NOT live in my house. Just as a landlord can impose restrictions if you wish to rent the house. Like no pets etc.

Fred beat me to it. In the U.S. you have a right to bear arms. But you do not have that right on private property if the owner does not wish for you to bear arms.

Same as on ATS. In general, out in public you have a right to free speech. But on ATS you don't have any free speech and you have to abide by the rules of the owner of the privately owned forum.

It's the same thing. If anyone wanted to have weapons in my appartments I would not allow them. And I would make sure that that's stated in the rent contract. If they violate it, I can and will evict them.

Its not really the same as no pet or no smoking rules IMHO. Landlords are not free to impose any restrictions they want. Just think if a Landlord decided No Jews or no Blacks in his apartment complex.

They cant really use the "No one is forcing you to rent my house or apartment" In those cases

I wouldn't want to pay rent to someone who dislikes weapons, anyway.
I wouldn't want someone who attempts to prevent an able-bodied male to carry out his resonsibility as a good citizen to get a dime from me.
However,
I doubt there's a court in the country that would side against the apartment owner.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Its not really the same as no pet or no smoking rules IMHO. Landlords are not free to impose any restrictions they want. Just think if a Landlord decided No Jews or no Blacks in his apartment complex.

Racial descrimination is different in this context and has specific laws against doing such. As stated above by both the TheBandit and myself, no one is forcing the tennant to rent my property and since I OWN the property it is within my rights to levy such restrictions on its use.

If you cannot abide by the conditions set forth in the rental agreement which is a legal contract then I can and will evict you if caught. Does that mean I can go in and conduct a random search while you are renting the property? No, but it gives me legal ground to evict you if such a violation is discovered

You have willingly signed a contract that states you will wave your rights to bar arms or what ever other conditions as set forth in the agreement. This is little differnet that say schools which have comprehensive "no weapons" rules.

Alright, I concede to you both FredT and TheBandit.

However, I think it is wrong, and the constitution should be changed, so that a landlord can not to that, but taht of course is just in my opinion.

Originally posted by FredT

Racial descrimination is different in this context and has specific laws against doing such.

We also have specific laws concerning gun ownership . World Net, from Princeton University, defines a "Civil Right" as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

If a Landlord cant say infringe on a civil right like freedom of religon or speech, then why can he infringe on a civil right like gun ownership?

Can the rentor make me sign a contract stating that I will not utter the word, "Shrubbery" on his property?

Maybe I can't attend a church he doesn't like?

Do I lose my 4th and 5th amendment rights as well?

Again, its an ownership issue, you cannot go onto my property and do as you please if you have specifical agreed not to in a legal document. If the document does not specify you CANNOT have guns then I have no legal ground to require you to do so. But a legal contract that you willingly signed stating that you would not keep guns on the property hold you to that. If you do not sign, you do not get to rent the property.

I will concede that its hard to enforce especially if you are descrite about it. I do not go into the house unless there is a problem and am invited in by the tennant. Nor do plan or have plans on conduction random searches etiher.

A signature consists of more than ink.
You also have to understand it,
and you have to be in your right mind.

Anyone who signs an agreement that would strip them of a constitutionally-protected, God-given right either doesn't understand what they are signing, or they are not right in the head.

I'm guessing the second.

Option, not amendment.

Wow, I never though it would actually happen, or that I would say it, but I actually agree with TC, if I could TC, I'd vote you for WATS.