Apartment Complex Owners Ban "Firearms and Weapons"

[David13]

Patrick
They have been carrying on a rather involved discussion as to the difference.
The 2nd amendment operates vis a vis the federal government, particularly if their agency HUD is involved. They can't ban guns in public housing.
For private landlords, they probably will respect the private property rights of the landlord. My house, my rules.
I can openly and notoriously discriminate against the race, color or creed of anyone I have over to my house for dinner. With impunity.
dc

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

For private landlords, they probably will respect the private property rights of the landlord. My house, my rules.

Your own house, your rules, yes. But if you're renting out a house or apartment just try putting up a sign saying "No Blacks or Gays allowed" and see what happens!

 

[JimDandy]

But if you're renting out a house

Actually as I understand it if, you really are renting out *A* house, you're not necessarily covered by the anti-discrimination statutes. There's apparently usually some minimum threshold of units before you start being covered by them.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Removed.

 

[colbad]

Having a few rental properties I have always taken the position, my house my rules. If you don't like my rules live elsewhere. Break my rules I kick you out. I don't allow pets and I don't see it any different if someone decided no weapons.

Although I do not see an old Marine Vet a problem, if the complex was high crime, that is one way to justify evictions of the undesirables.

 

[Spats McGee]

Actually as I understand it if, you really are renting out *A* house, you're not necessarily covered by the anti-discrimination statutes. There's apparently usually some minimum threshold of units before you start being covered by them.

I'm not so sure about that, and I really mean "am not sure." I say that because in addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there's the Fair Housing Act to contend with, in addition to whatever state law applies. I'd be very cautious about discriminating on the basis of any of the usual protected statuses (race, gender, religion, etc.), before I denied an application.

 

[JimDandy]

This little blurb from a commercial not government site so grain of salt applied states

There are two exceptions to this rule. The first is called the “Mrs. Murphy’s exemption.” This exemption states that if the dwelling has four or less units and the owner lives in one of the units, it is exempt from the Fair Housing Act.

 

[Spats McGee]

Fair enough. I don't know a lot about the FHA, just enough to know that it needed to be looked at.

 

[TDL]

Since stigmatization and increasing costs to firearms owners are part of the anti second amendment advocates' strategy we might see an increase in this.

Someone mentioned HOAs. I think the question cold be more acute with condominiums. For example a prohibition merely in common areas could cause issues. In my old townhouse I had to walk though limited and general common to get to my vehicle.

Now to be sure the probative problems in enforcement might seem to make any rules innocuous. After all one could simply say the pelican case or range bag had something else in it.

But there are hypotheticals where the weapon might be used otherwise legally but the event might occur partially on limited common. Or even some kind of accidental situation might occur. In that case extant prohibitions or limits by a condo association or HOA might contribute to increased civil or criminal liability?

I wonder, given the probing of the anti second amendment rights groups in so many directions whether they might push for this simply to increase risk and liability of gun owners?

It seems to me even the various insurance requirement schemes (as evidenced in the recent Wash, DC mandatory insurance effort) are being used to increase costs and potential liabilities.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

I did happen to run across this when looking at OHIO law:

(b) A landlord may not prohibit or restrict a tenant who is a licensee and who on or after September 9, 2008, enters into a rental agreement with the landlord for the use of residential premises, and the tenant's guest while the tenant is present, from lawfully carrying or possessing a handgun on those residential premises.

With this exception:

(i) "Residential premises" has the same meaning as in section 5321.01 of the Revised Code, except "residential premises" does not include a dwelling unit that is owned or operated by a college or university.

Can be found under Ohio Revised Code 2923.126 found here http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126v2

Guess we have it good here and for that I am thankful.