Posted on 10/28/2009 2:08:12 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
Copy and paste this link, its from the Tennessean they are too ashamed of their stuff to have it posted here...
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091028/NEWS02/91028067/TN+Attorney+General+says+landlords+can+ban+tenants++guns+
Then it’s not really your home.
Does the Laird get first dibs on the new wife as well?
What is this guy? A Nazi?
More wonderful news from what everyone who lives here calls a gun friendly state...
Blue counties forcing their will upon a primarily red state.
TN Attorney General says landlords can ban tenants’ guns
______________________________________________
Can lanlords also ban tenants on welfare? Ban crackheads and meth abusers?
Can landlords ban illegals? How about Adam and Steve?
No????
This just blows.
If landlords can ban smoking, why not guns, even if you aren’t firing them inside the house.
Not really a question anymore - the overarching principles and precedents have been set.
Froggie sez water nice and warm.
The part of the opinion says that landlords could put language in the lease banning guns is debatable. It is the landlord’s property, and generally speaking parties should be free to negotiate the terms of contracts. Landlords can ban all sorts of things in leases, and the would be tenant is free to find somewhere to live, if he does not like the terms. In this case gun rights clash with private property rights and the right to contract, which creates a dilemma.
The part that says landlords could ban guns, simply by posting signs, even if the lease is silent on guns, is outrageous. If it is not in the lease, there is no question a tenant should be able to keep legal firearms. Could a landlord suddenly and unilaterally, ban pets, washing machines, smoking, etc., if there is nothing in the lease on these subjects?
Smoking ruins the property, it should be banned. its not your house to stink up.
If you don’t own it, of course it’s not your home. It belongs to someone else and you’re just using it temporarily.
Fine, my point exactly.
Landlords ban smoking, pets, etc etc.
The step to guns is a logical extension of the mindset.
>>>Smoking ruins the property, it should be banned. its not your house to stink up.<<<
This issue should be worked out, upfront, in the lease. A landlord should not be able to simply ban smoking, pets, guns, etc., in the middle of a lease.
But if you do not have the right to self-defense in your residence, then your other rights also do not hold (including privacy).
Was the sign posted before or after the lease was signed. The article doesn’t say. To me it makes a difference.
Can you require your tenents to surrender their Constitutional rights?
First, you must realize that his opinion holds absolutely no legal weight. I can’t figure this guy out. The other day he said that felons in Tennessee who had had been pardoned or had their convictions expunged could own any type of gun except a handgun.
Can they ban the right of free speech also? If they ban one Constitutional right then they can ban them all I guess.
What about castle laws? Can a landlord allow police to search a locked apartment on his say-so also with no probably cause? Why not by this idiots thinking.
However, a landlord has much greater leeway in banning things or changes rules when the lease expires. At that point the old agreement that either expressly or implicitly allowed the tenant to smoke, keep pets, or keep guns no longer exists. If the tenant and landlord do not agree on the new terms, either one of them has to give in, or the tenant should find somewhere else to live and the landlord should find a tenant who doesn't object to his rules.
Whether guns can be banned by lease is debatable. One could argue that the tenant's right to keep and bear arms outweighs the landlord's private property rights and both parties right to contract.
Ironically, the one landlord that CLEARLY should not be able to ban guns is the one that universally bans them, the Federal Government. Gun bans in public housing are clearly unconstitutional, IMO.
Not really, as I have said, this opinion holds no legal weight.
It needs to be prohibited, specifically, in the lease. Leases are binding contracts. The exact language of the entire lease needs to be known, but the lessor cannot just arbitrarily make up “rules” that are not in the lease.
“Can lanlords also ban tenants on welfare?”
Of course.
“Ban crackheads and meth abusers?”
Absolutely
“Can landlords ban illegals? How about Adam and Steve?”
Yes. and Yes.
Any more questions?
If you cannot defend yourself in an apartment or home because the title is not in your name, then it's not your residence and “protections” of speech and privacy likewise are not guaranteed.
People upset by this need to go back and read the constitution. A private property owner may do this. The bill of rights protects us from GOVERNMENT ACTION.
Sheesh. It’s like were at the DU or something.
Bibles, flags, and guns to not ruin the property, pets and smokes do.
Nossir.
The Bill of rights applies to GOVERNMENT ACTION. If you want to carry a gun in an apartment owned by the landlord (ie, not you), don’t rent at that apartment complex.
Can your bank make it likewise a condition of your loan?
Can your landlord prohibit exercise of religion in your apartment?
“Can they ban the right of free speech also? If they ban one Constitutional right then they can ban them all I guess.”
Yes. An aprtment owner can ban profanity or any other type of speech. IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The constitution protects us from government action. Jeeez, did anyone here take a civics class???!!
“Can your landlord prohibit exercise of religion in your apartment?”
No — this would be a violation of the civil rights act, but not the constitution. Gun owners are not a protected class of the civil rights act.
Can you FReep in your apartment “freely” since political beliefs are not protected from discrimination?
If the AG says landlords can ban tennants’ firearms, then it stands to reason that they can also allow them. I’m sure there are more than a few who will.
Depends on state law but yes in Ohio you can add to the lease to ban pets especailly if they are problem ones. Since there are laws starting to hold the landlord responsible for tenants behavior it is only fair that they could rule on what tenant does.
The Constitution would not prevent your landlord from blocking websites...unless your landlord is a local, state or federal government (ie a Government actor)...though there may be some type of FCC rule or other law that would prevent the private landlord from doing this (i don’t know)...but if the landlord was prevented from doing this, it wouldn’t be by the Constitution....
Gunny Bob Lee Swagger called it the patron state of shooting things. The times, they are a changing.
How is a landlord going to know if a person has a weapon in his/her apartment/townhouse?
As far as I can tell, it would take a search warrant which would require some sort of probable cause or otherwise be unconstitutional and who would execute it? Some LEA?
Thus unless some incident were to occur whereby tenant had to use his/her weapon, not much chance they would be found out and if push came to shove, better to be safe than sorry and worry about being evicted after the fact but having had the opportunity to defend themselves.
The way I see it, the right you have as a landlord are simple, you either rent or you don’t rent, you can’t “pick” the race, sex, religion, caliber, class, political affiliation or individual beliefs of your renters.
Gun owners who cannot afford a home, a down payment for a mortgage are being regulated to second class citizens in this opinion, not worthy of all our constitutional rights!?!??!
Yup and that’s the main reason I was against it when landlords started in on the “ban wagon”. First it was an “easy target” smokers.. now its anything that they don’t like.
It should be the owners right to ban it, not the anti smoking people such as yourself.
No argument there, bub, but one man’s meat......
Some would say that pets lend a piquant atmosphere to an abode.
Some would say the same for flags.
Others remember the aroma of a cigar and brandy around a Winter fire mixing in with scents from the kitchen and dessert trays, dog and kids all shaking around after a minor firecracker is tossed on the fire!
Try stopping the NannyZilla now.
Well I agree with you .. But I also agree with a Landlords right to demand damages for a new paint job etc. To me that is fair and reasonable for both parties. Most smokers realize it’s residue stains walls, curtains, etc. Some places do this and I can understand why. A gun? I can see no logical reason or right for prohibition period.
Yeah thats just normal.. if someone were to put a hole in the wall.. I would expect a landlord to use a deposit to pay for that as well.. just as smoking stains some stuff.
I have yet to see it stain anything I own or any walls in my house, (and trust me.. I am a clean nut.. I would see it because I clean EVERYTHING lol) so I imagine you have to smoke a whole lot before it becomes an issue, but yes.. if any damage is done... I would expect the tenet to pay for it.
Then why give them the hits? Why not post a synopsis?
Well, I imagine the landlord could be sued if anyone in the apartment complex was victimized by crime because he refused to permit tenants to defend themselves by denying their second amendment rights.
If the renter is renting the property for the purpose of making it their residence and the landlord agrees to that purpose, then it is in fact the renter's home.
Prima Noctra?
Aye, but first the rentor's must be disarmed.
There is no logical reason. However, that's not the question. The question is: Does a property owner have the right to contractually bind the renter to conditions even if they aren't logical? Obviously those who lease have fewer rights than those who own, so the question is where do you legally draw the line?
No, because the landlord did not compel the victim to disarm himself. The renter willingly signed off on the lease knowing the conditions before hand. If the conditions of the lease were not agreeable, the renter had the option of living elsewhere. There was a similar Texas case involving a store that prohibited weapons years ago. The judge ruled (correctly) that no one was compelled to the enter the store. Those who wished to lawfully carry were free to shop elsewhere at more understanding establishments.
I would just break that agreement. The only way the pimp landlord would know is if I had to pop a cap into a criminal coming into my apartment.
I’m assuming the landlords in favor of this kind of policy would refuse to offer lease agreements to law enforcement personnel. In some cases, it can be handy to have those guys around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.