TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:That is what I have been wondering while reading this thread. What defines the contract as illegal?

Again IANAL, but I will give an example of an "illegal contract." Let's say I want you to kill someone so I have you sign a paper that states that you will kill a person for the sum of $10,000. You sign the contract, but don't follow through with your side of the agreement. I can not sue you for not killing the person because murder is an illegal act. This is a very obvious illegal contract.

Let's say that I sell you a house and tell you that you can't sell or rent the property to "black people" and you sign the contract and buy the house. If the original property owners tried to sue you at a later date for selling the property to "black people", even though you agreed to the terms of the sale, that would be an illegal contract. Again IANAL. If any lawyers want to give their opinion, please do so.

Things such as gun ownership are not so clear. I don't know if there is any case law on this subject.

Some issues are off the table, not subject to agreement between the parties. The law will not enforce provisions like that. The law and public policy restricts it. Other issues are not, and are left to the bargaining between the parties, who are not always equal in bargaining power.

Maybe the landlord decides everyone will wear little red hats while a tenant. If not, hit the road. Well, that maybe the landlord's prerogative but it will empty out his properties pretty fast. Everyone who dislikes wearing little red hats will leave and find accommodations elsewhere. Landlords can no longer require tenants of opposite gender from cohabiting, or require them to be married, or in CA, prevent them from marrying, if same gender. As long as no illegal discriminatory purpose is claimed, and no statute is involved, tenants are free to avoid that place and the landlord can be as silly as it pleases.

A tenant has certain rights under lease, usually quiet enjoyment, working utilities, healthy, sanitary, etc. Beyond that, the landlord can usually reserve such rights to enforce such rules as it pleases, apparently what is involved here. Is there a statute restricting that? An appellate case interpreting the language?

Heartland Patriot wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:That is what I have been wondering while reading this thread. What defines the contract as illegal?

Again IANAL, but I will give an example of an "illegal contract." Let's say I want you to kill someone so I have you sign a paper that states that you will kill a person for the sum of $10,000. You sign the contract, but don't follow through with your side of the agreement. I can not sue you for not killing the person because murder is an illegal act.

Alright, understood...that is someone wanting you to do something that is ILLEGAL. What about in the case of the firearm in the home, though? That is, someone keeping you from doing something that IS LEGAL? IANAL, either...so I just don't have enough training to be able to figure this one out...but, hey, I guess all you have to do is a be a property management company in MINNESOTA and you can call shots in Texas, huh?

Heartland Patriot wrote:That is what I have been wondering while reading this thread. What defines the contract as illegal?

tommyg wrote:How about an H.O.A. changing the by laws. They can forclose your property for violations of their rules
If you rent you don't have a lot to loose by moving out. If you own then it is a lot harder especially
if you do not have enough equaity to pay off your loan. This can be financial ruin if you have a gun for defense.

If there is a private road then it could be legally posted a lot of
H.O.A have private roads as the only way in or out.


I'm not a lawyer I'm a landlord. I have enough sense to avoid H.O.A. like the plague
But it is getting harder to avoid them and live in a decent neighborhood.
Need to make an issue of this one and try to nip it in the bud

Wes wrote:What's the worst he can do? Evict you? And how would he find out to evict you? It's not like hes actually gonna check every unit and if he does, can they really open or look in every nook and cranny? I doubt it would be a problem until you had to use it and even then, if you have to use your weapon in your complex, wouldn't you want to move anyways? I don't know, seems crazy, wouldn't want to deal with that myself.

Kythas wrote:

tommyg wrote:Tell the N.R.A. about this offense to the constitution.

I see people say things like this or similar to it all the time.

The Constitution only applies to government. Government may not prohibit free speech, right to keep and bear arms, etc. However, private individuals and/or corporations may. The Constitution doesn't limit private behavior - it only limits government behavior.

The management company restricting firearms ownership is not an offense to the Constitution.