Lease Prohibits Firearms...

[msquaredserver]

So, I went over to my landlords apartment the other day because he invited me over to see his new dog. I drink with him on occasion, so we're kinda buddy buddy. He has seen me OC before, never mentioned anything about it. He's kinda the "love peace happiness" hippy legacy kinda person, but that's another story.

He went on his rant about how I didn't need the gun, and then proclaimed that guns were prohibited by the lease. He's just like the repar guy/super, not the owner of the apartments. So I took it as just drunk ramblings, and moved on. I just looked through my lease, and found this clause:

"Firearms:
Firearms are not allowed on the property or in private vehicles on the property. No resident shall possess a dangerous weapon in the apartment community, such as but not limited to, knives, air rifles, BB guns, pellet guns, num chucks, throwing stars (I laughed a little at those last two), or swords"

Two questions. Is it legal to restrict firearms in a place of residence like this? And if I am discovered, and they call the cops (such a astronomically unlikely event, as the owner of the complex has even seen me carrying openly and didn't bother to question me), can I have my LTCF revoked? Thanks for whatever insight you can provide.

[knight0334]

Its not illegal. Its a private contract that you agreed to and are bound to its requirements.

I doubt the cops can do anything since you are a lawful tenant. Its a civil matter more than anything, something you have to deal with the landowner about.

[gnbrotz]

Two questions. Is it legal to restrict firearms in a place of residence like this?

I believe so. They are entitled to the same rights as any other business or property owner. Your options are to agree (which apparently you have already done) or continue looking for a different place to live.

And if I am discovered, and they call the cops (such a astronomically unlikely event, as the owner of the complex has even seen me carrying openly and didn't bother to question me), can I have my LTCF revoked?

I can't imagine how. "Violating the terms of your lease" isn't a lawful reason for revocation. I suppose they could trot out the old "character and reputation" reason, but I'd be very surprised for that to be upheld upon appeal.

[markheck1]

Absolutely, private property can restrict anything that is not a protected cause, IE color, race, sex, etc.....Also you agreed to the lease as is by signing it.

Legally there is nothing they can do, it's not illegal for you to have it there, however it would be grounds for termination of lease, and possibly breach of contract. In other words, get out, no 90 days, no security deposit, and such

[Statkowski]

But, on the other side of the "private property" coin, isn't this contract term repugnant to public policy (Art. 1, Sec. 21, Pa. Const.) and therefore unenforcable?

[gnbrotz]

But, on the other side of the "private property" coin, isn't this contract term repugnant to public policy (Art. 1, Sec. 21, Pa. Const.) and therefore unenforcable?

Possibly. But absent any case law, I would expect it would be a lengthy and costly challenge - and he'll need somewhere to live in the meantime.

[markheck1]

But, on the other side of the "private property" coin, isn't this contract term repugnant to public policy (Art. 1, Sec. 21, Pa. Const.) and therefore unenforcable?

HUH? that one went over my head, explanation please?

[tail pipe todd]

In other words, get out, no 90 days, no security deposit, and such

Landlord tenant law is a little bit more complicated then this. There is a process the the landlord would need to follow if you were being evicted. It's not as simple at "get out, I'm changing the locks". And, absent of any damage to the apartment, it would be difficult to hold back your security deposit due to gun ownership. I would get a copy of the landlord tenant act and read it every which way. In addition, I would find out if the landlord is accepting section 8 money, could be an interesting fight.

This is more of a lesson in why we all should read every word before we sign.

I am going to guess that you live in a rather large complex owned by a corporation that does not do a good job screening it tenants, just rents to the first person with cash. This is its way of evicting those who often run afoul of the law, have search warrants served at the complex or like to pistol whip their girlfriends.

The knives sections is funny. I guess you are limited to eathing with forks and spoons, and forget about doing much cooking. Just thinking. There is no provision for storing gas or kerosene listed.

[Sandcut]

HUH? that one went over my head, explanation please?

I second that "huh."

On a side note, I love this place! I think I've learned more in 6 months here than in 2 years in grad school. Moreover, it's actually APPLICABLE to real life! So please, enlighten this overeducated ignoramous! And thank you!

[gnbrotz]

Hopefully Statkowski will add a bit more info.

My understanding is that contract terms found to be "repugnant to public policy" are unenforceable. I'm unsure of real-world examples, so I'll posit one of own.

Let's say I wish to lease a property - specifically a residential property. Among the terms of the lease is the condition that I may enter the premises and engage in sexual activity with anyone named in the lease. You either don't read the lease carefully, or just assume I won't bother and sign the lease. Then, when I decide to actually engage in such activity, I encounter resistance, and as a result, terminate the lease.

The likely result will be that the courts will not support my actions because the terms of the contract were "repugnant to public policy." The core question is exactly what this term includes, as my example was an extreme one, to help illustrate the point.