Landlords restricting firearms and weapons in apartments.

Or, they skipped you today because you are a man with a gun and they didn't want the apartment inspector to get involved in the ongoing dispute, in which they feel you are agitated about. Now, in their eyes, you are an agitated person with a gun and they are awaiting on their legal staff to draft up the eviction papers....

Devils advocate.

Grim I hope you well, but this smells of trouble.

Ignoring you on inspections (which you described as the norm) is not a good thing, if they felt it was not an issue then they would have inspected.

Having a department head that will be in contact with you about this in a day or two is not an indication of giving you an atta boy it is likely giving them time to plan their strategy.

Attorneys are not free and unless a group as the 2nd Amendment Foundation getting involved it will cost you and unless you get a decision from a lawsuit providing for attorney fees and damages will not be a win. There was an attorney on the forum that had offer to represent anyone standing up for their 2nd Amendment Rights but has not been on the forum for at least 6 months or so and still there are cost associated with that.

I really do not want to be right on this, good luck.

Your brave my friend, just recently you posted that you weren't sure if you could legally own a firearm.....

Instead of applying for a CPL and waiting for it to come back, you went ahead and went through the application for a firearm. (I've heard that sometimes when they reject you they actually have cops arrest you, don't know if this is true in WA state.)

Now not knowing if you are sure your CPL will be good, you are fighting with your landlord about having a gun inside your house. Why not just keep it low key, and deal with the issue if it arises.

NavyLCDR said:

So are you in an active lease at the moment that expires on a certain date? Or are you on the month to month extension. I hate to break the news to you, but I think if you are on the month to month extension, you are going to get your notice that next month will be your last there. if you are on the month to month extension, it won't be an eviction - it will be a termination of the lease at it's expiration.

Click to expand...

HUD housing has a standing automatic reset on the lease and one of the benefits of living in subsidized housing is that they actually have to have a very damn good reason to evict me. I have followed all their rules, paid my rent, not caused problems for my neighbors, I keep to myself. If they want to evict me, they have to come up with a reason much better then "he applied for a CPL". They don't know if I have a gun, they suspect I may have a gun but that's all they can do. All they do know is that I have applied for my CPL.

As far as who I have a lease with, it's hands down with MDC. GLMH is just providing funding for my apartment.

NavyLCDR said:

Earlier, you posted this:



Which is it? Termination of the lease at it's expiration, with the notice of intention to terminate the lease given 20 days prior to expiration is not an eviction. It is simply a non-renewal of the lease which is perfectly legal to do with no reason necessary.

Click to expand...

ok, yes I did post the thing about my lease having the clause in it that said they could terminate my tenancy with 20 days notice, that was before I found the information about HUD which states.

Under the lease, tenents "have the right to exclusive use of the leased unit as a private dwelling." Leases automatically renew and cannot be terminated except for certian violations or good cause.

Click to expand...

Grim_Night said:

ok, yes I did post the thing about my lease having the clause in it that said they could terminate my tenancy with 20 days notice, that was before I found the information about HUD which states.

Under the lease, tenents "have the right to exclusive use of the leased unit as a private dwelling." Leases automatically renew and cannot be terminated except for certian violations or good cause.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Wherein is the reason they cannot restrict your possession of a firearm.

They may return with an amended lease, wanting you to sign that. I would recommend, in that instance, take the lease and tell them that you are going to have it reviewed by an attorney "friend" before you sign it.
They will probably tell you that their attorney has already reviewed it, and it is all legal. Decline and repeat the above.

So I just got home... I talked to the lady that is the head of the housing department at GLMH this morning and it seems that this situation has actually caught them off guard. What that means is this... The rules that they have in place have been in effect for over 10 years. They have not revisited the rules and made changes in light of new laws and such that have been implimented in the last 4 years or so. Specifically, the PDF file I attached to an earlier post. the Heller vs. DC started the process in 2008 on the constitutionality of the laws that DC had in place reguarding firearms. the US supreme court ruled 5-4 in favor of removing said laws. 2 year later in 2010, McDonald vs. Chicago revisited the Heller case and added to it the 14th amendment and helped to filter the ruling in the Heller case down to the 50 states. I really encourage everyone interested in this thread to read that PDF file as it has a great deal of information that is accurate and is even backed up by footnotes.

Anyway... so the rules haven't changed in over 10 years... and GLMH and MDC haven't had anybody contest their rules. So they are unsure of what to make of it and thus are kinda scrambling to consult whoever they may have availible for legal advice because it seems I'm to be the trail blazer reguarding legal firearms possession in washington state public housing lol.

massivedesign said:

Either Dave's on new meds or my views in life have shifted because over the last few weeks I have found myself agreeing with him more and more. Solid advice. If it's not in the lease, the rule doesn't exist / is non-enforceable. Leave it be. You don't want to be poking a stick into a hornets nest.

Click to expand...

You're not the only one, I've noticed that too.

I contacted the Second Amendment Foundation. The nice gentleman I delt with yesterday and again today has instructed me to make a copy of my lease, the GLMH HUD housing "rules" and if I can get ahold of something similar from MDC. Then I am to mail him the copies. He is going to do his best to help me out in this situation and hopefully get it settles without having to take the whole matter to court. I'm fairly sure that a well known 2A advocasy organization, willing to put forth a little effort and maybe a strongly worded letter on official letter head may be able to get them completely back down without a fight. I got my fingers crossed lol.

G*d bless the SAF!

Grim_Night said:

I contacted the Second Amendment Foundation. The nice gentleman I delt with yesterday and again today has instructed me to make a copy of my lease, the GLMH HUD housing "rules" and if I can get ahold of something similar from MDC. Then I am to mail him the copies. He is going to do his best to help me out in this situation and hopefully get it settles without having to take the whole matter to court. I'm fairly sure that a well known 2A advocasy organization, willing to put forth a little effort and maybe a strongly worded letter on official letter head may be able to get them completely back down without a fight. I got my fingers crossed lol.

Click to expand...

I don't see where it will be that difficult at all. With the State of Washington passing Firearms Preemption over all municipalities basically in 1983 and revised that preemption in 1994, any rules that either GLMH or MDC may have adopted as a Municipality 10 years ago, would have been unenforceable anyway. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290 See Notes Finding and Application at bottom of page.

The fact that the SCOTUS has upheld a residents right to possess in his home, simply adds additional proof that those organizations are violating law.

Again, IANAL, but it seems very cut and dry to me. As long as you are not a Court Ordered patient of GLMH, then GLMH should have no authority or involvement with you or your conduct in your rental unit and unless something is found during your background check for your CPL showing that you are a court ordered patient, then your CPL being issued will be additional proof that they should have nothing to do with your place of abode.

You should find out who in the Pierce County Housing Authority (PCHA)/HUD you need to speak with as you should not have to be working with GLMH to get your subsidized housing if you are not an active patient of theirs. Suggestion here.. do not mention anything about conflict or weapons when talking with them. Ask how you go about switching to their direct assistance as you are not a patient of GLMH.

Just heard from a representative from Greater Lakes Mental Health today and it seems that they are going to drop out of the issue reguarding me having firearms in my apartment. MDC however is in the process of changing rules because it seems their leases and such have no wording what so ever that prohibits firearms or weapons on their properties. If they do, then they are going to be in a world of hurt.

So... I have been in contact with SAF and I got their decision yesterday... They are not going to help me not because they can't, but because helping me won't help to set a precedent. They think that I have legal grounds to stand on but the fact that this would most likely only affect me is their reasoning behind not helping me. I have also been in contact with HUD and I have actually spoken with the lady most directly responsible for where the funding comes from that supports my housing. She has told me that regarding firearms, HUD's standing is that they follow state law and that those that receive HUD funds do the same. As of yesterday, Greater lakes has formally given me a 10 day notice to comply or vacate.

Due to lack of funds, I cannot afford to hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit against MDC and Greater lakes. At this point, I am seriously running out of options. I have done nothing wrong and I am at my whit's end. I managed to come up with a wild idea that may prove to be fruitful though. I contacted the Tacoma News Tribune and spoke with the executive editor regarding the situation and gave her most of the details. I informed her that there were two local organizations that receive federal and state funds that are actively violating the civil (federal and state) rights of the people that they serve. The lady seemed very interested in this and said that she would get back to me after she has looked into it.

I don't expect that this will help but I may be able to apply some pressure on MDC and Greater lakes and get them to back off.

I warned you of this at the beginning of the thread, well me move along the only option now is to make them take you to court by not complying or vacating and they will have to file suit in court, get your information go over it and then again, do a dry run though with someone so you become well versed in your information and tell it to the judge.

Do you need legal advice about a housing issue? Call the Housing Justice Project at (253) 572-5134, e-mail vls@tacomaprobono.org or call CLEAR at 1-888-201-1014 for referral.

Click to expand...

http://www.tacomaprobono.org/

What exactly are they requiring compliance of?

Get Jesse, can't hurt to ask.
http://www.king5.com/news/get-jesse

I have a question related to the OP's. I'm not trying to derail the topic, but this is closely related so I wanted to avoid posting a new thread.

I have a friend who is a senior citizen living in a retirement home. That said he is still of sound mind, can walk the dog and drive and so on. He only lives there because a doctor advised him to after he had some major surgery, as previously he lived alone some driving distance from town.

When he moved there, they told him no firearms were allowed. This guy has an extensive gun collection, some 20-30 guns or more (not sure on the exact number) and he has bought a few more just recently. He has been keeping all his guns in the gun safe of a friend who has agreed to hold them for him, but recently he has indicated to me that he is going to get some of them out and keep them in his unit at the retirement home.

My question is: if housekeeping finds any of his firearms, can they legally kick him out of the unit? Does he have any legal recourse in this matter? I've asked him if that restriction is actually in his lease, and he doesn't know.

Cubex DE said:

I have a question related to the OP's. I'm not trying to derail the topic, but this is closely related so I wanted to avoid posting a new thread..

Click to expand...

PM sent

Cubex DE said:

My question is: if housekeeping finds any of his firearms, can they legally kick him out of the unit? Does he have any legal recourse in this matter? I've asked him if that restriction is actually in his lease, and he doesn't know.

Click to expand...

If the "No Firearms" policy is actually written in the Terms and Conditions of his "contract", then short answer is yes. If anyone doesn't "follow the rules" they can be evicted. The management just can't discriminate on the basis of Race, Religion (unless a church run facility) etc, etc. If it's private property and not "government run" then "their facility, their rules".