AG: Landlords can prohibit tenants from possessing firearms

OK….so prove it and cite the law.  The AG couldn’t seem to find it….can YOU ?

I’d agree…..there probably are few landlords like this around here.

Probably, LL had some concern about liability of firearms…..while, of course, ignoring the liability the LL takes on by removing the ability of a tenant to defend themselves should it come to that. 

It would seem fairly obvious to me that if you remove a person’s ability to defend themselves by contract or regulation, such as ANY place that prohibits weapons ( the Mall, federal buildings, some restaurants, etc ), that owner now takes on the responsibility to insure your safety should some ner-do-well that ignored the silly sign decide to come in and rob, or just shoot up the place to satisfy the “voices” in their head.

You never seem to hear of a mass shooting in a police station or national guard armory….no, invariably they happen in “gun free” zones…schools, shopping malls, post office, etc….which is why I get nervous being IN those kinda places, and avoid them if at all possible….for as it turns out, nut jobs can’t read signs.

I’d also be willing to bet there a more than one tenant in Mr. Shipley’s rental complex that have ignored the provision in his lease.  I would assume Mr. Shipley would have done the same, but is choosing to make this an issue when it is a non-issue….he surrendered the right to have a firearm by PRIVATE CONTRACT when he moved into the place. He can choose to live with that, or move.

If ENOUGH tenants “vote with their wallets”, I’d guess the LL would consider dropping that section of the lease….just like if enough people refuse to get on airlines that refuse you your right of self defense, and yet, can clearly NOT protect you, they too would go out of business.

The AG is correct…..“rights” only exist in the public area ( or should….govt often does their best to squash them ).

Any agreement between individuals ( private contract ) allows for one to give up any “right” in favor of gaining something from the other party by contract.

In this case, Mr Shipley has agreed to give up his 2nd amendment right in order to gain the “privilege” of living in some private property of his landlord. 

Could the landlord ALSO “ban” is his amendment rights ? 

Sure….it’s done all the time.  Take the various condo associations that ban the flying of flags in the yard, or posting of signage for anything from political campaign to yard sales….all clearly 1st amendment issues that an individual gives up BY CONTRACT in order to live in a nest of like minded knuckleheads.

SO, the answer for Mr. Shipley is quite clear….MOVE…..and better yet, BUY a home, and then he should ( in theory anyway ) be able to enjoy ALL rights protected by the Constitution.