My Apt Complex says I can't have my gun in the apartment.

[Guest WyattEarp]

You need to quit obsessing about being able to sue the apartment complex because you can't have a gun and they are saying they don't have a duty to protect you. That is a very common provision, and it has little or nothing to do with reality. Their duties with respect to your safety cannot be waived, regardless of what they claim. This is not a duty to keep you 100% safe (an impossibility), but rather a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to keep the residents safe. If it's a high crime area, they should take more security precautions. If it's a low crime area, they can take fewer security precautions.

not obsessing, im looking for any technicality that can get me out of this lease, and on my way as quickly as possible without costing me the remainder of my lease and/or penalties.

its not a low crime area, that's for sure. cops are around this place at least 5 or 6 times a day, and lord knows how many times at night.

if it's a possibility, im going to exploit it, so I can get out of here. anything to force their hand and get them to say ok, it's best to terminate the lease, let this guy get on down the road asap, it's best for the apt complex, best for me, and best for the roommates, and benefits all parties involved.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

/waves my hand like a Jedi

These are not the technicalities you're looking for.

[Fallguy]

/waves my hand like a Jedi

These are not the technicalities you're looking for.

Whether you agree or not...now that's funny right there...I don't care who you are...

[TMF]

/waves my hand like a Jedi

These are not the technicalities you're looking for.

HAHAHA!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Now you're getting in to equal opportunity housing laws. My statement was more to illustrate how I can kick anyone off my property for any reason I want. Getting into housing laws, no, there are certain things you can't do. However, I think it's a stretch to compare denial of housing due to race and denial of housing due to firearms possession. These clauses most likely exist so that the property owner can't be held liable in civil court if someone is shot on their property. By putting in the lease that weapons aren't allowed it is an argument that can be used in defense of a civil suit.

That is a good idea. Maybe such clauses are primarily a mechanism so that a landlord can more-easily get rid of "problem tenants"?

One time wanted to do an overnight Nashville trip and carry the hound. Called all over town looking for a "pet friendly" hotel, found one and made reservations. The clerk on the phone said yes we allow dawgs. That is all he said. No qualifications.

Next week we drove up, I signed in and a sign behind the counter said "no dogs over 10 pounds." The clerk didn't say anything about a weight limit! So we were careful to keep our 70 pound dawg out of sight as much possible, but several staff did see the dawg over the weekend and none said anything about our giant 10 pound dawg. The rule seemed just an easy way to get rid of any customers that turned out to have mis-behaving mutts?

Old Dad said he one time lived in an apartment complex that had a 30 pound mutt limit in the lease but many tenants including Dad had big dawgs. He said the complex had a whole bunch of really big 30 pound dawgs. He figgered it was just in the lease so the management could easily run off anybody that was a problem.

[Guest WyattEarp]

/waves my hand like a Jedi

These are not the technicalities you're looking for.

sorry but you would be wrong. Just sat down with an attorney, and it confirmed what I thought. If the apartment complex is prohibiting weapons on the premises, they are in fact responsible for adding a reasonable amount of extra security and can be held liable for injuries and/or death resulting from an assault or altercation on their premises.

They can choose one or the other, but not both simultaneously. Attorney said it falls under Negligent Security, and that the language in the TCA I quoted several posts above applies to property owners both residential and business, because it said "property owner or Manager".

that sir is a technicality The apt complex put in a prohibited provision that is prohibited by the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

In court it would be a good argument, would it hold? I don't know. The goal however, is not to go to court, it's to get them to void the lease and let me be on my way, and bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the situation for all parties affected.

[TMF]

That is a good idea. Maybe such clauses are primarily a mechanism so that a landlord can more-easily get rid of "problem tenants"?

I would say so. Many of the clauses you're gonna find in these contracts are pretty difficult to prove, but, in the instance that the issue arises they can use their discretion. I doubt the management really care if occupants have firearms. With that said, if one of these roommates is suffering from vaginitus and taddles to mgmt the issue is going to have to be addressed. This is how the exchange should look:

Mgmt: "It has come to our attention that you are possessing a firearm in your apartment which is in direct violation of your lease."

Occupant: "Oh, there must be some misunderstanding, I have no firearm and will do everything I can to comply to your set of rules. If you would like you may inspect my apartment to satisfy your concern."

Mgmt: "No problem. Just wanted to make sure you knew the rules and the potential consequences. We are pleased to hear that this was just a misunderstanding and that your roommate is just a giant gaping vagina. Good day sir."

All management wants is steady rent, no legal issues or anything else that would distract from the daily routine.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I would say so. Many of the clauses you're gonna find in these contracts are pretty difficult to prove, but, in the instance that the issue arises they can use their discretion. I doubt the management really care if occupants have firearms. With that said, if one of these roommates is suffering from vaginitus and taddles to mgmt the issue is going to have to be addressed. This is how the exchange should look:

Mgmt: "It has come to our attention that you are possessing a firearm in your apartment which is in direct violation of your lease."

Occupant: "Oh, there must be some misunderstanding, I have no firearm and will do everything I can to comply to your set of rules. If you would like you may inspect my apartment to satisfy your concern."

Mgmt: "No problem. Just wanted to make sure you knew the rules and the potential consequences. We are pleased to hear that this was just a misunderstanding and that your roommate is just a giant gaping vagina. Good day sir."

All management wants is steady rent, no legal issues or anything else that would distract from the daily routine.

[DaveTN]

sorry but you would be wrong. Just sat down with an attorney, and it confirmed what I thought. If the apartment complex is prohibiting weapons on the premises, they are in fact responsible for adding a reasonable amount of extra security and can be held liable for injuries and/or death resulting from an assault or altercation on their premises.

Then get that attorney to write a letter stating that and see what happens.

[Fallguy]

Then get that attorney to write a letter stating that and see what happens.

Good idea...

Many times a simple letter from a lawyer can accomplish a lot with lawsuites, courts and so on.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Not sure if this has already been addressed because of how many post have been posted so far. What happens if you are asked (evicted) to leave? Are you also somehow still liable for rent on a place you can't use?

[MikePapa1]

The government isn’t banning firearms; the property owner is. He read it, understood it, and signed it.

You do not have right to bear arms, you have a right to own arms, but not on someone else’s property. Carrying a crucifix in Tennessee is legal; carrying a gun is a crime.

Dave, the terrible truth in the United States today is that there is no such thing as "private property" in real estate anymore. Lucas and Kehloe make that incredibly clear. If you are correct then there is absolutely nothing the government could do to prevent a private property owner from discriminating against racial minorities, religious minorities or any of a host of other groups which we know they cannot discriminate against in the housing context. I'm curious as to why you think that the the First Amendment (Exercise of either speech or religion) or the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) are more entitled to implementation than the Second Amendment is. The Second Amendment gives you the right to keep arms in your residence. The Courts have decided that the Second Amendment protects residents in public housing, i.e., residences owned by federal, state or local governments, allowing those residents to own and possess a firearm in their leased apartments. Tell me why you believe that private apartment owners ought to have their Second Amendment rights to have a weapon in their residence deprived when private apartments CANNOT discriminate against other Constitutional rights? Frankly, I see no public purpose in allowing an apartment owner to refuse to lease an apartment to a racial or religious minority but allow them to discriminate against someone exercising their Second Amendment right to own a weapon. I recognize the current Tennessee Law, but I believe that with leased property, an owner cannot strip a lessee of their Constitutional rights.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Their duties with respect to your safety cannot be waived, regardless of what they claim. This is not a duty to keep you 100% safe (an impossibility), but rather a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to keep the residents safe. If it's a high crime area, they should take more security precautions. If it's a low crime area, they can take fewer security precautions.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can or cannot carry a gun, and is almost exactly the same for every business property.

You do not get to make certain claims or have certain claims bolstered if guns are prohibited on the property (well, you are free to try to bolster your claims with that bit of information, but it would be a fairly novel approach that I have not ever seen advanced in court).

sorry but you would be wrong. Just sat down with an attorney, and it confirmed what I thought. If the apartment complex is prohibiting weapons on the premises, they are in fact responsible for adding a reasonable amount of extra security and can be held liable for injuries and/or death resulting from an assault or altercation on their premises.

They can choose one or the other, but not both simultaneously. Attorney said it falls under Negligent Security, and that the language in the TCA I quoted several posts above applies to property owners both residential and business, because it said "property owner or Manager".

that sir is a technicality The apt complex put in a prohibited provision that is prohibited by the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

In court it would be a good argument, would it hold? I don't know. The goal however, is not to go to court, it's to get them to void the lease and let me be on my way, and bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the situation for all parties affected.

It's almost as if I said the same thing that your attorney said, except he put a happier spin on it and so you liked it better. This isn't legal advice, but I will tell you that I am a lawyer and that my principal practice turns out to be premises liability. On more or less a daily basis I deal with issues of kidnapping, carjacking, shooting, rape, killing, etc. on a variety of commercial properties (though typically WalMarts and apartment complexes).

I am telling you that if something happened to you on the premises and you went to court with the theory that the apartment was negligent in failing to allow you to go armed, that would be the first time that I am aware of where someone has advanced that theory. Not to say that it couldn't be successful, but it would be a first.

I have never seen a court say that you have to have "extra" security simply because the residents are unarmed. Again, it would be possible to add that into the entirety of the circumstances to figure out if the security that was in place is reasonable or not, but it has never been done before. And for a variety of reasons it would be a bad thing to consider. Think about it -- if it works that way it also works in reverse. Suddenly apartments don't need to provide any security because all the residents ought to have armed themselves. Whether or not that's actually how you feel, I think courts would be loathe to introduce that into the mix of these already contentious cases.

I have already told you that the duty to see to the safety of residents cannot be waived. The fact that they have put that provision in the lease does nothing to change that fact. Just like waivers all sorts of other places have you sign. That said, having the provision in the lease does not get you out of the lease. If you keep reading I'm sure you'll find a provision that says that if something in the agreement is illegal, void, etc. it will be struck and the remainder of the agreement will remain in full force and effect. Guess what? If the provision where they say they don't have to do **** for you safety-wise is invalid, the rest of the lease is still valid...

Continuing along this line, this is all only relevant if something happens to you and you have to sue due to inadequate security. It does nothing for you in terms of getting out of your lease obligations. That doesn't mean you won't get out of the lease, but it does mean that the only reason they're going to let you out over it is if they figure you're going to be such a pain in their ass that you're not worth dealing with. Not going to help with references, but it may be a way out.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

I know this

I'm curious as to why you think that the the First Amendment (Exercise of either speech or religion) or the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) are more entitled to implementation than the Second Amendment is. The Second Amendment gives you the right to keep arms in your residence. The Courts have decided that the Second Amendment protects residents in public housing, i.e., residences owned by federal, state or local governments, allowing those residents to own and possess a firearm in their leased apartments. Tell me why you believe that private apartment owners ought to have their Second Amendment rights to have a weapon in their residence deprived when private apartments CANNOT discriminate against other Constitutional rights?

wasn't directed at me. But it's because of this:

As for whether the 2nd Amendment trumps this contract provision... it shouldn't. The Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do. Your apartment complex is not the government. Ergo, the Constitution does not tell your apartment complex what it can and cannot do.

Any comparison to things like discrimination based on race or sex is a non-starter. Those protections are found, inter alia, in the Civil Rights Act. That is a federal law intended to apply to both the government and private businesses. Completely different animal.

[MikePapa1]

Bender, The Civil Rights Act implements the enforcement of Constitutional rights. You are entitled to your views but I respectfully disagree.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

And just to put this out there before someone decides that I'm just making up the type of work I do, here are stories about three cases we just recently wrapped up. Well, stories indicating the crimes that occurred, anyway. For some reason the Tennessean article has been taken down, but you can at least kinda see what it was about. And the one that talks about the fire station of you keep reading down you will see where there was a shooting at the Camelot Manor Apartments.

Accused Rapist Appears in Court | MyFoxMemphis | Fox 13 News

Man shot dead at fire station : Memphis Commercial Appeal

Lawsuits filed against two gated communities over security breaches - Worldnews.com

[MikePapa1]

I'm curious. After Heller do you think that the selective incorporation doctrine will apply to the 2nd Amendment?

[Guest WyattEarp]

It's almost as if I said the same thing that your attorney said, except he put a happier spin on it and so you liked it better.

That doesn't mean you won't get out of the lease, but it does mean that the only reason they're going to let you out over it is if they figure you're going to be such a pain in their ass that you're not worth dealing with. Not going to help with references, but it may be a way out.

that's the desired effect here, (i kinda thought I made that clear), the squeaky wheel gets greased, and that's all I want here. It really will be in the best interests for them, me and the roommates.

I have no desire to get into a long drawn out legal dispute that's going to cost me money and time, and them money and time. But I tend to be a spoiled brat sometimes and find a way to get what I want, sometimes it takes a little bit of digging in and the willingness to push back when you get pushed around, and finding loopholes and technicalities to exploit. I'm the guy willing to fight city hall even when it may not be in my best interest to do so, or may create more attention that I necessarily want, and that's one of my short comings (and quite possibly why I find myself in these damn situations all the time, but that's a discussion for another day and another thread )

I don't need references, I have above average credit (700+ credit score), and the next place I go there won't be a damn lease or a credit check, it'll be month to month, if it doesn't work, I can up and move without all this hassle, and just give a 30 day notice.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

I'm curious. After Heller do you think that the selective incorporation doctrine will apply to the 2nd Amendment?

Heller is more or less irrelevant to the question of incorporation. DC is a strange animal. It's essentially a federal territory, so it stands to reason that whatever applies to the feds should apply in DC. Your question was basically answered by McDonald v. Chicago last year, though. It didn't exactly leave a lot of room to argue that the 2nd Amendment is inapplicable to the states...

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

that's the desired effect here, (i kinda thought I made that clear), the squeaky wheel gets greased, and that's all I want here. It really will be in the best interests for them, me and the roommates.

I have no desire to get into a long drawn out legal dispute that's going to cost me money and time, and them money and time. But I tend to be a spoiled brat sometimes and find a way to get what I want, sometimes it takes a little bit of digging in and the willingness to push back when you get pushed around, and finding loopholes and technicalities to exploit. I'm the guy willing to fight city hall even when it may not be in my best interest to do so, or may create more attention that I necessarily want, and that's one of my short comings (and quite possibly why I find myself in these damn situations all the time, but that's a discussion for another day and another thread )

I don't need references, I have above average credit (700+ credit score), and the next place I go there won't be a damn lease or a credit check, it'll be month to month, if it doesn't work, I can up and move without all this hassle, and just give a 30 day notice.

That's certainly your right, and it's fine if it works. But it's not a technicality. It's being a PITA. And I say that without judgment.

[Guest WyattEarp]

That's certainly your right, and it's fine if it works. But it's not a technicality. It's being a PITA. And I say that without judgment.

That's certainly your right, and it's fine if it works. But it's not a technicality. It's being a PITA. And I say that without judgment.

i concur, I am a big PITA. Moving here was a bad decision on my part and one I didn't thoroughly think through. But no use crying over spilled milk because hindsight is always 20/20, it's easier to look back and say, oh I should have done this or that. The important thing is to separate myself from this situation as quickly and painlessly as possible for the good of everyone involved. Honestly, this isn't even about the damn firearm anymore. Like MacGuyver posted earlier, I need to get out and get out now, because it only goes downhill from here between the roommates and I and nothing good will come from any continuation of this situation, and I dont want that, and that's why I'm doing what I'm doing the way I'm doing it. The firearm has become a second tier issue. I'm more interested in protecting myself from getting into a situation that becomes unmanageable and possibly leads to violence against me, or some sort of retaliation against my property by the roommates.

Right now, the situation is stable, but the environment remains volatile and there's definite tension here, everyone's walking around on egg shells, and it's just a matter of time before something else happens here. just bad all around.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Nope, there is a law against that. No law against banning weapons though.

If the government didn't interfere with things.....then Yes, should be able to.

But the government has decided in certain situations they can limit what a property owner can do or even dictate what he must do. So the Civil Rights laws say that he can not deny rental based on race. But so far nothing has forced them to allow firearms.

The Constitution is THE supreme law of the land.....

Dave, the terrible truth in the United States today is that there is no such thing as "private property" in real estate anymore. Lucas and Kehloe make that incredibly clear. If you are correct then there is absolutely nothing the government could do to prevent a private property owner from discriminating against racial minorities, religious minorities or any of a host of other groups which we know they cannot discriminate against in the housing context. I'm curious as to why you think that the the First Amendment (Exercise of either speech or religion) or the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) are more entitled to implementation than the Second Amendment is. The Second Amendment gives you the right to keep arms in your residence. The Courts have decided that the Second Amendment protects residents in public housing, i.e., residences owned by federal, state or local governments, allowing those residents to own and possess a firearm in their leased apartments. Tell me why you believe that private apartment owners ought to have their Second Amendment rights to have a weapon in their residence deprived when private apartments CANNOT discriminate against other Constitutional rights? Frankly, I see no public purpose in allowing an apartment owner to refuse to lease an apartment to a racial or religious minority but allow them to discriminate against someone exercising their Second Amendment right to own a weapon. I recognize the current Tennessee Law, but I believe that with leased property, an owner cannot strip a lessee of their Constitutional rights.

Amen brother! I was gonna type out a big ass paragraph but I'll just quote you & save the time.

[strickj]

Bender, The Civil Rights Act implements the enforcement of Constitutional rights. You are entitled to your views but I respectfully disagree.

The Constitution protects citizens' rights from Government infringement.

Civil Rights protects citizens from discrimination from other citizens.

Civil rights were put into place to protect people and the things that they can not change about themselves from discrimination.

A man can not take off his color, his disability, his religion, or his sex.

A man can take off his gun. A gun is an object. No different then a pair of shoes.

Civil rights have nothing to do with the Constitution. Nothing. Some people get confused when it comes to religion because it's included in both, but that's where the correlation ends.

sorry but you would be wrong. Just sat down with an attorney, and it confirmed what I thought. If the apartment complex is prohibiting weapons on the premises, they are in fact responsible for adding a reasonable amount of extra security and can be held liable for injuries and/or death resulting from an assault or altercation on their premises.

They can choose one or the other, but not both simultaneously. Attorney said it falls under Negligent Security, and that the language in the TCA I quoted several posts above applies to property owners both residential and business, because it said "property owner or Manager".

that sir is a technicality The apt complex put in a prohibited provision that is prohibited by the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

In court it would be a good argument, would it hold? I don't know. The goal however, is not to go to court, it's to get them to void the lease and let me be on my way, and bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the situation for all parties affected.

Good God, man! Is your last name Embody, by chance?

that's the desired effect here, (i kinda thought I made that clear), the squeaky wheel gets greased, and that's all I want here. It really will be in the best interests for them, me and the roommates.

Yeah, but the quiet wheel never get's noticed.

[Erik88]

I wonder if Brian Haas would be interested in doing a story on this? I'm not sure what it would accomplish but I'll have my popcorn ready. Seriously though, it could possibly pressure the apartment complex to give in. maybe?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi Strick

I'm too ignorant of law to know to what degree the constitution and civil rights are logically entertwined.

Maybe some of it is random pandering to the current majority community view of what is "just", and doesn't necessarily have impeccable logic? Or every aspect may be entirely logical fer what little I know.

A restaurant would be asking for bad trouble putting up a sign "No Colored People". Perhaps it could get in equally bad trouble with a sign "No Presbyterians" or "No Women", but am not so sure. Maybe a restaurant could make the case that it is not a public establishment-- That it is a private club where all men are members by default but the rules clearly state that women shall never be allowed to join?

Or consider restrooms in public establishments-- The restaurant would surely draw down lightning with restrooms labeled "White" and "Colored", but so far restaurants don't get skewered for having men's and women's restrooms? "Separate but equal" restrooms are surely a case of sex discrimination? Maybe eventually this blatant sex discrimination will end by outlawing all but unisex restrooms?

So far it seems safe to post a sign, "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service". On the other hand, it seems discriminatory to shirtless or shoeless customers. Maybe the customer has money for a cup of coffee but thru no fault of his own, he currently doesn't have enough money for a shirt? OTOH I guess the restaurant could get in bad trouble if it enforced the sign by banning people with no feet?

Ain't trying to make any point, just thinking about it.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Lester Weevils