Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: Theoretical question
-
May 25th, 2008, 04:31 PM #1
Theoretical question
Before I begin this hasn't happened to me or anyone I know. I was just thinking today after reading about property rights.
Lets say you're renting a place and the landlord is rabidly anti-gun and discovers you own guns. Can they throw you out based on that or legally say you can't have them?
-
May 25th, 2008, 04:51 PM #2Grand Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
-
Nowhere Land,
Pennsylvania
(Westmoreland County) - Posts
- 4,954
- Rep Power
- 5938504
Re: Theoretical question
I think it may vary from state to state. I teach the Utah CFP classes and in Utah a landlord is not allowed to prohibit his tenants from maintaining firearms on the premises.
Come to think of it, this puts an interesting spin on the property rights vs RKBA debate.
-
May 25th, 2008, 05:04 PM #3
Re: Theoretical question
-
May 25th, 2008, 05:10 PM #4
Re: Theoretical question
The landlord can do whatever the contract that you have with him allows, within the limits of public laws.
If the lease allows him to set new rules from time to time, and he bans firearms, then he can evict you for having guns after receiving notice. Of course, you can counter-sue for his changing the terms in a fundamental and arbitrary & capricious way that exceeded the expectations of the parties, same as if he demanded that nobody own a TV or wear blue clothing on the premises.
But land owners have the right to determine what happens with their property, and people have the right to refuse to live there without good cause.
He can decline to renew an expiring lease for any reason or for no reason, as long as it isn't one of the bad reasons, like race, gender, etc. You as the tenant can decline to renew your lease & move away at the end of the term for reasons having nothing to do with the property, such as obtaining employment in another state, or wanting to move in with your girlfriend, and the landlord has no grounds to complain. He equally has the right to decline to renew because he wants to rent the space to his buddy, or because you use too much garlic in your food, or you drive an SUV.
-
May 25th, 2008, 09:17 PM #5
-
May 25th, 2008, 09:46 PM #6
Re: Theoretical question
None of my guns are Hazardous Materials. Bullets are Orm-D, which is classified as a hazardous material and must comply with specific rules, mostly for transportation purposes only.
Now of course if someone was to perform some act of aggression against me or my property, they would become a Hazardous Material to whomever it was performing the said act of aggression.Honesta Mors Turpi Vita Potior ~ 3%
-
May 25th, 2008, 11:04 PM #7Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 3,001
- Rep Power
- 1828819
Re: Theoretical question
It could, but everything is hazardous if misused. If you had 100 lbs of gun powder it would be bad, but then so would a bunch of propane tanks. But I think most people, if they've paid basic attention to safe storage, could make a good argument that their guns and ammo are not more dangerous than things that are allowed and could be dangerous if misused or in case of fire.
-
May 26th, 2008, 12:45 AM #8Super Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
-
Bentleyville,
Pennsylvania
(Washington County) - Posts
- 595
- Rep Power
- 20
Re: Theoretical question
I was at a gun shop, and a little old lady was selling a pistol because she was moving into a retirement community and they were prohibited there. I shan't move to a retirement community.
-
May 26th, 2008, 02:25 AM #9
Re: Theoretical question
When I was renting years ago, my roommate and I (also a police officer) were about to sign a lease on a nice 2 BR apt in a gated community. We both skidded to a stop at the same spot in the lease- no guns.
They were surprisingly willing to strike that provision from the lease. The agent did ask how many guns we were talking about, but didn't push the issue when we both just smiled.
I wonder how many people simply disregarded that portion of the lease. I also wonder if they would have been so willing to strike that clause if we both hadn't been cops.
Gunlawyer is correct- being a gun owner does not place you in a specially protected class.
-
May 26th, 2008, 09:30 PM #10Super Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
-
York,
Pennsylvania
(York County) - Posts
- 636
- Rep Power
- 103
Re: Theoretical question
It likely depends on the states, but some states the tenant is essentially akin to owners under a lease. (BTW, it's a !@#$% to evict someone as well. So always make sure you do both a credit check and a criminal background check.)
Otherwise, you might find you've rented to a convicted felon. And guess what, the government does jack-schitt if you have. Regardless of whether the individual is still engaging in his crimes.
This happened to my mother, who is now doing both checks. Because if she doesn't. I am going to jail. Because if I ever have a similar situation as we had before. Where we could not get any action from any authorities. I and Ruger will be handling it. (Of course, I am sure the judicial system will be much more concerned about the fact that I will have protected my family and property from harm. But frankly, I really don't care about the justice system anymore. It's a joke and my box of salt has more justice in it than most U.S. courts. But I do care a great deal about morality, right and wrong. Thankfully, this has for the most part kept me out of both harm's way and the law's way.
But frankly, I think this nation is fast moving toward the need for vigilante justice. Which is sad....
Similar Threads
-
STRICTLY THEORETICAL QUESTION!!!
By FromMyColdDeadHands in forum GeneralReplies: 3Last Post: February 11th, 2008, 05:47 PM
Bookmarks