Gun-Friendly Apartment Complexes in Northern Virginia

I was brought to this forum when I was doing a web search and found the following post in relation to apartments in Northern Virginia:

FFchris said:

I am aware that some apartments may prohibit leasers from having firearms, hence my search now rather than waiting till my current lease is up. My current location is ok with it, but since the management team has recently changed I want to keep my options open.

Click to expand...

I just moved to Virginia (Fairfax) a short while ago and to my dismay my current complex has a no guns policy. No displaying, no discharging (duh), but most specifically, no possessing. I was starting to get kind of worried that every complex does this until I looked at the previous post and it mentioned something about "Arbor". Right now I've been asking around to see if anyone knew a complex in the area (Reston, Herndon, etc.) that did not ban guns in the contract. Even better if they did not ban display, but simply allowing possession would be great. Everybody I've asked tells me "just keep it to yourself and don't let anybody see", but what if somebody breaks in and I'm left defending myself legally and living out of my car? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I was all happy to be moving here and then I see this one part of the community rules that they only showed me at the last minute when I really needed a place to live. I'm flexible on rent, but I just really want to find a decent place that doesn't have this pesky rule in it.

but most specifically, no possessing

Click to expand...

Wow, that's dictating. I thought they couldn't do that?????? :banghead:
I believe hotel "rooms" are deamed as a "home" because you are paying to stay there. Thus police cannot walk in.

ocholsteroc said:

Wow, that's dictating. I thought they couldn't do that?????? :banghead:
I believe hotel "rooms" are deamed as a "home" because you are paying to stay there. Thus police cannot walk in.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I know. And to hammer it in, they have a specific section in their community "primer" (along with info on trash pickup, local services, etc) where they just launch into how much they mean the no guns rule with a bunch of exclamation marks and word formatting. I felt like I had entered the twilight zone or something.

I'd just say the heck with it and ignore the rule, but the whole possibility of having to defend myself in my apartment or on the apartment grounds really has me wanting to find a place with community rules that aren't so unfair.

ocholsteroc said:

Wow, that's dictating. I thought they couldn't do that?????? :banghead:
I believe hotel "rooms" are deamed as a "home" because you are paying to stay there. Thus police cannot walk in.

Click to expand...

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.7

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.9 - the list of things they cannot have in a lease agreement

Hotels are not "home" unless you are staying for at least 30 consecutive days and arranged in advance for that length of stay, as I read 55-248.5A4.

No, the police may not just walk into your hotel room, but they can get the manager to let them into your room and they do not need a warrant to do that. Too many cases to remember, and my access to Lexis-Nexus is down.

stay safe.

VAgun22222 said:

I felt like I had entered the twilight zone or something.

Click to expand...

No...you just entered NOVA, which isn't really Virginia, they just claim to be to piss us Virginians off.:lol:

skidmark said:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.9 - the list of things they cannot have in a lease agreement
stay safe.

Click to expand...

Good find Skid. Looks like the lease agreement cannot prohibit firearms IN THE RESIDENCE.

6. Agrees as a condition of tenancy in public housing to a prohibition or restriction of any lawful possession of a firearm within individual dwelling units unless required by federal law or regulation;

B. A provision prohibited by subsection A included in a rental agreement is unenforceable. If a landlord brings an action to enforce any of the prohibited provisions, the tenant may recover actual damages sustained by him and reasonable attorney's fees.

By my reading the lease condition pertaining to firearms in the residence is unenforcable. they may restrict carry (even concealed) on the grounds though. But, concealed means concealed.

skidmark said:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.9 - the list of things they cannot have in a lease agreement

Click to expand...

Item 6 in this list specifically mentions "public housing." When I was the Chairman of the Housing Commission in Howard County, Md, "public housing" specifically referred to government owned, subsidized and managed properties.

Does "public housing" have a different definition in Virginia? If not, then that specific item may not apply to commercially owned and managed rental units.

JamesCanby said:

Item 6 in this list specifically mentions "public housing." When I was the Chairman of the Housing Commission in Howard County, Md, "public housing" specifically referred to government owned, subsidized and managed properties.

Does "public housing" have a different definition in Virginia? If not, then that specific item may not apply to commercially owned and managed rental units.

Click to expand...

You're right James and I'm not sure how this will work with normal rentals. Much of the Public Housing hullabloo started in Richmond when the City was trying to eliminate weapons from the projects.

H.O.M.E has addressed the weapons issue in standard leases. I just haven't had time to look into it yet.

peter nap said:

No...you just entered NOVA, which isn't really Virginia, they just claim to be to piss us Virginians off.:lol:

Click to expand...

It is Virginia. It's just been invaded by foreigners* to the point where there are only about 20% of us who are native.


* So as not to get the panties of sensitive types in a twist, foreigners in the above context means non-Virginians.

SouthernBoy said:

It is Virginia. It's just been invaded by foreigners* to the point where there are only about 20% of us who are native.


* So as not to get the panties of sensitive types in a twist, foreigners in the above context means non-Virginians.

Click to expand...

I knew someone would jump on that sooner or later,:lol:

JamesCanby said:

Item 6 in this list specifically mentions "public housing." When I was the Chairman of the Housing Commission in Howard County, Md, "public housing" specifically referred to government owned, subsidized and managed properties.

Does "public housing" have a different definition in Virginia? If not, then that specific item may not apply to commercially owned and managed rental units.

Click to expand...

There is something in law that addresses (paraphrased) "to the invitation of the public" whereby a private business cannot restrict a Constitutional right. Now before anyone gets on their high horse about what is or is not, I am only relating what I have heard from a judge. I do not know this from my own personal experience.

I suspect that an apartment complex might be in violation of your civil rights by restricting your possess and access to firearms when renting one of their units. Once again, I do not know this as fact and every apartment I have ever lived in, I have had firearms on the premise with no contractual restrictions known to me. Because this is a home dwelling, they might have a legal problem trying to do this.

Best thing to do is ask an attorney before jumping into the fire.... or just avoid places like that altogether.

On the subject, even though they may not be able to do this on some sort of technicality, I'd much rather move to a complex that was not so paranoid about guns.

What is this "Arbor" place? I've also been thinking of considering condos with individual owners/landlords and newly-formed companies that haven't had the time to make up a bunch of silly rules yet. Really, I'm somewhat desperate for some names of places.

Why not pick some places out to go look and ask to look at their leasing agreement to see if it suits you? That's what I've done in various places when I've been in need of a rental spot.

Quite a few places are charging non-refundable application fees, which they collect before they run credit/ background checks on you. Some want to collect the application fee before they will even show you a blank copy of the lease agreement. Be sure you are asking the proper questions and getting solid answers.

My personal experience as a renter and as an advocate for those trying to rent who may be delayed/denied due to illegal behavior on the part of the rental agent, is that Virginia does not consider it to be "public housing" unless it is a complex operated by VHDA or the local government's housing authority. Further, Section 8 housing vouchers do not qualify one's place as "public housing". The issue of firearms not being allowed as part of the lease agreement has never come up in my limited experience. If it did my guess is that you would not be sucessful challenging a private property owner on 2A grounds when they can get away with so much else (Civil Rights Act, for example, if they have less than 5 units).

stay safe.

the way i see it. the 2nd amendment says we all have the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. by the Constituion. soooooo if your paying for a place its your home. your property even if owned by another. so they can SAY no guns all they want but prohibiting them in any way shape or form is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment.

i used to live in HUD certified government owned apartments and they had a no firearms clause in the lease, attempted to evict me because they saw me taking my AK to the car once. took them to court and won. 2nd amendment protects everyones right not just those that can afford a house ;-)

skidmark said:

Quite a few places are charging non-refundable application fees, which they collect before they run credit/ background checks on you. Some want to collect the application fee before they will even show you a blank copy of the lease agreement. Be sure you are asking the proper questions and getting solid answers.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's been the case for me. They'll say "we don't have a lot of rules" or something like that when I ask them for the community rules, not even the lease agreement. Then it's a question of whether I want to give them $50 just to read that they had the rule and then I'm out $50. Or I could ask them about if they have the rule and if they didn't have the rule by some chance, they might write it in as an amendment just because I asked. I may be out of luck short of them showing me the community rules (why do you want to look at the community rules???) or someone recommending a place.

Sorry for double-post, but I've also been curious if anybody in the legislature has thought to try:

1) forbidding insurance companies to reward or penalize rental properties based on firearms
2) forbidding rental properties from banning guns if they receive any money whatsoever from state government

I'd think that outside of image concerns, if they removed the incentive to ban them or made it difficult to take state money, then the rules might look a lot more sensible

carry for myself said:

the way i see it. the 2nd amendment says we all have the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. by the Constituion. soooooo if your paying for a place its your home. your property even if owned by another. so they can SAY no guns all they want but prohibiting them in any way shape or form is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment.

i used to live in HUD certified government owned apartments and they had a no firearms clause in the lease, attempted to evict me because they saw me taking my AK to the car once. took them to court and won. 2nd amendment protects everyones right not just those that can afford a house ;-)

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Second Amendment has absolutely no influence over anything that is not "the government". Individuals, acting in their individual capacity (not as agents for some unit of government) can tell you what you can or cannot do on/to/with property that they own, even if they are willing to let you park your possessions there in exchange for a monthly tribute (rent).

For anybody else reading this, as well as carryformyself - would you PLEASE understand the distinction between the restrictions placed on government by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and The Way You Wished The Rest of the World Was Run. Trying to impose the Bill of Rights on non-government just makes you/us look stupid.

stay safe.

peter nap said:

I knew someone would jump on that sooner or later,:lol:

Click to expand...

Trust me, I know exactly what you're saying. It pains me that this area up here has lost so much to the invasion of outsiders. I have lived here all my life and have seen it go from more traditional Virginia culture to something closer to the United Nations in demographics. We WERE once far more like the rest of Virginia in my youth (the 50's when I was a youngster). It's sad to see how that has been lost to history.

You little jibe holds much truth as to the differences between those from Fredericksburg and above versus those who are in other parts of the state. You know it's gone when people up here lay no claim to being in a Southern state and are actually a little combative at the suggestion (I've done this deliberately just to see what reaction I receive). Yep, a sad state of affairs, especially for those of us who cling to our heritage as Virginians.

VAgun22222 said:

Sorry for double-post, but I've also been curious if anybody in the legislature has thought to try:

1) forbidding insurance companies to reward or penalize rental properties based on firearms
2) forbidding rental properties from banning guns if they receive any money whatsoever from state government

I'd think that outside of image concerns, if they removed the incentive to ban them or made it difficult to take state money, then the rules might look a lot more sensible

Click to expand...

Here's my take on this one.

Firstly, I am a solid believer in property rights as it is a corner stone to liberty and freedom. However, I am also a solid believer in the Bill of Rights... all of it, without reservation. For an example in the matter of the topic of this thread, one might think that a store owner has every right to exclude anyone they wish, including minorities, handicapped, women, etc. and in my opinion, they should be able to do this. The market will determine that business's success or failure should they follow such a path and that business will stand or fall upon its own merits and measures accordingly.

However, if they exclude someone who is armed and then a violent situation ensues where the now-unarmed patron is injured, that patron should be able to pursue legal remedies from the store owner who willingly placed that patron in harm's way. Yes, the patron had the choice of not going into that business, but the owner also had the choice (responsibility?) of assuring the patron's safety. I know that there are a lot of items in this paragraph which could be open for intense discussion, but I'm just throwing them out (maybe playing devil's advocate, eh?).

Now an apartment complex is a different matter in my opinion. You are not entering that arena for a limited amount of time, as in perhaps less than an hour. You are attempting to make one of their units your home. In such a case, I favor no restrictions on one's civil liberties. For example, the owner cannot just enter your unit at any time on a whim. He has to either have your permission or know that there is a genuine need for him to do this (a fire while you're away, a leaking pipe, etc.). He cannot restrict your religious preferences, saying grace at your dinner table, or restricting what books, magazines, or newspapers you read. In other words, he is selecting those parts of the Bill of Rights which he wants to deny a renter and as such, is at least for a time, removing some of your civil rights.

So yes, I fully support property rights, but I also see where there can be problems with apartments restricting firearms possession by renters within their units. Frankly, I don't have an answer for this one. On the on hand, we have a business that is clearly violating someone's civil rights and on the other hand we have that business which has every right to do pretty much as they see fit with their property. So I am in a quandary with this one, though I do see one possible distinction which may be the clue and the answer.

There are three concepts we need to keep in mind when it comes to firearms: ownership, possession, and bearing. You can bear a firearm without owning it. You can possess a firearm without owning or bearing it. And you can own a firearm without possessing or bearing it, though one definition of "possess" infers ownership. So when a store owner restricts someone from coming into their business armed, they are primarily restricting the bearing of that firearm, but they are also restricting its momentary possession. An apartment which restricts firearms on their premises is restricting both possession and bearing but not ownership. However, recall that one definition of possess which infers ownership could be shown that by restricting possession, they are also restricting ownership.

Yes, you could be expected to store your firearms at a family member or friend's home, but suppose you are moving from across the country and have no family or friends here? Now you have no place to store your firearms so what do you do? Aside from finding someplace which will allow them, are you expected to sell them or get rid of them in some fashion?

Once again, I really don't know what the answer is to all of this and hope a legal mind can weigh in with some solid information.