"No Firearms" clause in apartment lease

[SpecialK 193]

Wah

[deadeye74 5]

Wah

 

I second that!

[Qel Hoth 33]

I'm going to assume this is directed at me based on my posts on this topic, since only one (or maybe two others) seem to feel the way I do. I just wish you were man enough to confront me by name on this thread or by private message.

 

At any rate, your sarcastic remark that I highlighted is actually true, except now you have (2) persons directly involved. The specific question about what was in the lease was asked and an answer was given. The answer is not what the OP wanted to here, but now we have an accomplice that's willing to turn away as well and knowingly go against the lease. How can you not say this is a lack of morals in a person(s)? Let's call it what it is, shall we. The word dishonest comes to mind. If this is how you guys choose to live your lives, that's fine, however it IS and DOES contribute to lessening of morals in today's society.

 

The problem is that what is moral and what is immoral is inherently subjective, and that following "the rules" (be it contract or law) is not necessarily the moral action.

 

I would argue that there is a valid point that, in this instance, the "moral" thing to do is to NOT follow the contract, as the contract seeks to abridge a person of his or her rights.

[this_is_nascar 162]

The problem is that what is moral and what is immoral is inherently subjective, and that following "the rules" (be it contract or law) is not necessarily the moral action.

 

I would argue that there is a valid point that, in this instance, the "moral" thing to do is to NOT follow the contract, as the contract seeks to abridge a person of his or her rights.

 

 

Your rights stop, to a certain extent, when you occupy someone else's dwelling.

[Shane45 807]

Well since it is in fact a management co. there really could be a case made against this practice in my opinion.

 

Again,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

 

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

[this_is_nascar 162]

Well since it is in fact a management co. there really could be a case made against this practice in my opinion.

 

Again,

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/241

 

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

 

 

Thanks. I'll have to spend some time to research this.

[Matt 0]

I'm going to assume this is directed at me based on my posts on this topic, since only one (or maybe two others) seem to feel the way I do. I just wish you were man enough to confront me by name on this thread or by private message.

 

At any rate, your sarcastic remark that I highlighted is actually true, except now you have (2) persons directly involved. The specific question about what was in the lease was asked and an answer was given. The answer is not what the OP wanted to here, but now we have an accomplice that's willing to turn away as well and knowingly go against the lease. How can you not say this is a lack of morals in a person(s)? Let's call it what it is, shall we. The word dishonest comes to mind. If this is how you guys choose to live your lives, that's fine, however it IS and DOES contribute to lessening of morals in today's society.

 

She consulted with corporate who clearly told her, while unwilling to change the lease, they were also unwilling to lose me as a tenant. Its not us vs. the machine here, everyone is on board, they just don't want it in writing.

[this_is_nascar 162]

Good luck with your new place Matt.

[Shane45 807]

Matt in your case I fully understand you have a verbal dont ask dont tell. Im talking about it purely academically at this point. Glad it worked out for you.

[Qel Hoth 33]

 

 

 

Your rights stop, to a certain extent, when you occupy someone else's dwelling.

 

If its a normal apartment (i.e. not renting some old ladies extra bedroom) you aren't in anyone else's dwelling. The apartment is your home, ans while it may be in a common building, the landlord has no right to regulate what behaviors one partakes in in the individual apartments. Provided, of course, that the behaviors are not illegal.

[Matt 0]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the advice as always -

[BRaptor 68]

Well since it is in fact a management co. there really could be a case made against this practice in my opinion.

 

Again,

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/241

 

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

 

 

 

A contract is not injuring, oppressing, threatening or intimidating. As a matter of fact, if those elements exist during the negotiation of the contract, that makes it voidable by the oppressed, threatened or intimidated party.

[Shane45 807]

Let me spell it out for you.

 

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 

In other words the management company specifically looking to eliminate a group of people from living there by targeting a constitutional right is oppressive.

 

I guess you didnt think segregation was oppressive either..............

[Qel Hoth 33]

Let me spell it out for you.

 

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 

In other words the management company specifically looking to eliminate a group of people from living there by targeting a constitutional right is oppressive.

 

I guess you didnt think segregation was oppressive either..............

 

It's not that simple though. With segregation nobody signed a contract saying they wouldn't frequent certain businesses or areas.

 

It is perfectly legal for your employer to prohibit you carrying weapons on their property, since you signed a contract agreeing to this as a condition of your employment. It is also perfectly legal for a property owner to restrict certain behaviors on their property, to include First (and Second) Amendment rights.

 

However, to be legal, any such restriction may not be based on protected classes (race, gender, age, etc).

 

To complicate it further, the home is treated differently by the law and tradition than simply another person's property. Even so, one can waive a large portion of their First Amendment rights (Why I will NEVER live in a neighborhood that has a HOA).

 

Now, when state law requires that firearms be kept in the home, such a clause may not be enforced by the courts, as the only other option is to deny the person his 2A rights completely.

[Geek 4]

I would suggest that if a landlord tries to insert such a clause in a lease that you require a clause making the landlord liable for any crime that happens to you, on or off premises. The off premises part is because you are effectively unable to legally own a weapon in state and are therefore defenseless against all crime.

 

At a minimum this will make them think about how badly they want that clause.

[BRaptor 68]

Let me spell it out for you.

 

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 

In other words the management company specifically looking to eliminate a group of people from living there by targeting a constitutional right is oppressive.

 

I guess you didnt think segregation was oppressive either..............

 

I just don't foresee any court equating a no firearms clause to racial segregation, and I don't think they are anywhere near equivalent for many reasons. I also don't believe this one apartment's lease provision rises to oppression.

 

Clearly we have a difference of opinion on this topic.

[Mikey Bullz 0]

Ok by this "no firearms" clause would they prohibit police officers from renting an apartment? If they did, I think this would violate fair housing regulations and discrimination based on employment.

 

Just food for thought....

[JLHockeyKnight 0]

I have a private landlord who is...you guessed it, a lawyer. Luckily he's really cool.

 

When I realized he had a "No Firearms" clause, I called my landlord 2 weeks before move in and explained the situation. Basically gave him the "they are legally under my name so I have to hold onto them. And they would be locked away and stored properly." He basically said that he had a friend years ago that would "get drunk and get his gun out" and didn't want any reckless gun use on his property. Once we saw eye to eye, he basically had me cross out the No Firearms clause and initial it. End of story, hasn't asked me about my guns since.

 

If it's private, talk to him. In the end he's human and is understanding. If it's a business/management company, good luck. Some of them can be total Nazis when it comes to being lenient on some rules.

[BRaptor 68]

Ok by this "no firearms" clause would they prohibit police officers from renting an apartment? If they did, I think this would violate fair housing regulations and discrimination based on employment.

 

Just food for thought....

 

You know, I thought this didn't exist. Looked it up, apparently, in NJ, it does. NJSA 10:5-4 says one cannot discriminate based upon "source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments."

 

Learn something new...

[bulpup 98]

Ya know, this issue might be better addressed by an actual lawyer or law suit.

Meaning, I imagine the organizations we are familiar with should be notified bring the major developer to court. Or at least ask Evan Nappan next time we see him.

[mipafox 438]

Strike it out, sign it and dont say anything. If it becomes an issue they will look at the lease and find it stricken

 

Strike, initial, date, and then circle those three markups in one oval, and then photocopy

 

(seriously, that's the way it's done)

 

How did you come to the conclusion that rental laws in NJ are very renter friendly?

 

They are.

 

Landlords cannot perform inspections unless there is a reason. Outside of emergencies, landlords must acquiesce to your reasonable arrangements of availability to enter the premise that you possess, even if they are selling the property and trying to show it. In NJ withholding rent due to breach of contract or lack of repairs is honored by law and not a reason for eviction.

 

Most people don't operate this way. But if your landlord has a brain, and you do your homework and show him, your relationship will be a lot like that.

 

This is not legal advice and the law, information, and guidance for renters is available on NJ government websites.