I am aware of an apartment complex that is now trying to restrict guns, legal or not? What say you?

Nancy

For the past 30 years I restrict guns in my apartment buildings ("C" class buildings) since most of the tenants drink, have little common sense and would keep the guns loaded, unlocked and available to all. But the tenants who legally own a gun, have a locked storage box and carry renters insurance with a "gun" liability policy, are free to keep one.

I am in NY with our "un-safe act". Still, having guns is a constitutional right, it is enumerated in our laws. So I would never consider restricting them. Localities may have certain laws as to what kind of permits are needed, what kind of guns can be owned, how they should be stored. But that is an issue of the police not me.

Most of my tenants have firearms, I have even been references for them to obtain permits. One place has the area that they can hunt and target practice. There doesn't seem to be a squirrel or coyote issue there either. Never had a problem with tenants having them.

Through My (legal) Screening Process,

I Welcome Responsible / Law Abiding, Gun Owners.

"Gun owners" are not a Protected Class. It has nothing to do with Fair Housing laws. A landlord, in most cases, absolutely IS allowed to have a "no guns" rule for their units.

IF you think otherwise, NE, I'd love to know what laws you are basing that on. The 2nd Amendment does not allow guns in privately owned locations if the property owner does not want them there.

Note that a LL can't just put up a sign to disallow them. They need to have it specifically in the lease that both agreed to. But they absolutely CAN restrict them from being allowed in most states.

Some more reading for those interested: www.irem.org/File%20Library/Public%20Policy/ConcealedCarryLaw.pdf

- John...

"Right to bear arms" to protect property and yourselves. Don't believe you can keep anyone from storing them and protecting themselves in their own home.

Apartment complex CAN request that no one come into the office with one. People are going to do what they are going to do.

A gun owner IS a protected class as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned.

It is no different from fair housing in the form of "I don't care for ________ and I don't want it in my units."

Not only that, a gun owner, especially the owner of a NEW gun and a NICE new gun are already 70-80% pre screened for you. They have passed background checks more stringent than yours, plus they can AFFORD a nice new gun. They aren't cheap. Some are very expensive.

My tenants are screened, and I've had fairly good luck at keeping the nut cases out. Most of my tenants hunt and I just assume they all have guns. I know that several of them have kept hunting archery equipment, which is just as deadly as guns.

On the other hand, it looks like it is legal for privately owned businesses to forbid guns on their property. I am in favor of gun rights, but I am also very much in favor of private property rights.

So let's take it a step future and put it into practical application.

Go ahead and ban them in you're lease. Now enforce it.

NE: When we talk about "Protected Classes" and the Fair Housing (which you mention), that very specifically applies to select lists. Gun Owners and the 2nd Amendment are not on those lists.

It IS different from "I don't care for [Protected Class] and don't want them in my units" because one is protected by FEDERAL LAW and the other is not.

Sorry, you can WANT it to be different as much as you can -- but it doesn't change the fact that, in most states, guns are NOT a protected class and landlords absolutely CAN restrict them from their units.

- John...

To be clear, I don't restrict this and I'm not suggesting that others should.

I'm just pointing out that, above, you said: "The apartment complex can't do that and Robert J, you can't do that either."

That is simply incorrect from a LEGAL standpoint in most states.

I actually agree with you some on your argument for gun owners. That isn't the question nor point here. We were talking about if it can LEGALLY be done -- and it simply can in most cases.

You are incorrect to state that Robert J can't do it. You are incorrect to state that the apartment complex mentioned in the first post can't do it. Legally, they absolutely can.

- John...

Finally, we all often ban LOTS of things in our leases that we can't easily enforce. So, that seems like a pretty weak argument for guns.

A tenant could have a hamster hidden in their closet and I wouldn't be able to enforce the no pets clause either if I couldn't see it. Just like your gun example. That doesn't mean I'm removing (or not allowed to have!) no-pet rules in my lease.

- John...

The simply put it in to operation.

Ban the gun in the unit. Find one. Present a cure or quit notice and proceed to eviction after the tenant laughs in your face and shuts the door and goes back to his dinner. (Provided he/she doesn't move out of the overbearing landlord's unit anyway.)

Then we can see what law is stronger, the lease clause or 2A.

All this does is boil down to politics. The question that needs to be answered is "Why even do this?"

I agree with property rights like others have mentioned above, where I should be able to allow and disallow certain things as I see for FOR MY HOUSE.

Ken, I understand why the ESA thing won't hold up, I was just using that as a part of my point for this discussion.

I don't agree with them, but I would have to allow them if it comes along. (Politics aside.)

To me, a note from a doctor for a puppy for a grown man to feel better about himself, does not carry more weight than what is written in the Constitution of the United States.

There's really no argument for that, except for the position of fair housing. That's why I originally said if you're going to throw out the tenants gun rights, you might as will toss out the fair housing as well.

A property owner can't say that the tenant cannot practice a certain religion in the unit. They can't say that they can't write a book expressing their political perspective in the unit that they live in. They can't say that the tenant can't have a group small assemble there once a month to discuss a certain thing.

I have a tenant of a certain religion who I know practices that religion in the unit. I may not agree with that (which I don't really care either way), but there's nothing I can do about it and also it's none of my concern. And that's my point here really is that this is none of the landlords concern.

I know how you stand on the stuff and I understand what you're saying.

As landlords, we are supposed to leave our politics out of it. We are supposed to be neutral. When you put something like this in your lease, you're putting your politics into it. There's a lot of things that I'd like to not have happened in my units or welcome into, but I have to leave my politics out of it.

So if we want to be technical, yes they can probably put in there that they don't want guns on the property. Maybe I don't want people with blue eyes.

Another example, is my father-in-law's dad. He and his wife moved into senior housing about two or three years ago. He grew up hunting and has always had guns his whole life. When he moved into the senior housing, they said he couldn't have any guns. (The put it in their lease.) And he said since he was older and wasnt hunting anymore he got most rid of them but he kept one, because he didn't really care what they thought. Now this man is in his 80s, he has been around them his whole life. Who is in the wrong here?

Also, if they found it, can they legally evict him if they REALLY wanted to and he had the $ to fight it?

I can guarantee you that as a landlord you can restrict many things HOWEVER, Good Luck enforcing it. Robert J can restrict it in his lease I bet there are several of his tenants that have a gun and will not disclose it.

The unfortunate shooting in CA several years ago IF one of the folks attending the Christmas Party would had a carry permit I can guarantee you the person would have been stopped sooner that was causing the problem.

The extremely sad case in Parkland FL is not about Guns but the focus is on Guns. Where was the resource person while the person was harming people. The resource person failed to protect..

Where was the person who should have been watching the surveillance camera. When a person walks into a building with a long case they need to act immediately. They failed the School and the School District.

Teachers were told about the problem individual and nothing was done. They failed the school and the school district.

The FBI was aware of the problem individual and they failed the school district.

There are Resource personnel/sheriffs department, teachers, school admin and the FBI failed to protect the school district. An investigation should be done on each of these factors and people should lose their jobs because they failed the school district especially to protect the students and teachers. PLUS if several teachers had a carry permit this would not have gotten out of hand like it did. HOWEVER the resource person was trained to use his gun and he failed to protect. Where was the person that was watching the surveillance cameras as people enter the school. That person failed to protect the school.

Gun Laws and rent control laws are extremely overburdensome in CA. HOWEVER people continue to live there in an extremely controlled environment. Thats their choice. It's not a state I would want to own real estate nor live but thats my choice.

I'm not going to argue on this one any more. NE keeps repeating that disallowing guns is no different from disallowing Protected Classes under Fair Housing laws and that simply isn't true. But, I see no way to convince him otherwise, so I'm out.

You can argue all you want about how you'd LIKE it to be -- or how it can't be ENFORCED even -- but that doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly legal (in most cases) to disallow guns in our rental units.

To say that it is not "allowed" from a legal standpoint is incorrect. Period.

- John...

Sorry for so many posts and I'm not looking to argue from a confrontational standpoint. I am looking at this more from a debate perspective. If we were having dinner at the convention John, you could discuss this with me and my smiley face! :)

I get passionate about these kind of things and I get passionate about real estate and I get passionate about investing and I'll discuss it over and over and over until it makes sense to me and right now this does not.

John, you say that it is legal. Technically, I doubt it is. We all know that you can put whatever you want into a lease. We've established that fact here numerous times. But the question always remains is it legal? What this comes down to is much bigger than just fair housing. It comes down to whether I as a landlord have the right to restrict you, as a United States citizen.

How often do we read landlord's here saying "Who cares if your tenant smokes weed?" Weed's illegal!!

Ok, I'll bite...

What law, exactly, do you think is being violated by that restriction -- that would make it illegal?

- John...

Note that the Amendments, in general, do not necessarily apply to private locations.

For example, it is perfectly legal for a private company to fire employees for speaking their mind inappropriately at work. They cannot argue that it is their 1st Amendment right to say what they want and not be fired.

Those Amendment rights apply to public locations, not private.

Similarly, Jeffrey is fully allowed to delete posts here that he doesn't like. We do not have 1st Amendment rights here.

So, hopefully, you have something better than the "2nd Amendment" to answer when I ask which law is being violated that makes you think the restriction in a lease is illegal.

- John...

Note also that this isn't just my personal opinion. If you do a Google search, this question has already been asked many, many times -- and most legal experts agree that, in most states, restrictions against guns in rentals are legal.

- John...

I'm not certain if it was in Chicago or not, but I think that is where HUD had the bright idea that crime would drop in their gigantic inner-city complexes if they forbade guns there.

Yes it was challenged, by the ACLU if I remember correctly.

Bottom line was that HUD did NOT have the power or authority to restrict rights granted in the constitution; or more appropriately - HUD did not have the right to require a tenant to give up a constitutional right as a condition of moving in.

HUD lost.

If HUD lost, I think there is no way in the world a LL would have a defense in court if the no-gun rental policy was enforced.

As a firearm instructor this comes up occasionally and I researched it a few years ago. Below is an older article on the topic. Basically the 2nd Ammendment only applies in public housing. A CA case as I recall said a housing authority could not restrict ownership in their units. But it did not extend to private owners.

Some states have laws precluding restrictions, but I don't know which. Mostly it falls under the same thing as restricting smoking or pot. Leased premises I learned apparently do not have exclusivity, meaning a LL can technically require tenant compliance to the LL's rules, even regarding guns.

I believe Robert is out of line, but his stories are entertaining. I don't know why anyone would force their gun stance on others. If you don't want a gun, fine. Don't buy one. But don't tell me I can't defend myself or my family because you don't think people should have guns, or think only you should have a gun.

For awhile I was promoting our apts as "CCW required," but nobody cared and we came to the conclusion sfter discussion here that it could be discriminatory. So apparently it is discrimination to require guns, but not to deny them. Scratches head.

www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/08/colorado-apartment-complex-ban-firearms-property

But the Second Amendment is a big part of it. There are also state laws protecting those right. Certainly not many in ca, I'm sure. Just because saying that I can't use that in the discussion doesn't necessarily mean that I really can't.

People do have a first amendment right here, but Jeffrey does have the right to delete offensive language.

However, he isn't blocking everyone from posting anything, just because he wants to. Only what's offensive, or spam or however he decides to filter. He also allows the controversial to take place for the greater good of the group.

So, being it does fall back to the Second Amendment and trying to leave personal political perspective out of it, what laws are being violated by the tenant to have the landlord have a biased lease clause?

SteveIndiana,

Simply put, John MI is correct here.

In your case HUD lost because HUD is a governmentmental authority. The government can't restrict constitutional rights.

Well, unfortunately Lisa it's really not that simple. When we open up our properties to the public, things change. We have personal property rights, but when we rent out our units to the public, those rights change a bit. For the discussion at hand, there seems to be a little confusion as to where that line is drawn. I don't even know where that line is. It also seems that this issue hasn't made it in front of the court yet to be decided.

How I feel regarding this, is that if any of us here had a tenant who had a gun in their unit and we had a no guns clause in our lease and both parties had the money to fight this through the court systems, I have a feeling that we as landlords would lose this one. (Regardless of the current political climate)

However, it may never get to that point because it's going to be easier for the tenant to just move and not deal with such a restrictive clause or not rent from a landlord who has policies like this in the first place or lie and bring it in anyways. Then what?

I have to side with the tenants on this one. I've been thinking about it quite a bit today, as you can tell.

Ban Swiss cheese, ban Play-doh, ban Nike shoes. Would we win those suits?

NE, you're simply wrong about the 1st Amendment and web sites like this. We do NOT have 1st Amendment rights here. We don't have the freedom of speech.

You wrote: "People do have a first amendment right here, but Jeffrey does have the right to delete offensive language.

However, he isn't blocking everyone from posting anything, just because he wants to. Only what's offensive, or spam or however he decides to filter."

That isn't true. Jeffrey has every right to delete whatever he wants -- not just because it is for the good of the rest of us, for example.

Let's say that he has a sponsor -- ACME CORP that offers low-interest mortgages to landlords. Then someone posts here that they recommend AJAX CORP's mortgages. That person has absolutely no 1st Amendment rights there. Jeffrey can freely delete that post -- not because it is for the good of the rest of us -- but for purely financial reasons.

That's simply the way it is on privately owned sites. Him putting it on the internet does not make it "public" as far as those laws go. It's a private entity that we post on. We don't have 1st Amendment rights here.

- John...

And, yes, it absolutely is legal to ban Nike shoes and Swiss Cheese in your rentals. They are not a protected class.

Heck, the Michigan Guide for Landlords and Tenants actually uses "blue car drivers" as their example of what would be LEGAL DISCRIMINATION. It points out that since the color of your car is NOT a Protected Class, landlords are free to legally discriminate against them.

You absolutely can disallow Nike shoes, Play-Doh, and people that drive blue cars in your rentals (in most cases).

Just because we offer our rentals "to the public" does not change our status to public/government which is what those Amendment Rights fall under. As Lisa said, THAT is why HUD would lose -- a private entity would not have, IMO.

- John...

It isn't that complicated.

Again, we're not the first to discuss this. A simple search finds this being discussed for years. And, again, with most legal experts saying that landlords do have that right -- even if it would be difficult to enforce.

So, you can say that "I don't have you" all you want -- the consensus among those that know the law much better than any of us here do is that it is allowed, sorry.

- John...

Private property rights vs constitutional rights.

Nancy Van Roy of CA, Simple solution, Your friend needs to give notice and move to a new rental.

John, I've already said this is beyond fair housing, which it is. Its bigger than fair housing.

I just got home and ran a few scenarios past my wife. She could really care less about RE until the flip house checks clear the bank!

I randomly said, "I think I'm going to put in my lease: "no guys with man-buns in their hair."

She said "What, why?"

I said, I don't know, because I want to. She said I can't do that.

I then said I was going to ban ninja swords. She said I can't do that either.

I said, "What about guns?"

She said, no.

I said why?

She said "because they are legal." She said, "they aren't illegal."

I said to her, "Well, what if I want to ban them in the house just because I don't want them in my buildings."

She said "No. it's not like they're drugs which are illegal. I don't think you have the right to tell tenants what they can or can't have in their unit as long as its legal."

She's an outside observer on this who doesn't care either way about guns or my apartments.

I am going to pose this question at my REIA tonight and I'll report back tomorrow with some of their thoughts as well.

I really think it falls back to what is a stronger right, personal property or constitutional.

What if you owned rentals in a city like Kennesaw, Georgia where possession of a firearm is not an option.

City ordinance requires all heads of household to be in possession of a firearm and appropriate ammunition.

NE: That's fine, but that example falls apart at the very beginning. Your wife was wrong. You can have a "no guys with man-buns in their hair" requirement and it is perfectly legal.

Therefore, the rest of that kind falls apart.

It is not illegal to discriminate against non-protected classes. Period.

Again, the example from my state is that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people who drive blue cars. Absolutely allowed for landlords to do.

- John...

Also, I think it is weird that you keep saying things like this:

"Private property rights vs constitutional rights.

It's all speculation right now."

It isn't speculation right now. This has been going on for years. You can do a Google search and finds lots of situations where landlords have disallowed guns. This isn't anything new. It is legal and allowed except in a few situations. (MN, for example, has a state law against it.)

This isn't some new territory or unknown thing that we're arguing about. There have been landlords with "no gun" restrictions for YEARS.

Some fun reading if you want:

blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2017/08/can-my-landlord-ban-gun-ownership.html

www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/2013/05/21/can-landlords-limit-their-tenants-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

americantenantscreen.com/can-landlords-prohibit-gun-ownership/

A simple Google search will turns up tons of cases of this over the years. This is not "speculation about private property rights vs constitutional rights" at all. This is a well-known, existing situation.

- John...

Ernie: That would be different. You wouldn't be able to override local laws with your own lease. It would be more like situations where state or local laws have expanded Protected Classes to include Source of Income, for example. Landlords are allowed to discriminate based on Source of Income -- unless some state/local law says otherwise and basically makes SoI a Protected Class.

I think Kennesaw, Georgia would be like that: they've basically made gun ownership a requirement and therefore a sort of Protected Class -- and, therefore, LLs could not discriminate against them in that locality.

- John...

Nancy: I think everyone here was trying to stick to your question about whether or not it is legal to restrict guns in an apartment complex.

It was simply more complex than a "yes or no" answer. And that leads to some debate.

So, sure, there was some "arguing with each other" -- but it was all mostly on topic and still trying to answer your original question.

In any case, I'm sure some here will argue that the subject is not "closed" -- but I'm on your side that it is until we hear otherwise. :)

- John...

John in MI, thanks for your last post. You all can start your own thread. I’m just tired of getting all the notifications, which go on and on and on!

I believe in the right to arm bears.

I'm not the least bit concerned about guns in my rentals because I don't knock on the door for rent each week.

The ONLY gun problem we've ever had was a gut who skipped out, drove by later and shot out some windows with a pellet gun, so techincially he was not my resident at the time.

BRAD

I have "No smoking in home or on premises" in my addendum. It may be hard to enforce, but I can have it as requirement. I tell people upfront "No smoking." Someone will say spouse only smokes outside. I say I have turned down others who have said that, and I must be consistent.

So it is BTN: Better than nothing. Smoking causes damage to my rental homes, and I have had people call and ask if anyone ever smoked. If so they cannot live there.

i have many females and encourage them to be armed. the screening i do roots out the nuts and the macho types.

sorry I got here late. Would suggest reading Ms. Halls "Sovereign Duty". After your BP comes down 25 points reread it and underline.

There is no way after fighting for this country to protect our way of life and the constitution I would ever be without a gun(S). EVER. Our state laws prevent bring guns into certain establishments-- churches, bars, public events and I do follow those laws. There ain't no LL telling me I can't have one in my home. It's a basic right to protect myself and my family.

How would you feel if your mortgage company said we don't allow guns in the homes we lend money on?

Many of us and our citizens have lost sight of WHY our forefathers had the bill of rights and we should all try to remember that history and why those rules were enacted.

myob: Then why are you ok with not having them in churches or bars? Those are not public entities either. They are usually privately owned and they would dictate who can and cannot bring a gun there. Why are you ok with a privately owned bar not allowing a gun, but not ok with a privately owned property (that you happen to rent) not allowing a gun?

Sorry, but you simply do not have a "basic right" to take your gun onto a privately owned property that the owner has stated you may not.

Don't get me wrong -- I have no such rules in my rental. But I do understand that private property owners should have the right to disallow them on their property if they so choose.

Whether or not this could be enforced is an entirely different argument.

- John...

John Iam not OK with it but I agreed to it when I applied with my consealed weapon permit from my state.

A private citizen should not curtail my rights. The state as a group agreed as a group to prohibit certain carry situations and locations.

I agreed not to carry in certain buildings according to the terms of my concealed carry permit. But what if I was open-carrying, which is perfectly legal in NC? Can you open-carry in a building that has posted "No Concealed Weapons?" (I don't know the answer, I'm honestly asking a question.)

myob: Private citizens curtail your "rights" all the time. You do not have a "right" to free speech on private property, for example -- such as this web site. If Jeffrey doesn't want to allow posts about certain topics, he has every RIGHT to do that.

Similarly, people have rights to control what is on their property as long as it doesn't violate Fair Housing laws. Until guns are a protected class, property owners have the right to disallow non-protected-class things such as guns.

I'm curious as to why you would want to restrict a tenant from owning a gun? I assume you could hire a security guard. If so would he have a gun? WOrked real good in Florida recently.

Is there any case law that by doing so the LL was held responsible when someone could not defend themselves because they were denied the right to own a gun?

I just reviewed the responses I left when this subject was posted over two months ago and wanted to respond.

I know a lot about guns, I carried one everyday when I was in the Jewelry Trade years ago.

Since then in California there have been dozens of laws concerning guns. From purchasing, storing and use.

It is illegal for an under aged person to own, use or posses a gun. Guns must be stored in a locked box or have a cable lock through the barrel so the gun can't be used.

I require the following from my tenants with a gun when living in a multifamily property with other tenants. For everyone's safety the gun must be registered. Proof that my tenant is the owner of the gun.

Also the tenant must keep the gun locked up as required by the local law. The tenant must have renter's insurance if they have a gun, listing liability for gun use/defense.

My landlord polices has exclusions for gun use on a property. This is a California thing.

When I enter a unit to do general maintenance, with my eyes wide open I often see a "gun cleaning kit" on a shelf. I do not see a gun safe. So I ask my tenant where do they keep their gun. They respond with, the cleaning kit is used when a borrow a friends gun when I go shooting, I don't own a gun.

After seeing evidence that the tenant may have a gun and won't admit it, I will serve the tenant with a 5 Day Notice to Perform or Quit. Saying they don't have renter's insurance with a gun clause. They don't have a gun safe to store the gun. They claim they have not gun so unless they agree to this in writing again (as per the lease), if I find they do have a gun in the apartment or on the property, I will evict!