Guns banned in Rentals

[OuTcAsT]

I'd feel better for them if they had some sort of protection for themselves.

What would you "feel" was more "better" to you ?

Do you protect your family with a bow or pellet gun ?

Felt kind of odd but that's the way its gotta be.

Why ?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Really counselor?

Yes, really.

I own some rental property, let us suppose I decide that I will rent to African-Americans only,...

There are statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc.

....Or that I decide to require all tenants to a search of the premises at any time I see fit ? is that enforceable?...

It would depend on law where the property is located. At one time, probably. But today all states have adopted fairly comprehensive tenants' rights statutes under which such a clause would most likely be void. But only a few states have adopted statutes prohibiting "no guns" clauses in leases.

Note, of course, that a landlord usually reserves in the lease a right to enter the property at any time in case of emergency, and upon some specified prior notice in other cases. Such clauses are permitted.

Note also that absent a lease provision allowing the landlord to enter the premises, his entry onto the premises would be unlawful NOT as a violation of the tenant's 4th Amendment rights, but rather as a tortious act -- trespass.

...Or I decide that there will be no verbal, written, or electronically transmitted communication within the dwelling without prior written consent by management, what then?...

Again it would depend on the law where the property is located, and the landlords ability to impose such limitations might well be limited under common tenants' rights statutes.

But landlords may still limit the uses of the property, and could very well prohibit public assemblies, for just one example.

...your opinion is that; because one chooses to rent, versus own that one must give up constitutionally guaranteed rights?...

You didn't pay attention. The Constitution protects no one's rights vis a vis another private party. It protects a person's rights vis a vis the government.

...Please educate me as to exactly when one waives his constitutional rights when he rents an apartment? ...

This is a meaningless question. The tenant retains all Constitutionally protected rights, but those rights relate only to the conduct of government. The landlord has absolutely no obligations under the Constitution to the tenant, nor is the landlord's conduct limited by the Constitution. With respect to the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the Constitution is irrelevant. (Well, actually I guess as carguychris pointed out, the landlord can't enslave the tenant, but that's it.)

...unless the lease you signed specifically prohibits firearms, the landlord has no legal basis to prohibit them within your home...

True.

...Then there are the all-too-common month to month rentals ( with no lease agreement ) What say you to these ? No stipulations are spelled out, other than "pay the rent, and you have a roof" ?...

Most states now have statutes that build some at least minimum tenant protections into such arrangements.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
...Please educate me as to exactly when one waives his constitutional rights when he rents an apartment? ...

This is a meaningless question.

Not quite, considering you conceded;

The tenant retains all Constitutionally protected rights

Thanks ! Especially in light of your assertion ;

Nope. We enjoy our constitutional rights free from interference by government. The landlord is not restricted by the Constitution.

And further;

There are statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc.

The landlord is bound by all laws of the land, he has no discretion which laws he chooses to be bound by, the only choice is which rights the tenant chooses to waive. That is the key here.

With respect to the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the Constitution is irrelevant.

And with respect to you, Sir, I disagree.

The point I continue to forward is that; Unless you waive certain rights under the (Civil) terms of a lease or rental agreement, you have the same rights in a rental property, as you do in a private home.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The landlord is bound by all laws of the land, he has no discretion which laws he chooses to be bound by,...

You entirely miss the point. The tenant is also bound by all the laws. But what's your point?

A great many laws are entirely irrelevant to the landlord tenant relationship. The landlord is certainly not bound by the Constitution, nor is the tenant.

...the only choice is which rights the tenant chooses to waive. That is the key here....

No it is not the key. It's not a question of "waiving rights." Indeed, rights afforded to a tenant under tenants' rights statutes generally can't be waived by the tenant.

The relationship between a landlord and tenant flows entirely from the contract (lease). As with any contract, each party assumes certain duties to the other, and each acquires certain rights against the other. The respective rights and obligations of the parties are defined by the contract. The Constitution plays absolutely no part in it.

Some contract terms may be prohibited by statute, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution.

With respect to the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the Constitution is irrelevant.

And with respect to you, Sir, I disagree.

You may disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the law. The Constitution regulates only government (with the minor exceptions noted earlier). A landlord, or any other private party, can simply not be charged with unconstitutional conduct, because, except as noted, the Constitution simply doesn't apply to him to regulate his conduct.

The Constitution defines how government is to operate. It also specifies certain things the government can do, and in some cases things the government can't do. The enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights, is stated in terms of things the government can't do or must provide for in its dealings with people.

...Unless you waive certain rights under the (Civil) terms of a lease or rental agreement, you have the same rights in a rental property, as you do in a private home....

Nonsense. The Common Law recognized, and modern statutory law reflects, inherent differences in the rights arising under various forms of interest in real property. Someone who holds real property in fee has different rights from one who holds merely a leasehold interest in real property.

So I stand by my initial statement as set out in post #3

...., in general a tenant's right to the property he rents is subject to the terms of the lease, to the extent they are valid and enforceable under the law of the place where the property is located. In some states, there may be statutory or case law prohibiting "no guns" clauses; but absent such laws, a "no guns" clause would be valid and enforceable.

If it is valid and enforceable, the tenant is risking eviction if the landlord finds out. It's probably unlikely that he will find out, but unlikely things happen from time to time. How lucky does the tenant feel?

Whether or not the landlord is likely to act if he does find out will depend in part on how strongly he personally objects to tenants having guns. He may be using a form lease and not have even thought about that clause, or he could be virulently anti-gun. And whether or not he takes action will also depend on current market conditions where the property is. If there are few vacancies, he can probably count on finding a new tenant right away if he tosses a tenant out. But if there's a lot available residential rentals around, he'll be less likely to put a tenant out on the street (where he probably won't stay too long) and wind up with an empty apartment for an extended period of time.

Note that the Constitution does not regulate private conduct. It regulates government conduct.

 

[treg]

Quote:
I'd feel better for them if they had some sort of protection for themselves.


What would you "feel" was more "better" to you ?

Do you protect your family with a bow or pellet gun ?

They can have firearms in the house, but choose not to.

Quote:
Felt kind of odd but that's the way its gotta be.

Why ?

Lawsuit prevention.

 

[carguychris]

No, I don't believe so...

I would be interested in this particular case.

The landlord could only consent to search if there was a search warrant that stipulated the particular address/apt. and search warrants are routinely executed on private residences when the owners are not at home here in TN. (they usually leave a copy in the ransacked rubble)

Actually, I believe I was wrong about that particular issue. In certain cases, the landlord of a hotel or other temporary dwelling may consent to an unwarranted search of the unit, but this generally doesn't extend to property subject to a long-term lease. I wasn't aware of the distinction.

A landlord could, however, write a lease that allows him or her to authorize unwarranted entry to the property unless such a provision is prohibited by state law. It's my understanding that many states prohibit this, but it's not universal.

The relationship between a landlord and tenant flows entirely from the contract (lease). As with any contract, each party assumes certain duties to the other, and each acquires certain rights against the other. The respective rights and obligations of the parties are defined by the contract. The Constitution plays absolutely no part in it.

Some contract terms may be prohibited by statute, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution.

+1 what fiddletown said.

 

[MLeake]

As a correlary to these threads... a slight veer

Has anybody noticed the trend over the last couple decades for political debates to run more on emotions and feelings than on fact? I attribute this to the trend of public school systems dropping Civics, Law, and American History (pre-Reconstruction) from high school curricula.

People under 40 generally don't seem to understand the Constitution's purpose, checks and balances, the Electoral College, you name it. The education system chose not to familiarize them with it.

It's an aggravating trend, and one that needs to be reversed.

While they are at it, they can bring back Phys Ed requirements for all grades, and get rid of fast food in K-12 cafeterias, as well as the soft drink vending machines on K-12 campuses.

To paraphrase Dean Wormer, "Fat, sugar-high and politically naive is no way to go through life."

 

[dondavis3]

+1 MLeake