Can A Landlord Do This?

[apostate]

We have discussed ad nauseum how one's vehicle (or vehicle under their control) is private property.

We have also discussed how some employers can and do prohibit firearms in vehicles on their property. (e.g. refineries, schools)

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.

We have discussed how it's (probably) not a crime to keep a weapon in your room because it's your temporary residence. However, if a hotel has a policy against firearms, I haven't seen a compelling argument that they're not allowed to enforce their policies though civil remedies. Granted, the risk of being caught is rather low, but hypothetically speaking...

[03Lightningrocks]

I believe every and any advice, right or wrong has already been given so I will just say what my response would be. I have been around long enough to know what a pain moving can be but I would try real hard to leave that place. Whether they can enforce this or not I would be so ticked off by them trying I would have to leave. I would also try my darnedest to talk my friends who have weapons into doing the same. Good luck with it all.

[Dragonfighter]

We have discussed ad nauseum how one's vehicle (or vehicle under their control) is private property.

We have also discussed how some employers can and do prohibit firearms in vehicles on their property. (e.g. refineries, schools)

There are some employers that are able to do so by statute (refineries, etc.), otherwise they cannot. And I believe there is a material difference between an employee/employer relationship and one where a person has residence, I.E. If the holder of a mortgage cannot restrict gun ownership, then the holder of a lease should not by extension. If you are permitted on the parking lot as a resident, then the car and to/from the apt are not something the landlords can control.

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.

We have discussed how it's (probably) not a crime to keep a weapon in your room because it's your temporary residence. However, if a hotel has a policy against firearms, I haven't seen a compelling argument that they're not allowed to enforce their policies though civil remedies. Granted, the risk of being caught is rather low, but hypothetically speaking...

THAT is my point exactly. It is your residence, they cannot compel you not to keep a weapon on or about you. Civil remedies? P'shaw. I'd like to see that one. I would think the worst that could be done is terminating the lease and maybe forfeiture of the security deposit. But I bet even that fight would bite the property owners.

[texman45]

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.

Normally I'd agree with ya, but it seems that this Minnesota-based company is currently in an expansion and growth phase. They have acquired 16 apartment complexes throughout Texas. The irony here is that their own state, Minnesota, has a clear-cut statute (624.714 sub d 17 Posting Trespass (e)) that specifically prohibits landlords from restricting the lawful possession of firearms by tenants or their guests. Unfortunately, Texas presently has no such statute. So what they can't do to tenants in their home state they can impose on tenants here!

Our legislators really need to get on the ball and put a similar statute on the books to nip this in the bud before it spreads. With this housing crisis that we're in, more and more gun-owning Texans are becoming renters as they have to walk away from their houses so these landlord-imposed gun restrictions may start affecting more Texas citizens.

I don't think that property owner rights come into play here because a rented apartment becomes a person's home, and no-one should be able to dictate what legal property a person may or may not have in their home. I mean what's next, carving knife bans?

[Jumping Frog]

Our legislators really need to get on the ball and put a similar statute on the books to nip this in the bud before it spreads.

Yep, 94 posts later, that is exactly what I said on page 1.

[kjolly]

It would be better for all of us to move to complexes or communities that require you to own a gun before you can lease or rent. Much safer enviroment to live in.

[aggie06]

It's darn-near impossible to evict someone in Texas, so I don't know that you would ever actually get evicted. There are notice requirements, then you have to have a hearing. And if something changes, the notices have to start over. There is a certain way the notices must be posted, etc. Someone else mentioned losing your security deposit, but I wouldn't worry about that. There are only certain things that can be deducted from your security deposit (damages to the property, unpaid rent), and the landlord has the burden of proof for cost and necessity. If they don't provide you any sort of refund or accounting within 30 days of you moving out, the law automatically assumes they acted in bad faith and they can't withhold anything. The law also says that the landlord has to pay back 3X whatever was wrongfully taken, plus $100, if you win in court. I had a landlord in college that was forced to pay back a pretty large amount because she couldn't prove she needed to make repairs that I was charged for.

That said, I thought there was a case at one of the off-campus private dorms in College Station a few years back where some kid had a gun in his room. Management made a big stink and either tried to confiscate it or evict or something. The argument came down to whether he was actually leasing the room and had a greater right to control the property. If I remember correctly, the argument hinged on the fact that he had only paid for a bed and therefore did not have the same rights as one leasing an apartment. The apartment dweller would have a greater right to use of the property than the landlord. Maybe someone can find that case with their google skills?

[texman45]

The ideal thing for me to do would be to move to a "gun-friendly" apartment complex as some here have suggested. The problem with that is that I'm an older gent with several physical problems that cause me to tire very quickly and the stress of a move to a new place would definitely take its toll. Plus I'm living on a very limited Social Security retirement income which prospective new landlords might find inadequate to meet their income requirements for new tenants. Along that line, the cost of moving, including deposits, for me would be near disastrous. And then what's to stop a new landlord from imposing gun restrictions after I move in, like my current landlord has? I'd be in the same situation I am now, but somewhat poorer from the moving expenses. So moving for me is not the best solution. It might solve MY immediate problem but in no way would it solve the problem that faces ALL Texas legal gun owners who rent.

So for the time being I've removed my Henry lever action from the wall so that it is out of sight. It was more of a decoration than anything else, was always unloaded with the ammunition stored in another room, and being alone now I never have young children in the apartment. My carry pistol is in my night stand, also out of sight. For a landlord to "discover" that I have firearms, they'd have to violate some privacy laws.

I have no intention of giving up my legally owned firearms. Back in the 70's, in the wee hours of the morning, I was driving on an isolated road with a lady friend when some guy in another car came up beside us and liked what he saw (my lady friend). To make a long story short, it ended up in a wild car chase with him shooting at my car with me defenseless. We managed to get away and this person was apprehended by the police about twenty minutes later. He was an escaped mental patient with a revolver on his seat! After that incident I vowed that I would always have the means to defend myself. Then in the 90's I was staying at a cabin in the boondocks when about 3 a.m. I heard someone jiggling the front doorknob. I looked out the window and saw two guys, complete strangers, out there. I went to the door with my Glock, and through the door asked them what they wanted? They did not answer. So I loudly chambered a round and said through the door, "I strongly suggest that you boys leave the property immediately." They did, and very quickly.

So no, I'm not about to get rid of my legal means of self-defense at the whim of some out of state landlord. I'll risk the eviction, even though an eviction on your record makes it very difficult to get a new apartment.

What I did this week was email the NRA-ILA explaining the situation with a suggestion that they contact all Texas state legislators about the need for a statute protecting Texas renters who legally own firearms.

I'm asking everyone here who agrees to take a few minutes and do the same. Legal gun possession in a home should not be a class distinction thing, where homeowners have no problem but those who can't afford to buy a house run into this. Thanks.

[drjoker]

Sue them. Call the NRA. Call your lawyer. Have your lawyer send them a letter on NRA stationary. From DC to Chicago, these unconstitutional pinko carpetbagger landlords are being told by our courts that they can't do this. A total ban on arms in your home is unconstitutional. If they see the NRA stationary, they'll get scared because they know that the NRA has a bottomless legal fund and they don't have a bottomless legal defense fund. They have a budget. The letter doesn't have to say that it's from the NRA. You don't have to lie. The letter on NRA stationary just implies that it's from the NRA, but it's from your lawyer. If you have prepaid legal, the letter is free. If you don't, it shouldn't cost more than $200 and the consultation should be free, if referred by the lawyer referral service.

Good luck and God bless,


P.S. you might want to move into a house with roommates. That will be cheaper than living in an apartment. Apartments are commonly owned by corporations run in New York by carpetbagger pinko liberals. However, if you rent a house, it is often owned by an old retiree like yourself who is living off the rent to fund their retirement. Just ask the owner what he/she thinks of the 2nd amendment and they will tell you. That way, you won't be surprised by a change in the gun policy later.

[sumyungai]

Sue them. Call the NRA. Call your lawyer. Have your lawyer send them a letter on NRA stationary. From DC to Chicago, these unconstitutional pinko carpetbagger landlords are being told by our courts that they can't do this. A total ban on arms in your home is unconstitutional.

If it's unconstitutional for a land owner to prohibit firearms on his private property, then it's really unconstitutional for the Texas government to prohibit concealed handguns in bars, schools, and professional sporting events.

[Dave2]

Sue them. Call the NRA. Call your lawyer. Have your lawyer send them a letter on NRA stationary. From DC to Chicago, these unconstitutional pinko carpetbagger landlords are being told by our courts that they can't do this. A total ban on arms in your home is unconstitutional.

If it's unconstitutional for a land owner to prohibit firearms on his private property

Generally it's not, and generally it shouldn't be. The issue is that one of the recognized reasons for having the 2nd Amendment — to defend one's home — can directly conflict with the property owner's rights when they're renting their property to someone else. In my view, the constitution trumps property-owners' rights and such rights-trumping is one of the risks you take when you rent out your property. Imagine the outcry that would arise from the ACLU if an apartment complex tried to ban its residents from having other legal things like maybe letter openers in their apartments.

[C-dub]

What I find ironic about this whole thing is that they are trying to restrict their tenants and tenant's guests from doing something they cannot even prevent their own employees from doing anymore. Legally, they cannot prohibit their own employees from keeping a gun their car on the property.

[stevie_d_64]

I've been through a few of the pages in this discussion and one thing keep hitting me square between the eyes...

It is apparent that the landlord (owner) has the right to establish rules and any property possession conditions of its tenants under a lease agreement you have to sign and agree with to to live there...Regardless to Constitutional issues...

Now, that that pimple needing to be popped is settled...The answer is obvious...Apartment living is rapidly becomeing the new communes in our society, no matter how gussied up and fancy, crime free, amenities and socially ripe they appear to be...they are now a focis to the illegalisties and potential serious risk to personal freedoms and safety out there across the nation...

So, what is the solution...

Save your money, live frugally, git yer posterior out of debt, and move out as soonas you can to your own place, where YOU make the rules, and pursue life, happiness and liberty and all that neat stuff...

"But Steve, I can't...I have all these student loans, cable and cell phone bills, etc etc etc..."

Well, seems to me you need to reign in some exra expenses there bucko...(to which I can already hear the cries of, "You just don't understand Steve!!!)

The one underlying theme to this is apparently, and this is very important to understand, that the landlord (owner) would rather deal with the negative publicity of a tenant(s) being murdered, robbed, raped, pilaged and plundered, than deal with the "positive" publicity of the small minority community of pro-gun folks who might just be able to defend themselves from the aformentioned crimes on their properties...

So the choice is yours...I think we still have that freedom here in this country for now...Do things to get yourself NOT to be dependent upon others for your roof, gas, cars, food and other things, people other than yourself, can control...

Again, easier said than done...But hey...There has got to be a heck of a precentage in this country of 300 million people that can actually stand on their own, and not be subjected to this kind of freedom-sucking (government dependent) infrastructure, that way too many people are tied into these days...

I'm all for rejecting, and relegating through that rejection, the primary reason for all this intrusive in-your-face nonsense coming from those we elect into office...they need to be put in there place, and until a lot of people get together and stop enabling them to do this to us...

Hehehe, sure is nice to not have to worry about most of this stuff...And I would love to have plenty of company on my side of the fence...If I could wave my magic wand and change this all in one sweep...Hehehe, there are a few people who know me on this forum, would know I'd do it in a heartbeat...

[stevie_d_64]

Our legislators really need to get on the ball and put a similar statute on the books to nip this in the bud before it spreads.

Yep, 94 posts later, that is exactly what I said on page 1.

Y'all are correct...As active as I am in Texas politics, I have not seen the same kind of fire in the majority of our elected officials in this state in the last few years...Their receptiveness to basic Second Amendment activism and proponents has been lackluster at best...We may still get a few things done, but there is still a lot of work to be done, corrected, clarified...

Some here might even say, I'll never be totally satisfied...And I would agree with those folks who work as hard, if not harder than I in that political arena...

Like I said in my last post...I believe the Apartment complex owners would rather deal with the negative press from a few murders, and other man acts, against their tenants, than actually side with law-abiding citizens who should be able to own posess such means to do that without any demonizing or threat to their lives, liberty and happiness...

Its like I have told people for years...

"What are you prepared to do about it, and what are you prepared to sacrifice to get it done!"

Those old white guys in wigs (back in the day) didn't just talk a bunch of stuff and go home after signing a documant declaring their independence...They went home after a few pints with their buddies, and made musket balls with their families...They knew a fight was on the day they declared their line in the sand...What are YOU willing to do for the cause???

We still have avenues to pursue to convince those we elect into office to get up off their duffs and fix thee anomalies...When we lose our voices, our votes, thats when "other" avenues open up...

I think we can fix it before that ever comes close to being an option...

[PeteCamp]

Perhaps we should hear from one of those old guys in the wig....

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

- Thomas Jefferson