The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PleaseBlitz]

43 minutes ago, tshile said:

Agreed. If they were asking to be let out of the lease so they could move, I could see that as completely reasonable. 

 

Forcing someone else to move when they’re following the law seems absurd (absence something additional, like excess)

 

 

 

 

It sounds like they gave her the option to get rid of the gun but she refused, citing to a need to protect herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend. Fox News, of course, doesn’t specify if that person is at Harvard and a present danger to her, or back in Alabama. Given the omission, i have my guess. 

 

The law of legal gun ownership is entirely irrelevant here. Nobody is questioning her right to own the gun. 

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I get that is not the same.  And I'm saying I would still have sided with the gun owner.  Now we don't know if the other roommates asked if she had a gun, either before she moved in or after.  If before, I could maybe support not renting to her.  If it is that important to them, they should have asked before.  After she moved in?  Tough ****.  Like I said, I'm good with requiring it to be locked up.  I'm not good with setting a precident that a person can be forced to move just because they are a responsible gun owner.

 

The only precedent I see being set here is not a clear legal language to allow the tenants to get her out the apartment for having a gun because of not telling them. I don't like it, but the easy fix is to put it in the lease going forward.  Looking around, that isn't as easy as it looks, which may be a different problem in and of itself. Does she really want to be the person in the apartment that's the only one with a gun that everyone wants out because she has one?  I know when I'm not welcome, I don't want to live somewhere I'm not welcome, so forcing the "right to stay" feels like a bad idea.

 

Quote

What if they didn't ask before moving in?  And if it is that important, why now put it in the lease?

 

That's a good question.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say the climate is changing on this topic and that language that made that clear wasn't in the template they printed out for her, but she did read it in case they called her on it.  I mean, isn't bringing a gun into someone's house to live important?  I can see where they should've asked, I still go back to she should've told them to help avoid this mess. 

 

Saying "I have the Right" as some sort of Trump card over other people's differing opinions has worked so well in this conversation up to date, why should she stop now? /sarcasm

Edited December 5, 2018 by Renegade7

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Okay.  Is that something location would affect?  Like does this same thing happen in Texas?  Also, you mentioned something about not being able to refuse to rent to a veteran.  I know there are protected classes against discrimination (race, religion, etc).  I believe veteran isn't one.  So how is it they are protected?  Then where is the line?  Going to an extreme example, I can't refuse to rent to a vet with PTSD who just seems really off to me but I can to someone who legally and responsibly has a firearm?  What if the roommate was a police officer?  Note:  Not trying to argue here.  Genuinely interested since you seem to know.

 

There are federal protected classes and state protected classes. For example, in California, an employer cannot discriminate in hiring decisions based on immigration status, but in Alabama, it is illegal to hire an illegal immigrant. 

 

Federal protected classes include vets for certain purposes. https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/factsheets/FACT_Veterans_Sept16_ENGESQA508c.pdf

 

The second part of your paragraph you are adding reasons that could impact decisions. So, a landlord cant discriminate against a veteran because they are a veteran, but you could refuse to rent to anyone based on the fact they they have ptsd. 

 

A more crude example. If you own a restaurant and two girls decide to have sex with each other on their table, you cant kick them out for being gay, but you can kick them out for ****ing on your table. 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

From a broader perspective, I would support this if she was leaving it unsecured or something.  If not, I think it is wrong.  I also think it is a slippery slope regarding someone doing something legal and safely (we are assuming here a lot so we will go with a hypothetical situation instead of this one since we don't have enough details.

 

 

I have no issues with a group of people having a rule against guns in the house. Guns are dangerous as **** and college kids do stupid ****, even at Harvard. I’d kick her out too if she wouldn’t get rid of it. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It sounds like they gave her the option to get rid of the gun but she refused, citing to a need to protect herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend. Fox News, of course, doesn’t specify if that person is at Harvard and a present danger to her, or back in Alabama. Given the omission, i have my guess. 

 

The law of legal gun ownership is entirely irrelevant here. Nobody is questioning her right to own the gun. 

Even if he was back in Alabama, he could still travel and hurt her.

 

From my research, it sounds like it definetly is not settled law that they can force her to move.  If anything, what I am reading if it wasn't in the lease, the can't do crap.

 

Quote

Assuming your state law has no such prohibition, landlord-tenant law requireslandlords/property managers put a provision in each tenants' lease that clearly states that no firearms are allowed on the property. Without this language in the lease, if a tenant's guns are held legally, a landlord has little recourse.

https://www.buildium.com/blog/gun-rights-and-property-manager-rights/

 

There were several other articles from various sources that essentially said the same thing.

 

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

The only precedent I see being set here is not a clear legal language to allow the tenants to get her out the apartment for having a gun because of not telling them. I don't like it, but the easy fix is to put it in the lease going forward.  Looking around, that isn't as easy as it looks, which may be a different problem in and of itself. Does she really want to be the person in the apartment that's the only one with a gun that everyone wants out because she has one?  I know when I'm not welcome, I don't want to live somewhere I'm not welcome, so forcing the "right to stay" feels like a bad idea.

 

 

That's a good question.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say the climate is changing on this topic and that language that made that clear wasn't in the template they printed out for her, but she did read it in case they called her on it.  I mean, isn't bringing a gun into someone's house to live important?  I can see where they should've asked, I still go back to she should've told them to help avoid this mess. 

 

Saying "I have the Right" as some sort of Trump card over other people's differing opinions has worked so well in this conversation up to date, why should she stop now? /sarcasm

To each their own.  I get you'd move.  I wouldn't.  But my wife will even tell you have a bad habit of charging up hamburger hill when I am technically right.  

 

You are right that the easy fix is to put it in the lease going forward.  And they can do that as soon as the current lease is up.  Now if it were me as the gun owner, I'd offer to move if they paid all my moving expenses and a small inconvenience fee.  See if their concerns are backed up by their pocket book.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

It’s really ambiguous. Which of these would you guess is correct?

a. Your eyes are green

b. You’re eyes are green

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

B is more correct.  

 

It really isn't ambiguous at all.  Did you read the link?  Here is a quick way to tell which you should use:  

 

Read whatever line you are going to write and replace "you're" with "you are" and if it doesn't sound correct, use "your".  "You're" is a contraction of "you are".

So you saying to me, "You're eyes are green" is correct?

 

You are eyes are green?

 

Pretty sure yore wrong man. It was a trick question. My eyes are blue!

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

So you saying to me, "You're eyes are green" is correct?

 

You are eyes are green?

 

Pretty sure yore wrong man. It was a trick question. My eyes are blue!

A is correct there.  I must have been going too fast.  I think you can see by the rest of my post that I know the difference.  I was just ragging on you for doing in two consecutive posts.

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

From my research, it sounds like it definetly is not settled law that they can force her to move.  If anything, what I am reading if it wasn't in the lease, the can't do crap.

 

https://www.buildium.com/blog/gun-rights-and-property-manager-rights/

 

  About the author:

 

Quote

Amanda Maher is a self-proclaimed policy wonk who dabbles in real estate law. Amanda holds a B.S. in Political Science and Sociology from Boston University, as well as a Masters in Urban and Regional Policy from Northeastern.

 

Non-lawyer dabbler Amanda needs to careful about giving legal advice without a license to practice law. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

There were several other articles from various sources that essentially said the same thing.

 

To each their own.  I get you'd move.  I wouldn't.  But my wife will even tell you have a bad habit of charging up hamburger hill when I am technically right.  

 

You are right that the easy fix is to put it in the lease going forward.  And they can do that as soon as the current lease is up.  Now if it were me as the gun owner, I'd offer to move if they paid all my moving expenses and a small inconvenience fee.  See if their concerns are backed up by their pocket book.

 

They can negotiate an exit, im sure some of the Harvard kids have money. I’d put her **** on the curb and file a restaining order. 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

To each their own.  I get you'd move.  I wouldn't.  But my wife will even tell you have a bad habit of charging up hamburger hill when I am technically right.  

 

You are right that the easy fix is to put it in the lease going forward.  And they can do that as soon as the current lease is up.  Now if it were me as the gun owner, I'd offer to move if they paid all my moving expenses and a small inconvenience fee.  See if their concerns are backed up by their pocket book.

 

That's fair given I find their claim in the lease to get them out dubious (though that's for lawyers to argue over).  Hamburger Hill, that's funny, learned too even when I'm passionately convinced that I am right, sometimes being right isn't worth it. 

 

Myself is a bad example as I've lived by myself for the better part of 8 years now, renting for rooms three years prior to that, so moving in with anyone would be a clear understanding that I can't just run like I normally do and I'd be taking more initiative with what I can do knowing me.  I've lived in tense roommate situations before, another why I prefer solo, zero patience for it.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Don't think you can do that in this case, even if I get your point.  A gun is made specifically to kill people, so that's not the same as finding a bottle of liquor, drugs, or anything like that.  This day in age, where people are flipping and killing people left and right, if someone doesn't want another person with a gun in their house, I feel that should be respected.

Wait, so legally owning a gun which is legal is now less acceptable then illegally owning crack and having crack illegally in your posession?!?!?!

 

I'm so confused!

Edited December 5, 2018 by thegreaterbuzzette
Correction

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Wait, so legally owning a gun which is legal is now more acceptable then illegally owning crack and having crack illegally in your posession?!?!?!

 

I'm so confused!

Shoulda said weed as that's what you'd most likely find these days, but I'm almost 90% sure drugs a covered in most if not all leases I've ever had, unlike the conversation were having concerning if guns are.  If someone has crack in my house, they are gone, there is no discussion, see me in court.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Non-lawyer dabbler Amanda needs to careful about giving legal advice without a license to practice law. 

 

 

How about this?  Sounds like it depends on the state.  And it definitely isn't settled law.

 

Quote

Minnesota, on the other hand, forbids landlord prohibitions of firearms outright. As the 2017 firearm possession statutes note: “A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.”

 

Other states limit a landlord’s right to establish rules but leave room for some restrictions. Ohio law, for example, restricts landlords from prohibiting tenants or their guests from possessing a firearm when they are concealed carry licensees.

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-limits-can-your-landlord-put-on-gun-possession

 

Quote

But even when a landlord can ban firearms from his or her property, if it’s otherwise lawful ownership, there’s little immediate recourse to get a gun off the property. Police departments enforce local laws, and if the gun is registered, properly stored and not being used in a threatening manner, the quickest action is through eviction court for violation of the lease.

EDIT:  Also from that article.

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 They can negotiate an exit, im sure some of the Harvard kids have money. I’d put her **** on the curb and file a restaining order.

I'd actually love for you to do that.  I do have a little experience with unlawful eviction.  

 

I'm starting to think you may have not been correct in your opinion on the legalities of this type of case.  I've provided a few references.  Will you?

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by TheGreatBuzz

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

How about this?  Sounds like it depends on the state.  And it definitely isn't settled law.

 

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-limits-can-your-landlord-put-on-gun-possession

 

I'd actually love for you to do that.  I do have a little experience with unlawful eviction.  

 

I'm starting to think you may have not been correct in your opinion on the legalities of this type of case.  I've provided a few references.  Will you?

 

 

 

The nuance that you are missing is that the landlord didnt kick her out. The other tennants did. All of you references are about the landlord. 

 

Plus, your article agrees with me anyways

 

Quote

“If there’s no state law that says they are prohibited from limiting guns, then the default would be that as a private landlord, you can prohibit any activities on your property that you want, other than those that might discriminate under discrimination laws,” Skojec says.

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

A is correct their.  I must have been going to fast.

Fixed it for you

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm starting to think you may have not been correct in your opinion on the legalities of this type of case.  I've provided a few references.  Will you?

 

I had a feeling this was going to go this direction.  I'll just say ever state is different, and I left Massachusetts alone for a reason (it looks like its up to the landlord, but not as clear as other states on after they are already in the property).  Saying some states do and some don't I think more highlights the problem of this not being clear and consistent then helps either point.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Renegade7

[thegreaterbuzzette]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The nuance that you are missing is that the landlord didnt kick her out. The other tennants did. All of you references are about the landlord. 

Because contract is between landlord and tenants (either collectively or 1:1) it generally follows that a co-tenent can not evict another co-tenent. Same reason why in most leases each tenant is solely and wholey responsible for full rent to be paid and not actually just a portion. 

 

[tshile]

I don’t have an issue with someone not wanting guns in their house. 

 

I greatly respect that. 

 

But if its that big of problem it should have been resolved before signing a contract that doesn’t address the issue. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The nuance that you are missing is that the landlord didnt kick her out. The other tennants did. All of you references are about the landlord. 

Her roommates did not have standing to kick her out unless they were subletting to her or some similar situation.  Then they would be landlords and go right back into the debate we just had.  They could have just put her **** on the curb as you suggested.  Though that would have been interesting when she came back in the middle of it and she is the one with the gun.  I'd have to look up the local law on shooting ****es that are moving my stuff out without consent.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

Agreed.

 

If it was important roomies not have guns, should have been included in lease 

 

If it was important she was allowed to have her gun, should have been in the lease

 

Stupid millenials. 

[Renegade7]

Just now, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Agreed.

 

If it was important roomies not have guns, should have been included in lease 

 

If it was important she was allowed to have her gun, should have been in the lease

 

Stupid millenials. 

 

Learning **** the hard way, sure every generation has : )

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 I'd have to look up the local law on shooting ****es that are moving my stuff out without consent.

Massachusetts, Buzz, Massachusetts, lolz 

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Because contract is between landlord and tenants (either collectively or 1:1) it generally follows that a co-tenent can not evict another co-tenent. Same reason why in most leases each tenant is solely and wholey responsible for full rent to be paid and not actually just a portion. 

 

 

First, did @TheGreatBuzz phone a friend or does he have an alter ego?

 

Second, as explained in the article, the other roommates claimed that the gun roommate was violating ther rights in the lease. So they, the roommates, effectively kicked her out for violating the lease, even if guns werent specifically mentioned. 

 

2 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Agreed.

 

If it was important roomies not have guns, should have been included in lease 

 

If it was important she was allowed to have her gun, should have been in the lease

 

Stupid millenials. 

 

She kept it a secret. Why woukd she do that unless she knew it would be an issue. That is called a material omission. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 I'd have to look up the local law on shooting ****es that are moving my stuff out without consent.

 

Let us know what you find out. I’m going with it’s murder. 

[thegreaterbuzzette]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

First, did @TheGreatBuzz phone a friend or does he have an alter ego?

His better half.

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

First, did @TheGreatBuzz phone a friend or does he have an alter ego?

Wife

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Second, as explained in the article, the other roommates claimed that the gun roommate was violating ther rights in the lease. So they, the roommates, effectively kicked her out for violating the lease, even if guns werent specifically mentioned. 

Even if they felt she was violating their rights, they did not have standing to kick her out.  They would have had to take legal action.  "Get out" does not meet the standard.

 

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

She kept it a secret. Why woukd she do that unless she knew it would be an issue. That is called a material omission. 

 Did she keep it a secret?  Or did she just not mention it?  Was she required to notify?  And prove she kept it a secret.  

 

Please and thank you.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

Per article : 

 

"I asked why they didn't just call me and ask me before intruding. One of the girls responded that fear took over her body and she felt compelled to search my room until she found proof. … I cannot make this up.”

 

 

that doesn't sound like keeping it secret. That seems like she was minding her own damn business and legally owning a gun while not waving it around like a gangbanger.....

 

I believe that is called responsible gun ownership?

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Wife

 

I thought you were single and lived in an RV?

 

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Even if they felt she was violating their rights, they did not have standing to kick her out.  They would have had to take legal action.  "Get out" does not meet the standard.

 

You keep going back and forth between making declarative statements, saying its not settled law, and saying you dont know. 

 

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 Did she keep it a secret?  Or did she just not mention it?  Was she required to notify?  And prove she kept it a secret.  

 

Please and thank you.

 

Is there a difference between keeping it a secret and not mentioning it?  

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I thought you were single and lived in an RV?

I live in an RV by myself.  My wife lives in Florida.  It's due to military move crap.

 

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

You keep going back and forth between making declarative statements, saying its not settled law, and saying you dont know. 

I stopped saying I don't know a bit ago.  I did research.  

 

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Is there a difference between keeping it a secret and not mentioning it?

Yes.  I haven't mentioned I'm wearing a blue shirt.  Doesn't mean I am keeping it a secret.

@PleaseBlitz I also remember you saying you would just put **** on curb.  Can you show where that would be a legal recourse for the roommates?