Can A Landlord Do This?

[texman45]

I wouldnt be surprised if the apartment owner/management are gun owners themselves.

I have been a gun owner all my life & fully embrace the constitutional rights for all; but if I owned an apartment complex, I too would send a letter prohibiting firearm possession on the property. Though not legally valid, it would document my effort to maintain a safe and secure facility for the tenants. (You have to admit that idiots also own guns) I would then offer a discounted apartment to a leo with the understanding that he provide a security presence. In today's litigious world it is prudent to practice defensive law.

As a hypothetical tenant in your hypothetical apartment complex, when a hypothetical armed home invader breaks into my apartment at 1 a.m, while your hypothetical leo is either out working his real job or at home sleeping on his couch, and I am severely injured by the hypothetical home invader, I would sue you for denying me the legal means to defend myself against an armed intruder and for not providing adequate security. You see, In a litigious society there is no escape from a lawsuit!

P.S. Also, some tenant who is an idiot driver going 35 m.p.h will most likely run someone over in your hypothetical apartment complex parking lot, so you'll probably get sued for not enforcing the 5 m.p.h. speed limit signs you had put up. So you'd better add a "No Cars Allowed" stipulation to your lease.

[Heartland Patriot]

I wouldnt be surprised if the apartment owner/management are gun owners themselves.

I have been a gun owner all my life & fully embrace the constitutional rights for all; but if I owned an apartment complex, I too would send a letter prohibiting firearm possession on the property. Though not legally valid, it would document my effort to maintain a safe and secure facility for the tenants. (You have to admit that idiots also own guns) I would then offer a discounted apartment to a leo with the understanding that he provide a security presence. In today's litigious world it is prudent to practice defensive law.

______________________________

Case in Point:

The bullet went through the wall and struck the victim in the groin as he lay in bed. It then grazed/furrowed the torso before striking the ribs near the heart. The bullet didnt penetrate the victim very deep & I dont remember if the bullet penetrated the heart or the ribs impacted it shocking it.

I have a little more info than what the media is reporting on this case, but cant share it. I am outraged that the shooter will probably get by with little consequence for his actions. Is it possible that the victim would have survived if the shooter had reported the incident immediately?

You can bet that there will be a civil lawsuit as a result of this shooting incident.


http://m.kfdm.com/articles/include-4358 ... umont.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is indeed a sad and disgusting incident. However, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens should not have to suffer because of an individual who was seriously negligent and committed what sounds like (to my layman's ears) manslaughter. He owned that pistol for THREE YEARS. He LOADED IT while laying on the bed. He POINTED IT AT another person. He PULLED THE TRIGGER KNOWING IT WAS LOADED. That is NOT an "accident". HE should pay for his misdeeds. What the blazes ever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Am I now going to go to jail for "hate speech" for using the phrase "personal responsibility"? I'm not mad at you, but that is the exact kind of incident that torques me up. I don't go waving loaded weapons at people because I practice safe gun handling techniques. As someone who does practice firearms safety, I don't EXPECT to have an incident such as in that terrible account, and I shouldn't be punished because of it.

[fickman]

I'd think it's similar to my gym membership with a well-known national chain of fitness clubs that rarely close.

Carrying is in violation of the agreement I signed. If they catch me, I would not be breaking the law, but I would be in violation of their terms (the wording in the contract was not 30.06 compliant). They'd presumably have the right to revoke my membership and probably have no obligation to reimburse me a prorated amount of my membership cost. If they ever post the building, I'll revoke my own membership.

I'm assuming this would only happen if I needed a firearm to defend my (or somebody else's) life OR due to gross negligence on my part (which I'm not currently planning on). In the former case, the consequences were worth it. In the latter case, I have nobody to blame but myself.

The piece of the apartment scenario that changes things is the fact that it is your home. We know that a posted hotel may not be enforceable if you are staying there. . . regardless, I'm confident that you would not be criminally at risk.

(To quickly comment on the HOAs, they can no longer foreclose for ANYTHING except failure to pay dues e.g. regular assessments. Fines, penalties, late fees, administrative charges, etc. can result in liens but NOT foreclosures. This is a new law as of Jan 1, 2012.)

[tommyg]

Thank you Fickman for the info that a HOA can no longer
forclose for anything other than dues my son is in
a HOA he has had trouble with it. I won't have
anything to do with any HOA

[Jim Beaux]

I wouldnt be surprised if the apartment owner/management are gun owners themselves.

I have been a gun owner all my life & fully embrace the constitutional rights for all; but if I owned an apartment complex, I too would send a letter prohibiting firearm possession on the property. Though not legally valid, it would document my effort to maintain a safe and secure facility for the tenants. (You have to admit that idiots also own guns) I would then offer a discounted apartment to a leo with the understanding that he provide a security presence. In today's litigious world it is prudent to practice defensive law.

As a hypothetical tenant in your hypothetical apartment complex, when a hypothetical armed home invader breaks into my apartment at 1 a.m, while your hypothetical leo is either out working his real job or at home sleeping on his couch, and I am severely injured by the hypothetical home invader, I would sue you for denying me the legal means to defend myself against an armed intruder and for not providing adequate security. You see, In a litigious society there is no escape from a lawsuit!

P.S. Also, some tenant who is an idiot driver going 35 m.p.h will most likely run someone over in your hypothetical apartment complex parking lot, so you'll probably get sued for not enforcing the 5 m.p.h. speed limit signs you had put up. So you'd better add a "No Cars Allowed" stipulation to your lease.

Hypothetically speaking of course.....Just because youre wearing superman underoos doesnt mean you can fly.

[sjfcontrol]

Thank you Fickman for the info that a HOA can no longer
forclose for anything other than dues my son is in
a HOA he has had trouble with it. I won't have
anything to do with any HOA

Unfortunately, that can severely restrict your choices of living quarters if you don't want to live out in the sticks. (Not that there's anything wrong with living in the sticks.)

[C-dub]

How is this different than an employer not allowing you to carry at work?

Alternately, consider any business other than an apartment complex posting a 30.06 sign. Does that violate your constitutional rights?

It's different because it's where I live.

I still think the apartment management can post a 30.06 sign that would apply to the offices and any buildings that are not residences. I suppose, as some others have said, they could also post one at all the entrances to the parking lots that might apply to a CHL holder outside of their vehicle if not going to and from their vehicle and apartment. Of course, we all know that a 30.06 sign has no relevance to someone without a CHL.

[Ameer]

Of course, we all know that a 30.06 sign has no relevance to someone without a CHL.

This sign does,

[sjfcontrol]

So would that sign override MPA if posted at the entrance to a parking lot?

[Keith B]

So would that sign override MPA if posted at the entrance to a parking lot?

Yep. Unless it was your employer's parking lot covered by the Employee Parking Lot exception.

EDIT TO ADD: Actually, on second glance, no. It states premises, so the parking lot would be OK.

[C-dub]

Of course, we all know that a 30.06 sign has no relevance to someone without a CHL.

This sign does,

I was afraid someone might ask that question or point that out. I really don't know when it pertains to someone coming and going from their residence.

[sjfcontrol]

So would that sign override MPA if posted at the entrance to a parking lot?

Yep. Unless it was your employer's parking lot covered by the Employee Parking Lot exception.

EDIT TO ADD: Actually, on second glance, no. It states premises, so the parking lot would be OK.

You believe that an "ad-hoc" sign mentioning the word " premises" means you need to define " premises" as a "building or portion of a building"? They don't define what law they're referencing.

[sjfcontrol]

And does that mean I can't take my small pocket knife, or my base ball bat (sporting equipment) onto ( or into) the "premesis" ?

[Keith B]

So would that sign override MPA if posted at the entrance to a parking lot?

Yep. Unless it was your employer's parking lot covered by the Employee Parking Lot exception.

EDIT TO ADD: Actually, on second glance, no. It states premises, so the parking lot would be OK.

You believe that an "ad-hoc" sign mentioning the word " premises" means you need to define " premises" as a "building or portion of a building"? They don't define what law they're referencing.

That would be my defense that premises by definition in the law is a building or portion of a building.

[Keith B]

And does that mean I can't take my small pocket knife, or my base ball bat (sporting equipment) onto ( or into) the "premesis" ?

Knives no go, baseball bat, yes it would be OK if taking it in as as a baseball bat.

My reasoning is they specifically say knives. A baseball bat by definition is not a weapon. It only becomes a weapon if used for a purpose that it is not initially intended for. The same can be said about tire irons or rocks. However, a slingshot IS a weapon, and that is what it's purpose is, and would be prohibited.