Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by HR

Posted by Matt B on February 07, 2001 at 14:03:06:

I was a member of the National Guard and didn’t carry a gun. Now I am out of the military and do carry a gun. I’m confused. What does that make me? Can I be part of that there “unorganized” militia? I can be awfully unorganized at times!

Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on February 06, 2001 at 21:00:47:

I was just thinking: Can I ask on my rental application if a tenant has a gun? Can I legally use that as criteria not to rent them the apartment, if my lease lists gun possession (without Landlord’s written permission) as a default of the agreement? Does the US constitution and the right to bear arms supercede my ability to discriminate against tenants with handguns?

Hmmmmm. I’m curious. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.


Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by JD_TX

Posted by JD_TX on February 08, 2001 at 02:27:28:

Wow! What’s the count? I’d say it’s kinda lopsided, indeed. Hey HR & RL, you can go back and plant those feet, again, firmly in the clouds!! :0) Is free enterprise alright with you two?

Sometimes, the less said, the better. - Posted by SusanL.–FL

Posted by SusanL.–FL on February 07, 2001 at 10:56:29:

I doubt that I would disclose that fact on an application.

In actuality, we have an ‘arsenal’ at home–a gun collection that I inherited from my Dad.

Some are displayed, many are locked up in our closet safe, and the pistols are in a locked display cabinet.

We don’t advertise the fact (that we have firearms) for two reasons. One, none are registered. Two, I don’t want any wise-guy teenagers in my neighborhood breaking in while we are at work and running off with them.

Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by Jim IL

Posted by Jim IL on February 07, 2001 at 24:03:13:

No offense, but not renting to someone simply because they own a gun is rediculous.
Sadly, the federal government gets away with it in assisted housing complexes and such.
But, what if you have a home selling on a L/O?
I come along with 20% of the price as option money, can afford the rent easily, and you see in my credit that I will in all likelyhood be able to get a loan VERY soon, if not now.
But, I own my grandfathers old duty weapon from when he was a cop years ago.
So you D.Q. me JUST because of that?
How are you going to know?
Are you going to ask this on the application?
And how will you verify this info?
Anyone with common sense would plainly see that you have a problem with guns, whether legal or not and answer “No”.
And frankly, if they do get past you and use that gun later for some illegal activity on your property, then they have violated the lease anyway, have’nt they?
You do have a clause in there now that prohibits “unlawful activity” right?

As an ex-cop I do know about the terrible things that can happen when people mis use guns, but that is just the thing, the person should be the concern, not the gun.
Guns do not kill people, people kill people with guns.

And you are screening your tenants well and interviewing them right?
So, you are ruling out the ones that are obviously not going to be good tenants.
And IF someone slips past your screening, they may be slick enough to get a gun, regardless of whether or not they had one when they signed the lease.

Adding a question on your application, or disqualifying tenants for owning a firearm, is
just not practical. (IMHO)

Hope this did not offend you.
I know how some anti-gun people are so passionate about it. (And that is okay, passion for what you believe is a good thing.)
And NO, I’m not a gun nut, I just have some extensive experience dealing with people and people with guns as a cop, and know the truth and reality about them.
Not the stats that pro and anti gun lobby-ists throw at the world.

Have a great day,
Jim IL

Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on February 06, 2001 at 22:32:20:

I own some condo units and the complex rules forbid firearms of any sort.

The only way I would see it could come back and haunt you is if your tenant got assaulted on the property and came and sued you because he couldn’t properly defend himself because of the rules in your lease. Something to think about anyway.

Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by Nate

Posted by Nate on February 06, 2001 at 21:33:58:

Sure! It’s not a protected class under the Fair Housing laws. You can not-rent to people with guns just like you can not-rent to people with pets or to people who have been evicted or whatever other qualifications you may come up with. The Constitution only determines how the GOVERNMENT may act, not private citizens or companies. It is not possible for a private citizen or company to do something “Unconcsitutional”. Illegal, maybe. But this isn’t illegal.


Re: Sometimes, the less said, the better. - Posted by Mark (WV)

Posted by Mark (WV) on February 07, 2001 at 22:20:29:

Susan, let me tell you what happened to me.Me tryng to be the good guy I am (no laughs yet) hired a local teenager to mow grass and do odd jobs,also started training him how to drive semis,all this because he was a out of wedlock child of my brotherin law and pretty poor.
Was paying him $200 a week plus meals

follow that advise and go a step further. - Posted by Jim IL

Posted by Jim IL on February 07, 2001 at 13:21:27:

Not too sound harsh, but why on earth are your guns NOT registered?
You should do that for two reasons.

  1. It is the law
  2. It makes it easier to track the weapons if God forbid they do get stolen.

And, you said that you do not advertise the fact that you have guns?
If some are on display, whether the cabinet is locked or not, they are being advertised.
What about repair people who come to the house?
Don’t they see the guns on display?
What about social guests?
Do they see them?
See, these people may not be after your guns, and probably could care less about your weapons, but what if they say something to someone, or are overheard talking about what they saw at your home?

I remember a case where a young criminal heard a woman talking about her next door neighbors gun collection to a friend at the mall.
She said she saw his gun cabinet (which he kept locked too), and it was “Full of all kinds of fancy guns”.
Guess what?
When this kid was busted, thankfully before using the guns, in a traffic stop, he confessed as to how he got them.
He stated that after hearing this woman, he simply followed her home.
And within 2 days, BOTH of her next door neighbors homes were robbed.
He must not have been sure “Which” neighbor she was talking about.
And he got about 10 guns in all.

So, if you have weapons, keep them registered, and locked up safe, and out of site.

Otherwise, your guns could also get into the hands of a criminal.

And, guess what?
You also just now not only admitted to having un-registered weapons in your home to millions on the web, but you told us where they are kept and how.
Not a good thing IMHO.

And I know, I’ve already admitted that I have weapons too. But, I’d venture to guess that someone coming here would not be able to find where they are hidden.
The only time they are “out”, they are in my hand.

Have a nice day,
Jim IL

P.S. See HAL, I am NOT a Gun freak after all, eh?

Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by Eric

Posted by Eric on February 07, 2001 at 02:42:02:

I say don’t rent to tenants WITHOUT guns.
Seems to me if the local criminals know that the residents of a property have no way to defend themselves, they are easy safe TARGETS.

Just my 2 cents.


Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on February 07, 2001 at 09:19:09:

Thanks, Nate: that’s the kind of info I was looking for.


Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by Redline

Posted by Redline on February 06, 2001 at 22:00:59:

I agree - plus if he’s not part of a “malitia” then he doesn’t pass Constitutional muster anyway.

And if he IS, well then you DEFINITELY don’t want to rent to him! :wink:


re-post the missing parts, Mark. - Posted by SusanL.–FL

Posted by SusanL.–FL on February 08, 2001 at 07:43:28:

It looks like parts of your post were missing (but it SURE sounded like it was going to be an ‘interesting’ story!


can’t leave it alone… - Posted by TRandle

Posted by TRandle on February 07, 2001 at 18:30:44:

Please run the benefits of registration by me, again? I definitely understand the benefits to the government and/or any sort of watchdog agency, but I’ve never seen any benefit to the owner. “The right to bear arms (as long as they’re registered?)” I don’t think so. Of course, I’m fairly “right” when it comes to “individual accountability, government is a necessary evil” topics. As long as I’m not violating anyone’s rights, keep me the he!! out of the databases, please.

Tim “Gun Wacko2” Randle

Well, Jim… - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on February 07, 2001 at 16:58:59:

Well, Jim, we certainly started a fun thread, didn’t we?

It’s late in the day, and I’m too tired to respond to all the posts. I did get the information I requested, though: that discriminating against gun owners is possible. I’m actually moved by Rob Fl’s comment that a smart tenant with a bright atty could argue that my policy denied them their due constitutional right to defend themselves and thus I am partially liable. My conclusion is that I will add a clause to the old lease that all guns must be registered and the owners must have a valid, active permit: which is the law anyway. Maybe I won’t say anything at all, because my lease, like yours, frames illegal activity as a default of the lease.

All joking aside, I understand partially where you are coming from. I live in a VERY violent Southern city with 250+ murders a year, most of which is black on black crime, and I work with low income folks. (I’m not black.) My wife’s uncle, who lives nearby, is also a sergeant in our local police force. The tales he tells makes one’s head spin. I can’t imagine being a cop; it is unbelievably underappreciated.

Again, I’m too tired to get into it tonite (maybe at the convention?), but criminals will always be criminals. In my view, guns are the source of the problem. Get rid of the guns, and put in place the death penalty for anyone that uses a gun in a crime, and I believe the use of guns will drop dramatically. Interesting that no one commented on this death penalty stance. I’ve had rabid liberals look at me in horror when I tell them about that opinion. The two don’t go together, they say.

Bully, I say. In China, all drug dealers were put to death when caught. Think the number of drugs and dealers there has decreased? Bet your bippy.

There is no need to use a gun to commit a crime. The death penalty to gun criminals cuts across race and class to kill the stupid. It would work, too, as a deterent: and not just to the one or two guys in the neighborhood who have guns.

Anyway, again, I’m too tired. You do realize, of course, that my labeling of you as a gun-nut was tongue in cheek. You’ve not stuck me as a nut; that’s why I thought we would have some fun here. If I thought you were a real nut, I woulden’t have even given you the time of day to start with.

Thanks for your ideas. I will honestly consider them.


PS. Matt: why would I evict a honest tenant defending himself? In the real world, I probably woulden’t. It depends on how responsible the tenant was. Guns, for me, spell nothing but trouble, and I don’t want them on my property. If I ever felt like I needed one to do business or protect my family, I would get one. And I would register it and get a permit and be a responsible citizen, like you. I’m not comfortable with that choice yet, if at all.

Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on February 07, 2001 at 07:15:55:

Then have a sign posted at each entrance.



Re: Discriminate VS. Tenants with guns? - Posted by AllanSATX

Posted by AllanSATX on February 07, 2001 at 11:37:50:

Many of you are members of the militia, as are many of your tenents. Take a look at the US federal law.

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard

b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Bit by the hand that feeds ya! - Posted by SusanL.–FL

Posted by SusanL.–FL on February 08, 2001 at 10:02:27:

Hi Mark,

From the ?gist? of your post, I gathered you have had some problems. Your post reminded me of a similar incident that happened to us.

We also helped out a teenage neighbor boy from a family down the street. The ?Mom? had children of her own but still took in foster children?-for a grand total of 13!!! Turned out she was just running a 'racket? for the money each month.

Her husband got tired of the situation and divorced her after 21 years of marriage! Get this, she was ?trying? to homeschool the ENTIRE brood (and doing a lousy job of it, I might add). Cranking out illiterate children.

Anyway, Kenny took one of the teenagers, (who she had adopted) under his wing. Larry was 16. We gave him odd jobs around our place (grass cutting, house cleaning). He was paid $6.00/hr and we fed him (AND bought him clothes). Kenny (a jack of most ALL trades) tried to teach Larry ?things? along the way. Trying to give him SOME sort of foothold in life?hoping that he would learn SOMETHING!

Larry?s teeth were an abomination! We set aside money out of his weekly earnings (at Larry?s request), for dental work. Guess what. His ?Mom? showed up one day to ?collect? his dental money and wound up spending it on herSELF!! :frowning:

One morning (1997) Kenny and I went out to our (BRAND NEW) vehicles to go to work and found windows smashed in each vehicle and our money stolen! ONLY Larry knew where we kept our money when we paid him each day. Couldn?t accuse him because we didn?t catch him in the act but?hmmmmmmmmmmm??? Coincidental if you ask me.

(KNOW it was NOT a smart place to keep money but in my own defense, it was easier [for me]. I was a working mother on the rush/dragging diaper bag and toddler in and out of car every day. Just found it easier on me. One less thing to have to remember. Not a smart thing and after that, I quit doing it.

Really felt violated after that incident. Lost very little $$ out of my wallet but did lose a wad of house keys, etc. and just the thought of knowing that we had been ?watched? by someone. Didn?t feel safe for awhile after that.

Like Jim_IL said, be careful who ?sees? and who tells whom about what in your personal lives?because you never when ?the hand that feeds ya will get bit?!!

Re: re-post the missing parts, Mark. - Posted by Mark

Posted by Mark on February 08, 2001 at 09:59:03:

Yeh the part about him coming back after geting paid one eve and removing $35000 worth of guns,tv vcr stero.ectif I hadn’t gave the #s to the ins.co. I wouln’t have been able to claim them when he got busted.Id don’t count with cops they want numbers

Ditto (on the ‘public exposure’) - Posted by SusanL.–FL

Posted by SusanL.–FL on February 08, 2001 at 07:57:26:

After I read Jim_IL’s post yesterday, I decided to ask Kenny why he hadn’t registered any of the guns (AS he was dozing off last night). :slight_smile:

Basically he said, ‘with all the possible gun recall laws being talked about’, why take the chance of having to possibly turn them all in.

ALSO, why raise a ‘red flag’ to the IRS. Look what they (IRS) is doing to Caroline Kennedy right now, with regard to settling her brother’s estate. Items that normally would be $evaluated (for tax purposes) at ‘street value’ are being SUPER inflated. She has decided to fight them—and I HOPE she wins.

I’m all for staying out of the databases too. I have eNUF problems right now…