Apartment Complex Carry?

imported post

Please forgive me if this has already been brought up, the search feature makes me sift thru all states and this is more of a state specific question....

I live in a not so great apartment complex... not bad by any means, but far from the Ritz. I UOC most of my day around town and to work with little to no problems. The problems occur at home mostly when I walk my dogs and nosey neighbors keep asking if I am a cop, and I always say no and offer to talk about it. I keep getting BS from half of them and they keep saying that I cant do that and they are going to complain to the "leasing office" (as they are now a recognized authority above the constitution now I guess... lol).

Basically I am thinking as long as I am renting, paying on time and within my lease I am fine. I am not disturbing anyone other then those who cause there own disturbance. But I want to see if anyone has any input incase I am asked by the all mighty leasing office.... I think this might be covered under NRA v. SF housing which basically stated that they can not ban firearms. So I think im 100% safe as it is lawful in this state, but private property owners can ask you to leave... but I rent here... so??

Any input is appreciated!

and again PLEASE forgive me if I am beating a dead horse with this question, as I am relatively new...

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

imported post

This has been discussed a few times, but things are different now that the 2A is incorporated.

IANAL, so I won't get into discussing what they can do legally.

Now, let's talk property rights. As a libertarian, I feel that property rights are just as important as the rest of them. I think if you and I want to write the 2A out of a lease contract, the state has no right to interfere. I should have the right to use my property in any way that I see fit. If you don't like my anti-2A lease contract, then don't sign it.

In a free market, those who choose to discriminate are only hurting themselves by reducing demand for their property. Some other entrepenuerial soul will see this as an opportunity to crush a competitor by meeting the demands of those who value their 2A rights.

The only time the government should be involved is for acts of agression. Surely, an optional lease contract is not an act of aggression. (See the Zero Aggression Principle.)

imported post

For a worthwhile answer to this question, you may have to pay for it by seeking out an attorney.

Unless there is some prohibition on weapons in the common areas Im not sure there is much they can do about UOC. You may want to do a search on "Overturf" as this is relevant to the issue of loaded carry on 'private' property in an area accessable to the public.

It would be nice however, if the 2A was as ensconced as a civil right as race, religion, gender and whatnot so gun owners wouldnt be discriminated against.

imported post

I was wondering the same thing about the gated community that I live in. There is nothing in my contract that prohibits me from lawfully carrying my firearm on the property. As a matter of fact, thereis no mention of firearms in my contract at all .

So, my own conclusion is that unless they (the property manager or owner) officially informs me that they object to my firearm on the common areas (streets, sidewalks, lawns, playgrounds, clubhouse, etc), then I'm clear.

This is my own understanding/opinion as I see it. If there's anyone with knowledge of property law, please chime in...

I often carry while walking the dog, or just milling about within the community. We even have armed guards that patrol, but I have yet to be approached by anyone.

imported post

I highly recommend talking to the leasing office prior to carrying all over the place in your complex.

I read my contract, which said nothing about firearms. I do not carry in my apartment complex.

Someone else, however, must have and the leasing office put a flier on every door notifying residents that they are prohibited from walking around with a gun and face penalty of eviction if caught breaking that rule.

You want to avoid something like that.

imported post

The bottom line is that if it's not in the contract, then they can't do anything about it until the lease ends. However, it is the property owner's right to discriminate. I think it's bad business practice, but they deserve the freedom to use their property however they see fit.

imported post

SOneThreeCoupe wrote:

I highly recommend talking to the leasing office prior to carrying all over the place in your complex.

I read my contract, which said nothing about firearms. I do not carry in my apartment complex.

Someone else, however, must have and the leasing office put a flier on every door notifying residents that they are prohibited from walking around with a gun and face penalty of eviction if caught breaking that rule.

You want to avoid something like that.

Click to expand...

That would be a violation of your lease. Unless they put it in writing in the lease, they can't just make up rules and apply them anytime they like.

They are risking a lawsuit.

imported post

If it is not in the lease no they cannot say you cannot do so. Although keep in mind that once your lease is up you will more than likely get a notice to move. That is the downside of renting instead of owning. Best advice read your lease from first word to last.

imported post

This is just my non-legal opinion, but I'll bet there is some provision in their standard lease which allows them to implement rules to address issues which come up that affect the whole complex.
I would be very surprised if they didn't put in a clause which allows them to add a rule, for instance, making swimsuits mandatory in the pool, if people complain about midnight skinny-dipping.
I think (my uninformed opinion again) they are probably on solid legal ground if any rule they implement applies equally to all residents.

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

This is just my non-legal opinion, but I'll bet there is some provision in their standard lease which allows them to implement rules to address issues which come up that affect the whole complex.
I would be very surprised if they didn't put in a clause which allows them to add a rule, for instance, making swimsuits mandatory in the pool, if people complain about midnight skinny-dipping.
I think (my uninformed opinion again) they are probably on solid legal ground if any rule they implement applies equally to all residents.

Click to expand...

There are already laws that prohibit public nudity, so the property owner doesn't need to pass any such rule. "Indecent exposure" is already a crime - it shouldn't be, but it is. It's actually a great analogy to exposed carry... both are activities that some take visual offense to, and neither is an act of aggression. At any rate, the fact that you compare an illegal activity to a legal one is a bit off.

By your above rule-making logic, they could pass a rule stating: "the color yellow is strictly forbidden on premises"? Hope your car isn't yellow, or you gotta park on the street. Let's just hope they don't ban more colors, or you'll all be wearing shades of gray!

The bottom line is that a contract is binding. They cannot arbitrarily reduce the rights transferred by the contract without an addendum signed by all parties to the contract.

imported post

Did I mention "uninformed opinion"?

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

Did I mention "uninformed opinion"?

Click to expand...

Yes you did. That's why I offered up my $0.02. I'm no lawyer, but I've had a little training and experience when it comes to contracts.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

Did I mention "uninformed opinion"?

Click to expand...

Yes you did. That's why I offered up my $0.02. I'm no lawyer, but I've had a little training and experience when it comes to contracts.

Click to expand...

... and evidently some experience in indecent exposure . J/K

So Brad, are you clear to cary in your complex or what?

imported post

Thanks everyone for your input. I am calling to set up an appointment with my lawyer tomorrow to check on it to be 100% safe. I was just hoping to save the 250 an hr.... ugh... I think I am good but better to make sure!

Thanks all!!!!!!

Happy UOC'ing

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Now, let's talk property rights. As a libertarian, I feel that property rights are just as important as the rest of them. I think if you and I want to write the 2A out of a lease contract, the state has no right to interfere. I should have the right to use my property in any way that I see fit. If you don't like my anti-2A lease contract, then don't sign it.

Click to expand...

CA_Libertarian wrote:

The bottom line is that if it's not in the contract, then they can't do anything about it until the lease ends.

Click to expand...

That's not correct. The parties can always re-negotiate the provisions, including the enforcement of same,in a contract.

Case in point:

NRA Reaches Deal With S.F. Housing Authority
The National Rifle Association inked a deal with the San Francisco Housing Authority over the latter's firearms-banning public housing. The NRA sued following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment as an individual right. According to an NRA press release, "under the settlement…the agency will no longer enforce a 2005 rule that prohibited the otherwise-legal possession of guns and ammunition in public housing units. The Housing Authority signed off on the measure, and has agreed to allow its residents to own guns."


http://gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/May+2009-News+In+Brief



Thank god for the NRA, eh?

imported post

HankT wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Now, let's talk property rights. As a libertarian, I feel that property rights are just as important as the rest of them. I think if you and I want to write the 2A out of a lease contract, the state has no right to interfere. I should have the right to use my property in any way that I see fit. If you don't like my anti-2A lease contract, then don't sign it.

Click to expand...

CA_Libertarian wrote:

The bottom line is that if it's not in the contract, then they can't do anything about it until the lease ends.

Click to expand...

That's not correct. The parties can always re-negotiate the provisions, including the enforcement of same,in a contract.

Case in point:

NRA Reaches Deal With S.F. Housing Authority
The National Rifle Association inked a deal with the San Francisco Housing Authority over the latter's firearms-banning public housing. The NRA sued following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment as an individual right. According to an NRA press release, "under the settlement…the agency will no longer enforce a 2005 rule that prohibited the otherwise-legal possession of guns and ammunition in public housing units. The Housing Authority signed off on the measure, and has agreed to allow its residents to own guns."


http://gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/May+2009-News+In+Brief



Thank god for the NRA, eh?

Click to expand...

"The Parties" indicates that BOTH the tenant and the management must agree to the "negotiations".

I think that what CA_Libertarian wrote about "they can't do anything about it until the lease ends" meant that the management can't just arbitrarily just amend the contract without the express agreement of the tenant.

So, If I had a one year lease, and they come and say "we want to add a no gun clause to the lease", then I would politely tell them to go pound sand and then I would start looking for a new place to move into forwhen my lease expired.

imported post

It was obvious what I meant. I even included a qualifier that it could be done via addendum. HankT is just being himself. Let's be ourselves and get back to ignoring him.

imported post

They can not restrict firearms in a residence even if written in lease its unlawful

imported post

stuckinchico wrote:

They can not restrict firearms in a residence even if written in lease its unlawful

Click to expand...

Can you cite the law that makes this unlawful? I wouldn't be suprised if such a law existed, but I'm not aware of any such law.

If it does exist it's a damn shame. I believe property rights are as important as any other, and if two consenting adults want to negotiate a happy medium where one or both parties give up some rights, then the government has no right to tell them they can't do that.

Remember, contracts exist because they are the documentation of the exchange of rights. Even something as simple as the exchange money for goods. Each party is giving up property rights to their money or goods.

imported post

Im working on it right now having trouble with LExis Nexis and west law though I remember reading it but just to point out Heller but I know theres another one

Essentially when you rent.... That is your property while you inhabit it as the landlord may only enter your building after i believe 24 hours proper notice.. CA court and common law have provisions that protect the residence of the place just because the landlord owns the place doesnt grant them the right to do whatever he may will when you search this it should be under housing You can have your landlord arrested for trespassing even if they are family im looking over my crimlaw notes now for the citation just to say lot of notes