I just found out one of my tenants is keeping guns in a place. I do not want liability of somebody getting shot in the place. The insurance on the place would sky rocket.

Can I just evict the tenant for unsafe practices in FFX county?

No.

FYI, it's statistically more likely for someone to get shot if they were NOT a gun owner. You should feel honored that your place now has free security courtesy of your tenants.

What a dumb ass question. What bullshit, your insurance will sky rocket my ass.
The answer is NO! Let him keep his gun, you will need someone to protect you liberal ass one day.

JustAnFYIforCaptObvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No.
>
> FYI, it's statistically more likely for someone to
> get shot if they were NOT a gun owner. You should
> feel honored that your place now has free security
> courtesy of your tenants.


LOL

Wrong, a gun anywhere makes it "statistically more likely " that someone will die by THAT gun verse anyone being shot by another person.

Also, you can evict them for any reason you like - there is nothing they can do to stop an eviction.

Do they look like this?
Attachments:

My advise is hire PehuU as your attorney when you get sued.
You two dumbasses deserve each other!

PehuU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JustAnFYIforCaptObvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No.
> >
> > FYI, it's statistically more likely for someone
> to
> > get shot if they were NOT a gun owner. You
> should
> > feel honored that your place now has free
> security
> > courtesy of your tenants.
>
>
> LOL
>
> Wrong, a gun anywhere makes it "statistically more
> likely " that someone will die by THAT gun verse
> anyone being shot by another person.

Not true. Only bs talking point-level "true" if you consider suicide.


> Also, you can evict them for any reason you like -
> there is nothing they can do to stop an eviction.

Also obviously not true.

There is nothing in any insurance policy that I know of that prohibits firearms. I have never heard of an insurance company surcharging someone for a gun. Who put this lame brained idea in your head?

In any event, your tenant should have renters/liability insurance in case someone is accidently injured. I wouldnt rent a property to someone without requiring them to have insurance. Renters policies are cheap.

If your tenant shoots someone intentionally, no insurance on earth is paying for that.

I needs me a weapon so i can hits me a lick, where your investment property at white boy?


-----

The only liability I see is the increased chance that someone breaks into the home to steal the gun.

PehuU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JustAnFYIforCaptObvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No.
> >
> > FYI, it's statistically more likely for someone
> to
> > get shot if they were NOT a gun owner. You
> should
> > feel honored that your place now has free
> security
> > courtesy of your tenants.
>
>
> LOL
>
> Wrong, a gun anywhere makes it "statistically more
> likely " that someone will die by THAT gun verse
> anyone being shot by another person.

Would you care to share those statistics with us? After all 90% of all statistics are mad up.

Show us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FYI, it's statistically more likely for
> someone
> > to
> > > get shot if they were NOT a gun owner.


> Would you care to share those statistics with us?
> After all 90% of all statistics are mad up.


I agree, who would think such a dumb thing? Fucking retard.

Here's guidance from Landlords website:

http://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/2013/05/21/can-landlords-limit-their-tenants-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

2A facts v fiction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's guidance from Landlords website:
>
> http://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/2013/05/
> 21/can-landlords-limit-their-tenants-second-amendm
> ent-right-to-bear-arms/


I wouldn't call that "fact" given that they cite obviously skewed stats from the Brady campaign and demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of Constitutional rights in claiming that they don't limit private citizens.

And it doesn't at all address eviction.

Well, this is an interesting question. In a sane world, a gun in the home would be considered such a huge liability in so many ways that you could evict someone from having one on your property. But we don't live in a sane world. The sad reality is that you can't evict someone for possessing a legally obtained killing machine.

However, you can refuse to renew the lease when it comes up for renewal. You don't need to state the reason. And you can put a clause in future leases that prohibits firearms on your property. No, gun nuts, that is not a 2nd amendment violation, as much as you want it to be.

As a practical matter, if someone is injured as a result of your tenant's reckless behavior, the injured party will invariably go after whoever has the deepest pockets. That probably means you. Even if the idiot tenant hurts himself or a family member with a gun on your property, he can sue you. Will he win? Who knows any more. Talk to a property manager sometime about the stuff that they see. You'd be amazed.

Sad But True Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, this is an interesting question. In a sane
> world, a gun in the home would be considered such
> a huge liability in so many ways that you could
> evict someone from having one on your property.
> But we don't live in a sane world. The sad reality
> is that you can't evict someone for possessing a
> legally obtained killing machine.
>
> However, you can refuse to renew the lease when it
> comes up for renewal. You don't need to state the
> reason. And you can put a clause in future leases
> that prohibits firearms on your property. No, gun
> nuts, that is not a 2nd amendment violation, as
> much as you want it to be.
>
> As a practical matter, if someone is injured as a
> result of your tenant's reckless behavior, the
> injured party will invariably go after whoever has
> the deepest pockets. That probably means you. Even
> if the idiot tenant hurts himself or a family
> member with a gun on your property, he can sue
> you. Will he win? Who knows any more. Talk to a
> property manager sometime about the stuff that
> they see. You'd be amazed.


And they'll tell you that they see very few issues related to guns relative to other common causes. Guns are way down the list of things in and around a property that cause death and injury. A tenant's far more likely to hurt or kill themselves by slipping on a rug or falling down stairs.

Sad But True Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, this is an interesting question. In a sane
> world, a gun in the home would be considered such
> a huge liability in so many ways that you could
> evict someone from having one on your property.
> But we don't live in a sane world. The sad reality
> is that you can't evict someone for possessing a
> legally obtained killing machine.
>
> However, you can refuse to renew the lease when it
> comes up for renewal. You don't need to state the
> reason. And you can put a clause in future leases
> that prohibits firearms on your property. No, gun
> nuts, that is not a 2nd amendment violation, as
> much as you want it to be.
>
> As a practical matter, if someone is injured as a
> result of your tenant's reckless behavior, the
> injured party will invariably go after whoever has
> the deepest pockets. That probably means you. Even
> if the idiot tenant hurts himself or a family
> member with a gun on your property, he can sue
> you. Will he win? Who knows any more. Talk to a
> property manager sometime about the stuff that
> they see. You'd be amazed.


/thread

fuck all the cry baby gunnuts who will post that cars kill more people blah blah blah

Hey OP! The bottom line here is that your renter is a gun owner. This means that your renter has already already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she is a coward and an ignorant piece of shit. Just stand up to your renter and tell him or her that you do not want to have cowardly pieces of shit living on your property. Your little guntard will be gone in a day or two. Problem solved.

If insurance companies don't raise your rates for firearms they should. But the time to set a rule like no firearms, you should probably put that in the rental agreement. I will from now on.

Morons and their guns are certainly a headache I don't need on my properties.

Here's a crazy thought - why don't you read your lease document that outlines the terms for eviction?


BTW, are you considering evicting any other tenants because they might have sharp cutlery items that could be used to stab people? Or what about chainsaws? Or perhaps blunt striking items like hammers or baseball bats?

From now on, all leases should include clauses allowing for eviction based on being a limp-wristed, cowardly, freedom-hating, anti-American liberal faggot.

If you dont like guns, go to NY or DC.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If insurance companies don't raise your rates for
> firearms they should. But the time to set a rule
> like no firearms, you should probably put that in
> the rental agreement. I will from now on.
>
> Morons and their guns are certainly a headache I
> don't need on my properties.


While we are at it, let's see what other Constitutional rights we can contract away in leases. I am going to put in a clause that prohibits people from assembling in my properties to have political discussions.

this sounds fun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Atom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> While we are at it, let's see what other
> Constitutional rights we can contract away in
> leases. I am going to put in a clause that
> prohibits people from assembling in my properties
> to have political discussions.

I don't know about Constitutional rights, but a lease is a voluntary agreement between two private parties. They can choose to agree on just about anything, or not enter into the lease. Quite a number of apartment buildings in the area prohibit smoking anywhere on the premises, a majority prohibit pets, and it's not at all uncommon to prohibit operating any kind of business from a residential unit. A lease could certainly include a clause prohibiting possession of firearms. Living in a gun-free building would be a positive selling point for many tenants. And if there were violations, the landlord probably wouldn't find out about them unless you paraded through the lobby packing heat or left your AK on the couch when the engineer came to service the AC.

The first All-Starr excursion led to the release of Ringo Starr and His All-Starr Band (1990), a compilation of live performances from the tour.[153] In the same year, Starr recorded a version of the song "I Call Your Name" for a television special marking the 10th anniversary of John Lennon's death and the 50th anniversary of Lennon's birth. The track, produced by Lynne, features a supergroup composed of Lynne, Tom Petty, Joe Walsh and Jim Keltner.[154] Shell Station 9803 Richmond Highway, Lorton, VA 22079 turn at Gunston Rd do not merge onto I-95 or I-95 South. Trun left on Telegraph Road 22309 north to Rolling Road. Turn around use Fairfax County Parkway 268 old road 7100.. Stop at Springfield Mall near Pollo Rico, see Ahmed Khan.
Call warehouse for parts. You can wait at Burger King or McDonalds on Backlick Road for Jennifer or continue to Industrial Drive.the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Mitch Mitchelland Noel Redding, later said that they had been warned about a planned drug bust the day before flying to Toronto and that they believed the drugs had been planted in his bag. Hendrix was the world's highest-paid performer when he was arrested, but this was his last tour, and he died the following year

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2015 01:54PM by WingNut.

ckYVY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this sounds fun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Atom Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> > While we are at it, let's see what other
> > Constitutional rights we can contract away in
> > leases. I am going to put in a clause that
> > prohibits people from assembling in my
> properties
> > to have political discussions.
>
> I don't know about Constitutional rights,

You got that right.

> but a lease is a voluntary agreement between two private
> parties.

With certain limitations set out by law.

> They can choose to agree on just about
> anything, or not enter into the lease.

No. It needs to comply with federal and state housing laws.

> Quite a number of apartment buildings in the area prohibit
> smoking anywhere on the premises,

Not a Constitutional right.

> a majority prohibit pets,

Not a Constitutional right.

> and it's not at all uncommon to
> prohibit operating any kind of business from a
> residential unit.

Could be loosely considered a Constitutional right, but probably doesn't pass the test.

> A lease could certainly include
> a clause prohibiting possession of firearms.

Not in Virginia if it is public housing, and I think it is questionable if it is legal in other situations.

> Living in a gun-free building would be a positive
> selling point for many tenants.

But might not be legal.

> And if there were
> violations, the landlord probably wouldn't find
> out about them unless you paraded through the
> lobby packing heat or left your AK on the couch
> when the engineer came to service the AC.

Probably so.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2015 12:13AM by WingNut.

This is the applicable provision in the VRLTA re firearms in rental property:

§ 55-248.9. Prohibited provisions in rental agreements.
A. A rental agreement shall not contain provisions that the tenant:
....
6. Agrees as a condition of tenancy in public housing to a prohibition or restriction of any lawful possession of a firearm within individual dwelling units unless required by federal law or regulation;
....

Bizarrely, tenants in public housing are allowed to keep guns on the premises. Those would seem to be the last people you'd want housing firearms. I assume this clause was put in since the housing agency is a government entity and must comply with Federal law (i.e., the newly interpreted right by an activist court for any moron to own a firearm under the second amendment).

Bottom line...

1. The second amendment pertains to restrictions on governmental organizations, not private citizens or entities.
2. The VRLTA makes clear that tenants in public housing cannot be restricted from having firearms on the premises. It is silent re private landlords - which means you can do what you want.
3. Federal law states that you cannot discriminate against 'protected classes' (the usual suspects). No matter how aggrieved you gun nuts may feel, you are not a protected class.
4. You have a (bogus) right to own firearms. However, you don't have a right to house them on my property if you sign a lease that prohibits them.

A few states do prohibit private landlords from restricting guns. Fortunately, Virginia is not yet one of them.

Here's The Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the applicable provision in the VRLTA re
> firearms in rental property:
>
> § 55-248.9. Prohibited provisions in rental
> agreements.
> A. A rental agreement shall not contain provisions
> that the tenant:
> ....
> 6. Agrees as a condition of tenancy in public
> housing to a prohibition or restriction of any
> lawful possession of a firearm within individual
> dwelling units unless required by federal law or
> regulation;
> ....
>
> Bizarrely, tenants in public housing are allowed
> to keep guns on the premises. Those would seem to
> be the last people you'd want housing firearms. I
> assume this clause was put in since the housing
> agency is a government entity and must comply with
> Federal law (i.e., the newly interpreted right by
> an activist court for any moron to own a firearm
> under the second amendment).
>
> Bottom line...
>
> 1. The second amendment pertains to restrictions
> on governmental organizations, not private
> citizens or entities.
> 2. The VRLTA makes clear that tenants in public
> housing cannot be restricted from having firearms
> on the premises. It is silent re private landlords
> - which means you can do what you want.
> 3. Federal law states that you cannot discriminate
> against 'protected classes' (the usual suspects).
> No matter how aggrieved you gun nuts may feel, you
> are not a protected class.
> 4. You have a (bogus) right to own firearms.
> However, you don't have a right to house them on
> my property if you sign a lease that prohibits
> them.
>
> A few states do prohibit private landlords from
> restricting guns. Fortunately, Virginia is not yet
> one of them.


Why do you hate our freedom?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2015 08:49AM by WingNut.

Here's The Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the applicable provision in the VRLTA re
> firearms in rental property:
>
> § 55-248.9. Prohibited provisions in rental
> agreements.
> A. A rental agreement shall not contain provisions
> that the tenant:
> ....
> 6. Agrees as a condition of tenancy in public
> housing to a prohibition or restriction of any
> lawful possession of a firearm within individual
> dwelling units unless required by federal law or
> regulation;
> ....
>
> Bizarrely, tenants in public housing are allowed
> to keep guns on the premises. Those would seem to
> be the last people you'd want housing firearms. I
> assume this clause was put in since the housing
> agency is a government entity and must comply with
> Federal law (i.e., the newly interpreted right by
> an activist court for any moron to own a firearm
> under the second amendment).
>
> Bottom line...
>
> 1. The second amendment pertains to restrictions
> on governmental organizations, not private
> citizens or entities.
> 2. The VRLTA makes clear that tenants in public
> housing cannot be restricted from having firearms
> on the premises. It is silent re private landlords
> - which means you can do what you want.
> 3. Federal law states that you cannot discriminate
> against 'protected classes' (the usual suspects).
> No matter how aggrieved you gun nuts may feel, you
> are not a protected class.
> 4. You have a (bogus) right to own firearms.
> However, you don't have a right to house them on
> my property if you sign a lease that prohibits
> them.
>
> A few states do prohibit private landlords from
> restricting guns. Fortunately, Virginia is not yet
> one of them.


"Bizarrely, tenants in public housing are allowed to keep guns on the premises. Those would seem to be the last people you'd want housing firearms." Why? They have the same rights as you Mr Liberal. They don't have to be like your dumbass.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2015 12:14AM by WingNut.

Gunlover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Bizarrely, tenants in public housing are allowed
> to keep guns on the premises. Those would seem to
> be the last people you'd want housing firearms."
> Why? They have the same rights as you Mr Liberal.
> They don't have to be like your dumbass.

I knew I was going to get blowback on that post, but let's not be coy, Gunlover. People in public housing are generally (not always) there for a reason - they don't make good decisions. I don't want someone who can't seem to figure out how to use a condom operating a gun. Add to that poverty, tight quarters, and hair trigger tempers and you've got a combustible mix.

This is interesting. Apparently, the Bill of Rights only applies to the powers of the Federal government. So a private citizen can ban gun ownership on their own property.

This is puzzling though. What about the 18th amendment? Why would did it have power over private citizens on private property?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2015 12:14AM by WingNut.

So then you would never rent to any kind of cop, FBI agent or agent of some other official government group, Secret Service,security guard. etc, etc.? Wouldn't that be some kind of discrimination and the possible basis for another lawsuit? Just wondering.

Too Cute By Half Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gunlover Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Bizarrely, tenants in public housing are
> allowed
> > to keep guns on the premises. Those would seem
> to
> > be the last people you'd want housing firearms."
>
> > Why? They have the same rights as you Mr
> Liberal.
> > They don't have to be like your dumbass.
>
> I knew I was going to get blowback on that post,
> but let's not be coy, Gunlover. People in public
> housing are generally (not always) there for a
> reason - they don't make good decisions. I don't
> want someone who can't seem to figure out how to
> use a condom operating a gun. Add to that poverty,
> tight quarters, and hair trigger tempers and
> you've got a combustible mix.

You are Democrat, no doubt about it. Lets be coy, what makes you better?

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

oldguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then you would never rent to any kind of cop,
> FBI agent or agent of some other official
> government group, Secret Service,security guard.
> etc, etc.?

Not necessarily. The lease could stipulate that people who require a gun for some official capacity (and were, presumably well trained in firearms use) would be exempt from the restriction.

> Wouldn't that be some kind of
> discrimination and the possible basis for another
> lawsuit? Just wondering.

No. There are 'protected classes' that you cannot discriminate against. Anything else is fair game. There are seven Federally protected classes: age, race, color, national origin, religion, familial status, and handicap. A state may choose to create additional protected classes, such as marital status, source of income, sexual orientation, age, etc. Those classes pertain only to that state.

This can create some interesting predicaments for real estate agents. For example, I own and rent out a property one block from a Metro stop. We have been advised not to refer to it as 'within walking distance to Metro' since it could be interpreted as discouraging handicapped people. More common examples include neighborhood demographics, school reputation, crime rate, etc.

This were the trap always lie with this argument.

No. There are 'protected classes' that you cannot discriminate against. Anything else is fair game.

Spoken like the Liberal/Democrat. At least the old slavery was overt, this is the Democrats new slavery for protected classes and everything else.

This guy would make a good Nazi.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

easy bake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey OP! The bottom line here is that your renter
> is a gun owner. This means that your renter has
> already already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
> that he or she is a coward and an ignorant piece
> of shit. Just stand up to your renter and tell him
> or her that you do not want to have cowardly
> pieces of shit living on your property. Your
> little guntard will be gone in a day or two.
> Problem solved.


+1
I never met a guntard that was worth a shit.

Sad But True Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[portions snipped]

>Even
> if the idiot tenant hurts himself or a family
> member with a gun on your property, he can sue
> you. Will he win? Who knows any more. Talk to a
> property manager sometime about the stuff that
> they see. You'd be amazed.

I'm calling BS on this unless you provide a credible link to a source showing where someone sued about tenant's legal firearm. Maybe it happened somewhere, but was almost instantly thrown out of court? That MIGHT have happened, but I even doubt that. Show me if that even happened.

Incidentally, landlords have been sued sucessfully for lack of security when tenants have been victims of criminals. Usually those cases involve malfunctioning door locks, security systems, or similar.

If you, Mr. Landlord, prevent a tenant (such as a female tenant who's fled an abusive spouse) from armed defense of herself that would strengthen the tenant's claim against you for criminal acts against her.

Maybe, you better hire armed guards for the property. Or, you could put up below sign. Which is more likely to be effective?

And speaking of this sign, I'll respectfully make a suggestion for you, the OP, and other anti-2nd Amendment posters. If you really believe all that you say, you will put above sign on your personal residences. You'll be safer, right?

ARE YOU BOLD ENOUGH TO PUT YOUR LIFE (AND THOSE OF FAMILY MEMBERS) WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS?

Dog Walker81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sad But True Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> [portions snipped]
>
> >Even
> > if the idiot tenant hurts himself or a family
> > member with a gun on your property, he can sue
> > you. Will he win? Who knows any more. Talk to a
> > property manager sometime about the stuff that
> > they see. You'd be amazed.
>
> I'm calling BS on this unless you provide a
> credible link to a source showing where someone
> sued about tenant's legal firearm. Maybe it
> happened somewhere, but was almost instantly
> thrown out of court? That MIGHT have happened, but
> I even doubt that. Show me if that even
> happened.

I didnt say it has happened (I really don't know) - I said it could happen. Anyone can sue anyone over anything - no matter how asinine. And the courts are not a landlord's friend, even in Virginia (DC is exponentially worse). One particular incident comes to mind that a property manager told me about...some idiot got stinking drunk in one of the properties this guy manages and he stuck his hand down the garbage disposal - while it was running. He then sued the landlord for the loss of his digits. So yes, I can see a gun nut suing the landlord for his own stupidity.

> Incidentally, landlords have been sued sucessfully
> for lack of security when tenants have been
> victims of criminals. Usually those cases involve
> malfunctioning door locks, security systems, or
> similar.

I know that. Actually, there doesn't even have to be a malfunctioning anything for a tenant to sue the landlord. I now provide a metal bar (although a cut off broomstick will work) for sliding glass doors since a landlord was successfully sued in Virginia for not having this protection. See how that works? A door lock wasn't good enough. Again - anyone can sue anyone for anything - and they can win.

> If you, Mr. Landlord, prevent a tenant (such as a
> female tenant who's fled an abusive spouse) from
> armed defense of herself that would strengthen the
> tenant's claim against you for criminal acts
> against her.

Yes, that's the other side of the issue. That's why I'm reluctant to put a clause prohibiting firearms in a lease. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

> Maybe, you better hire armed guards for the
> property. Or, you could put up below sign. Which
> is more likely to be effective?
>
>

src=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gM22B6jIq5U/UkwDHE4G
> mhI/AAAAAAAAGxA/XtCbh8z0AFA/s1600/823ba8ed3c4be6ef
> 9a4b3776705e61b8.png>
>
> And speaking of this sign, I'll respectfully make
> a suggestion for you, the OP, and other anti-2nd
> Amendment posters. If you really believe all that
> you say, you will put above sign on your personal
> residences. You'll be safer, right?

Well, now you're just being a moron. Of course, I wouldn't put up a sign like that. Who the fuck would? But you just gave me a thought...maybe I should put up a sign saying 'Attention criminals - a gun nut with no firearms training and hair trigger reflexes lives here'. That might scare them off.

> ARE YOU BOLD ENOUGH TO PUT YOUR LIFE (AND THOSE OF
> FAMILY MEMBERS) WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS?

I don't own guns and I never will. Nor do I want them on my property. If you want a gun (more likely a bunch of guns), then buy your own Goddamned house and put them there. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON MY RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM YOUR GUNS.

If you anti-2nd Amendment posters truly believe your own arguments that gun-free zones are safer, you will put signs on your residences like the sign in my last post or similar "Gun Free Home" sign.

Consider what will happen next in the below cartoon:

Now consider what is more likely to happen if the criminals see this sign at a property:

Sad But True Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't own guns and I never will. Nor do I want
> them on my property. If you want a gun (more
> likely a bunch of guns), then buy your own
> Goddamned house and put them there. YOU HAVE NO
> RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON MY RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM YOUR
> GUNS.


Good. You sound unstable.

Make sure that you make a big point of it in talking with potential tenants. Put it in ALL CAPS IN YOUR LEASE AGREEMENT IN BOLD TYPE WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!

So they know that you're a whack job and they should avoid dealing with you.

Dog Walker81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you anti-2nd Amendment posters truly believe
> your own arguments that gun-free zones are safer,
> you will put signs on your residences like the
> sign in my last post or similar "Gun Free Home"
> sign.
>
> Consider what will happen next in the below
> cartoon:
>
>

src=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5Xk9lsJzros/Ukv8bRN1
> R7I/AAAAAAAAGwE/c6lA372-d3A/s1600/Dang.+Now+what+d
> o+we+do%253F.jpg>
>
> Now consider what is more likely to happen if the
> criminals see this sign at a property:
>
>

src=http://www.freewoodpost.com/wp-content/uploads
> /2012/10/notice-the-owner-of-this-property-is-arme
> d-life-liberty-horiz.png>

Did you even read what I wrote? This issue is more nuanced than you seem to be capable of understanding. My properties have been broken into several times (including ripping out metal bars on the windows in DC), despite my best efforts to thwart this. Criminals may be stupid, but they don't have a death wish. All but one of the break ins occurred when the tenants weren't home. Thieves just want to grab stuff and get out. I don't need some guy who thinks he's Rambo shooting up a teenager who wants a big screen TV. Not only is that a huge liability, but I think it's immoral to shoot someone for a property crime.

Sad But True Wrote:

[portions snipped]
> >
> >Dog Walker81 posted:

> > I'm calling BS on this unless you provide a
> > credible link to a source showing where someone
> > sued about tenant's legal firearm. Maybe it
> > happened somewhere, but was almost instantly
> > thrown out of court? That MIGHT have happened,
> but
> > I even doubt that. Show me if that even
> > happened.
>
> I didnt say it has happened (I really don't know)
> - I said it could happen. Anyone can sue anyone
> over anything - no matter how asinine. And the
> courts are not a landlord's friend, even in
> Virginia (DC is exponentially worse). One
> particular incident comes to mind that a property
> manager told me about...some idiot got stinking
> drunk in one of the properties this guy manages
> and he stuck his hand down the garbage disposal -
> while it was running. He then sued the landlord
> for the loss of his digits. So yes, I can see a
> gun nut suing the landlord for his own stupidity.
>
> > Incidentally, landlords have been sued
> sucessfully
> > for lack of security when tenants have been
> > victims of criminals. Usually those cases
> involve
> > malfunctioning door locks, security systems, or
> > similar.
>
> I know that. Actually, there doesn't even have to
> be a malfunctioning anything for a tenant to sue
> the landlord. I now provide a metal bar (although
> a cut off broomstick will work) for sliding glass
> doors since a landlord was successfully sued in
> Virginia for not having this protection. See how
> that works? A door lock wasn't good enough. Again
> - anyone can sue anyone for anything - and they
> can win.
>
> > If you, Mr. Landlord, prevent a tenant (such as
> a
> > female tenant who's fled an abusive spouse)
> from
> > armed defense of herself that would strengthen
> the
> > tenant's claim against you for criminal acts
> > against her.
>
> Yes, that's the other side of the issue. That's
> why I'm reluctant to put a clause prohibiting
> firearms in a lease. Damned if you do, damned if
> you don't.

Exactly. So it undercuts any idea that putting a no-guns clause in your lease reduces frivolous suits. You could get sued either way as you correctly state. And you are absolutely right that "Anyone can sue anyone
over anything - no matter how asinine," although we hope that courts will usually and quickly dismiss frivolous suits.

> Well, now you're just being a moron. Of course, I
> wouldn't put up a sign like that. Who the fuck
> would? But you just gave me a thought...maybe I
> should put up a sign saying 'Attention criminals -
> a gun nut with no firearms training and hair
> trigger reflexes lives here'. That might scare
> them off.

OK, maybe that sign was too sarcastic, but what about the more neutral, below sign, maybe with added text saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" or similar?

People have put such signs on their businesses. Would you put such a sign on your business? What about your home? If you would not put it on your home, would you be so kind as to present logical reasons (not ad hominem) why not?

> I don't own guns and I never will. Nor do I want
> them on my property.

Maybe other posters have said to the contrary (I haven't read every post), but I respect your right to be unarmed. I also believe that, absent contrary law, you have a right to ban guns, smoking, etc. from your property.

>If you want a gun (more
> likely a bunch of guns), then buy your own
> Goddamned house and put them there.

I'm trying to keep this civil. I already have a house and the legal means to defend it.

>YOU HAVE NO
> RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON MY RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM YOUR
> GUNS.

Now that is either a rebuttal to something that someone else posted or based upon a misreading or mischaracterization of my post. I have no interest in giving, selling, or transferring guns to you or taking guns on a properly posted "NO GUNS" private property whether you're the owner or someone else is.

Is your private property (business and home) posted "NO GUNS?" If not, how will others know not to carry guns onto the premises?

Peace.

Sad But True Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did you even read what I wrote? This issue is more
> nuanced than you seem to be capable of
> understanding. My properties have been broken into
> several times (including ripping out metal bars on
> the windows in DC), despite my best efforts to
> thwart this. Criminals may be stupid, but they
> don't have a death wish. All but one of the break
> ins occurred when the tenants weren't home.
> Thieves just want to grab stuff and get out. I
> don't need some guy who thinks he's Rambo shooting
> up a teenager who wants a big screen TV. Not only
> is that a huge liability, but I think it's immoral
> to shoot someone for a property crime.


Depending on year and source, about 25%-30% of residential burglaries happen when someone is present. 7%-10% involve a violent victimization. That doesn't include robbery/home invasion, assaults, rape, murder, and other crimes which by definition are crimes against person and involve someone being present.

Sad But True Wrote:
>
> Did you even read what I wrote? This issue is more
> nuanced than you seem to be capable of
> understanding.

I started my 2nd post before you replied to my 1st post. Therefore, I had NOT read your reply at the time my 2nd post was being drafted. My reply to yours is posted above.

>My properties have been broken into
> several times (including ripping out metal bars on
> the windows in DC), despite my best efforts to
> thwart this.

I wish this wasn't happening to you. One thing that jumps out at me is that it is almost impossible for law-abiding persons to have guns in DC. Therefore, it is likely that only criminal tenants would possess guns in your DC properties. I guess it seems that gun possession by law-abiding tenants is not a big problem for DC landlords. Of course, if the tenant is not law-abiding, he is unlikely to obey a "no guns" clause in the lease.

>Criminals may be stupid, but they
> don't have a death wish.

Exactly. So criminals are more likely to break into the location with the"no guns zone" sign than the location with "Have guns, will use them" sign. Right?

>All but one of the break
> ins occurred when the tenants weren't home.
> Thieves just want to grab stuff and get out. I
> don't need some guy who thinks he's Rambo shooting
> up a teenager who wants a big screen TV. Not only
> is that a huge liability, but I think it's immoral
> to shoot someone for a property crime.

Sometimes thieves also want to rape. Sometimes they get off on beating the resident. A burglar stabbed a friend of mine in his DC apartment 30 years back. Sometimes thieves or burglars kill.

I agree that DC landlords are exposed to a lot of liability.

Do people really think owning a gun means their house or family won't be robbed?

That's crazy talk.

Gun owners get shot all the time in the ghettos. Sometimes they get shot just for their guns. Easier for felons to off some gun owner for their guns then ever get guns legally.

Second, robbers don't give a shit if a house has a gun or not. Robbers just know they need cash and gold for their crack. If a person has a gun that just means they need to shoot first.

Reality Check! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do people really think owning a gun means their
> house or family won't be robbed?
>
> That's crazy talk.
>
> Gun owners get shot all the time in the ghettos.
> Sometimes they get shot just for their guns.
> Easier for felons to off some gun owner for their
> guns then ever get guns legally.
>

Nobody thinks of a gun as being some robbery repellent you idiot. They do provide a means of defense if necessary.

Beyond that, the rest of your dumb is wrong all around. What happens in "the ghetto" (wtf? lol) doesn't reflect the typical homeowner.

Based on DOJ/BJS, in violent victimizations those with guns are less likely to be injured (about 1/5th) than those without (about 1/2). When injuries are sustained they also are less serious. The reasons for which should be rather obvious to anyone who's not an idiot ideologue who thinks about it. Very few guns are taken from anyone.

> Second, robbers don't give a shit if a house has a
> gun or not. Robbers just know they need cash and
> gold for their crack. If a person has a gun that
> just means they need to shoot first.

Again wrong. In numerous interviews offenders state that they avoid cases where they expected someone to be armed. That's also shown in time/occupancy stats for burglaries. Most try to avoid anyone armed or not. Which, again, should make sense to anyone with any.

Sad But True Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dog Walker81 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sad But True Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > [portions snipped]
> >
> > >Even
> > > if the idiot tenant hurts himself or a family
> > > member with a gun on your property, he can
> sue
> > > you. Will he win? Who knows any more. Talk to
> a
> > > property manager sometime about the stuff
> that
> > > they see. You'd be amazed.
> >
> > I'm calling BS on this unless you provide a
> > credible link to a source showing where someone
> > sued about tenant's legal firearm. Maybe it
> > happened somewhere, but was almost instantly
> > thrown out of court? That MIGHT have happened,
> but
> > I even doubt that. Show me if that even
> > happened.
>
> I didnt say it has happened (I really don't know)
> - I said it could happen. Anyone can sue anyone
> over anything - no matter how asinine. And the
> courts are not a landlord's friend, even in
> Virginia (DC is exponentially worse). One
> particular incident comes to mind that a property
> manager told me about...some idiot got stinking
> drunk in one of the properties this guy manages
> and he stuck his hand down the garbage disposal -
> while it was running. He then sued the landlord
> for the loss of his digits. So yes, I can see a
> gun nut suing the landlord for his own stupidity.
>
> > Incidentally, landlords have been sued
> sucessfully
> > for lack of security when tenants have been
> > victims of criminals. Usually those cases
> involve
> > malfunctioning door locks, security systems, or
> > similar.
>
> I know that. Actually, there doesn't even have to
> be a malfunctioning anything for a tenant to sue
> the landlord. I now provide a metal bar (although
> a cut off broomstick will work) for sliding glass
> doors since a landlord was successfully sued in
> Virginia for not having this protection. See how
> that works? A door lock wasn't good enough. Again
> - anyone can sue anyone for anything - and they
> can win.
>
> > If you, Mr. Landlord, prevent a tenant (such as
> a
> > female tenant who's fled an abusive spouse)
> from
> > armed defense of herself that would strengthen
> the
> > tenant's claim against you for criminal acts
> > against her.
>
> Yes, that's the other side of the issue. That's
> why I'm reluctant to put a clause prohibiting
> firearms in a lease. Damned if you do, damned if
> you don't.
>
> > Maybe, you better hire armed guards for the
> > property. Or, you could put up below sign.
> Which
> > is more likely to be effective?
> >
> >

>
> src=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gM22B6jIq5U/UkwDHE4G
>
> >
> mhI/AAAAAAAAGxA/XtCbh8z0AFA/s1600/823ba8ed3c4be6ef
>
> > 9a4b3776705e61b8.png>
> >
> > And speaking of this sign, I'll respectfully
> make
> > a suggestion for you, the OP, and other
> anti-2nd
> > Amendment posters. If you really believe all
> that
> > you say, you will put above sign on your
> personal
> > residences. You'll be safer, right?
>
> Well, now you're just being a moron. Of course, I
> wouldn't put up a sign like that. Who the fuck
> would? But you just gave me a thought...maybe I
> should put up a sign saying 'Attention criminals -
> a gun nut with no firearms training and hair
> trigger reflexes lives here'. That might scare
> them off.
>
> > ARE YOU BOLD ENOUGH TO PUT YOUR LIFE (AND THOSE
> OF
> > FAMILY MEMBERS) WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS?
>
> I don't own guns and I never will. Nor do I want
> them on my property. If you want a gun (more
> likely a bunch of guns), then buy your own
> Goddamned house and put them there. YOU HAVE NO
> RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON MY RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM YOUR
> GUNS.


That easy all you have to do is stay in your own house. But you are that type that like to look/peep into other people windows. Peep in my window you get your head blown off. The good 2nd amendment implies that I'm right to do that. So don't infringe on my right to blow your head off when I catch it where it don't belong.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2015 12:14AM by WingNut.

OP is afraid that his wife/daughter will stop by to check on the house and become a play toy.

Either that of he hates the constitution, and would like to take all freedoms away from citizens of the great country
Attachments:

Liability Problems Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just found out one of my tenants is keeping guns
> in a place. I do not want liability of somebody
> getting shot in the place. The insurance on the
> place would sky rocket.
>
> Can I just evict the tenant for unsafe practices
> in FFX county?

If you do the tenant has good grounds for a lawsuit against you for civil rights violations. Go ahead. I'm anxious to see what happens.

When you choose to lease out your property, a few things happen. The first is whether you want to or not, you agree to follow the mandatory rules regarding landlord tenant law. The second is that you surrender the right to possess the property for the lease term, subject to the provisions of the lease. Too many landlords assume it is there property and they an do whatever they want. That isn't how it works. When you choose to rent out your property, you choose to surrender a certain amount of control over it. If you don't want guns on the premises, you would need to include that as a lease term. Then there is the problem of enforcing it.

Another thing is that even in this market, really good tenants who will pay on time, and will respect and maintain your property are in shorter supply than the supply of decent affordable housing. Even if the law per its you to discriminate between people based on gun ownership, political convictions, position on abortion, whether they are an unmarked couple or whether they are Capricorns, it may not be wise to do so. Piss off good tenants and they will move on. You may end up with someone who reflects you life views, but who trashes your place and skips out owing you several months' rent.