Can A Landlord Do This?

[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" ?

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.

And how do you know, once I've brought a item ( whatever it is) onto the premises, whether its intended to be a weapon or not? A baseball bat is "easily" used as a weapon. I can make a cutting instrument out of a piece of paper and some 2-part epoxy. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. What sense does it make to say you can take " this" onto the premises, but not that just because it looks like a weapon? This is the same logic that prohibits "cop-killer" bullets. Or 11 round magazines.

[Heartland Patriot]

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.

And how do you know, once I've brought a item ( whatever it is) onto the premises, whether its intended to be a weapon or not? A baseball bat is "easily" used as a weapon. I can make a cutting instrument out of a piece of paper and some 2-part epoxy. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. What sense does it make to say you can take " this" onto the premises, but not that just because it looks like a weapon? This is the same logic that prohibits "cop-killer" bullets. Or 11 round magazines.

If I could understand what the blazes affects the minds of people who believe those kinds of signs actually reduce crime, I'd try to come up with a cure and make a million dollars.

[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" ?

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.

And how do you know, once I've brought a item ( whatever it is) onto the premises, whether its intended to be a weapon or not? A baseball bat is "easily" used as a weapon. I can make a cutting instrument out of a piece of paper and some 2-part epoxy. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. What sense does it make to say you can take " this" onto the premises, but not that just because it looks like a weapon? This is the same logic that prohibits "cop-killer" bullets. Or 11 round magazines.

If I could understand what the blazes affects the minds of people who believe those kinds of signs actually reduce crime, I'd try to come up with a cure and make a million dollars.

Well, I want my cut!

[VMI77]

4- I would send the corporate office a letter and let ask them what measures are they are taking to guarantee your safety. Let them know the hours you leave and return so that your personal body guard they must be providing for you is in place at the appointed times. I would also inquire as to where they plan on placing the guard shack that they must be placing in front of each apartment to insure that no apartment is burglarized.
5- Put them on notice that if any harm comes to you, your family or your guest while on the property that you could have prevented by being armed you will be suing them for failure to provide a safe and secure place to reside.
6- Ask them if they are familiar with the second amendment and what legal right do they have to deny you your constitutional rights.

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?

Yes it does, if you look at it in terms of how the law actually works, instead of how it would work in theory if the Constitution was absolutely adhered to. Can a business post a sign that says "Whites Only" and prevent other races from entering? If Constitutional protection was absolute a business could do that, and in fact, businesses used to do just that. So, property owners don't really have the right to control their property as they see fit, especially those that open their property to the public --there is a social accommodation and adjustments to property rights are made that aren't strictly in accordance with more absolute rights described by the Constitution. The 2nd amendment says you have a RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms, so in the same way a business with a "Whites Only" sign is denying people who aren't White a "constitutional right," a 30.06 sign is denying a "constitutional right."

I don't understand why so many gun owners are willing to concede their right to bear arms under a theoretical concept of property rights that doesn't exist in America. Property owners already don't have absolute rights or control over their property, again, especially those who open their property to the public. So why give up your rights to satisfy a hypothetical concept that exists in theory but not in practice? That said, the law does allow property owners to prohibit concealed carry, but it's much less an issue of principle than a matter of political compromise necessary to get concealed carry passed. The fact is, the law abridges many property rights, so why are gun owners content to let the line be drawn where it prevents the exercise of their right to bear arms? I don't carry where it is prohibited by law, and don't do business with any establishment that has a 30.06 sign or a gunbuster sign of any kind. However, if the law didn't allow public businesses to deny entry to CHL holders, I wouldn't have any concern that property rights were abridged for business owners because of it.

[RoyGBiv]

I don't understand why so many gun owners are willing to concede their right to bear arms under a theoretical concept of property rights that doesn't exist in America.

....a matter of political compromise necessary to get concealed carry passed.

You asked... then you answered. It's a valid question and a realistic answer.

Honestly, I don't have a lick of problem with private property owners posting 30.06. It's THEIR castle, even if they open it to the public for business. I can choose to do business elsewhere. I also think private property owners should have the right to post their property "Whites only" or "No Jews" or... whatever. I can choose not to do business with them either.

The only time this becomes a problem requiring government intervention is if there is something I am REQUIRED to do that "forces" me to do business with such a private establishment... For example if L1 posted a "White's Only" sign when L1 is the only place I can go for CHL fingerprints...

[bayouhazard]

It sure looks like the landlord can do what they did, unless you sue to stop them.

[Carry-a-Kimber]

It sure looks like the landlord can do what they did, unless you sue to stop them.

A landlord can not change a lease without consent.

[Katygunnut]

IANAL, but I don't see any way that this is covered under the section on "reasonable" changes to rules. How is it reasonable to restrict tenants from possessing perfectly legal property, even putting aside that whole pesky "fundamental individual rights" thing?

This is the equivalent of me buying an apartment complex and then telling the tenants that I am making a "reasonable" change to prevent class discrimination by banning the possession or use of clothing while on the premises. Along the same lines, no cars either. Wouldn't want anyone to be made to feel bad because someone else has nicer clothes or a better car, after all.

Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I would require that all tenants obtain a minimum of 1 long gun and 1 hand gun and that they complete an NRA approved gun safety course. At least that actually makes sense.

[VMI77]

I don't understand why so many gun owners are willing to concede their right to bear arms under a theoretical concept of property rights that doesn't exist in America.

....a matter of political compromise necessary to get concealed carry passed.

You asked... then you answered. It's a valid question and a realistic answer.

Honestly, I don't have a lick of problem with private property owners posting 30.06. It's THEIR castle, even if they open it to the public for business. I can choose to do business elsewhere. I also think private property owners should have the right to post their property "Whites only" or "No Jews" or... whatever. I can choose not to do business with them either.

The only time this becomes a problem requiring government intervention is if there is something I am REQUIRED to do that "forces" me to do business with such a private establishment... For example if L1 posted a "White's Only" sign when L1 is the only place I can go for CHL fingerprints...

I essentially agree with you. I took some short cuts in my post so I didn't make the point I was trying to make completely clear. I don't have a problem with the compromise that was made --30.06 signs-- to get concealed carry passed. It's a reasonable compromise and I simply don't do business with anyone who posts such signs. As it it, it has worked out pretty well because I hardly ever see 30.06 signs.

I was attempting to say that treating the question of a property owner prohibiting concealed carry as if it is strictly a matter of principle....the principle that a property owner can set all terms for the use of his property....is the application of theory/philosophy over reality. If theory matched reality it would make sense for gun owners to respect the concept that a property owner can prohibit concealed carry since adhering to principle would also ultimately be one of the best protectors of their own rights. However, the rights of property owners are abridged for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with actual rights, so it doesn't make sense to me as a gun owner, with an actual right articulated in the Constitution, to accept abridgement of my right when property owner rights are abridged to satisfy the mere desires of others, or for social and political reasons that are not actual rights recognized in the Constitution.

In other words, I see no reason to just accept that in a negotiation for balancing competing rights, gun owners should concede an actual Constitutional right a priori when concessions are made to others for strictly political reasons that mostly originate from the philosophy of collectivism. Now, as a matter of practical reality, yes, 30.06 was probably necessary to get concealed carry passed, and in the existing political climate it is a concession that makes sense. I still don't think I'm explaining myself very well, but I hope I'm little closer to conveying what I mean than in my previous post.

[jdlott74]

Let them try that in this house. Will not happen...what they don't know won't hurt them.

[jdlott74]

And how would he find out to evict you?

Apartment Manager has exterminator goes in to exterminate ...
You come home from work and ...Your $1,479 Weatherby is missing ...

OR
Manager sends Maintenance man into ALL Apartments to do an annual "toilet flapper ball replacement"
Liberal Democrat Maintenance guy sees gun case in closet where you know you closed the closet door, but he says it was open, tells manager

That is why we close and LOCK the bedroom closet (with a totally separate lock and key that the managers do not have) when we are gone.

[jdlott74]

I don't know if the land lord can legally enforce this or not.
Texas Chl records are not public. Keep the gun with you all the time
keep it concealed. Keep your mouth quiet about it. Only keep one gun in your apt.
Store the others at a gun range locker. Move out as soon as you can and
let the management know why. Tell the N.R.A. about this offense to the constitution.

What good are guns if you need them at a gun range locker?

Doesn't matter if we have a CHL or not. The guns are in our own private home and they will not tell us that we can not have them here. Let them try to evict us....LAWSUIT!!!!

[jdlott74]

I'm not a lawyer I'm a landlord. I have enough sense to avoid H.O.A. like the plague

AMEN, Us too.

[PeteCamp]

To the OP...I'm surprised someone didn't mention this. If you just act as if nothing has changed the probability is extremely high that whoever owns the property now will not own it at some time in the future. Owning apartments is like gambling - far more losers than winners.

[Dragonfighter]

Okay - I guess I'm missing something.

MPA, Premise Under Control -

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

Sec. 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:

(A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and

(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.

(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

(3) "Vehicle" includes any device in, on, or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such devices as are classified as "habitation."

We have discussed ad nauseum how one's vehicle (or vehicle under their control) is private property. We have discussed how a hotel cannot prevent you from keeping a weapon in your room as it is a de facto residence while you are there. But an apartment can?!? I call "nonsense".