-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
So my apartment complex is trying the no guns in common area thing
- Thread starter Uber_Olafsun
- Start date
Uber_Olafsun
Regular Member
In a way that would work better because how would they carry it if they can't conceal it? Need to have my friends call in.
If folks can claim that 18.2-308.1 allows staff/others to carry in schools I can make the same claim here.
I actually think I'm on firmer ground. Property owner can post "NO GUNZ" but give written exemptions to specific individuals, and can limit the exemption to CC only or OC only, or anyC.
I do, however, agree with your interpretation of the intent of that section. But we all know what's paved with intentions.
stay safe.
Uber_Olafsun
Regular Member
Ok update time. Well since my last post the management has given us letters that we can both carry concealed to our cars (have permit so not an issue legal wise). Now here is the fun part.
Last month someone started a fire in the bathroom of our cyber cafe attached to the office. Management has no idea who it was because the security camera evidently didn't have it's disk exchanged that day. The was a fire previously in a complex down the street same type deal. Why they have a disk vs hard drives and backups I don't know
We also just received an email about some cars on the back end of the complex that we're broken in to and had the airbags removed. They said that this crew has evidently been in the local area for awhile.
I had spoken to the manager this last weekend because of rumors that a band of kids had been hanging out in the bushes hiding and running away made me question their security and mine. Looks like I was right. I had told her that some other residents and myself were looking into a neighborhood watch program or something like that. Well looks like they are going to have fairfax pd come out and have a community meeting. Oh boy I can't wait.
Here are some of the questions I am going to ask at the meeting
Why don't all contractors and employees have a name tag or anything to indenting them on?
Do they think the recent change in apartment policy may have been a cause?
What other crimes have happened in the last few years that were not sent out to the residents?
Anything else you guys can think of to ask?
Last month someone started a fire in the bathroom of our cyber cafe attached to the office. Management has no idea who it was because the security camera evidently didn't have it's disk exchanged that day. The was a fire previously in a complex down the street same type deal. Why they have a disk vs hard drives and backups I don't know
We also just received an email about some cars on the back end of the complex that we're broken in to and had the airbags removed. They said that this crew has evidently been in the local area for awhile.
I had spoken to the manager this last weekend because of rumors that a band of kids had been hanging out in the bushes hiding and running away made me question their security and mine. Looks like I was right. I had told her that some other residents and myself were looking into a neighborhood watch program or something like that. Well looks like they are going to have fairfax pd come out and have a community meeting. Oh boy I can't wait.
Here are some of the questions I am going to ask at the meeting
Why don't all contractors and employees have a name tag or anything to indenting them on?
Do they think the recent change in apartment policy may have been a cause?
What other crimes have happened in the last few years that were not sent out to the residents?
Anything else you guys can think of to ask?
user
Accomplished Advocate
Not a response to anything in particular, but a couple of observations about the topic generally:
1) There are three kinds of leasehold interests, and only "a term for years" is an interest in real property. That's a lease in which the landlord conveys the property for one or more terms measured in years (as opposed to months, weeks, or days). So if the lease says, "twelve months", that's a period tenancy, but if it says, "one year", that's a term for years. Because everything other than a term for years conveys an interest in personal property, not real property, the landlord is pretty much in charge - the personal property interest conveyed is a contractual interest, i.e., the lease itself, rather than the real estate. So most commercial rental projects, if not all, are careful to spell out the term of the lease in months. That means that the lease controls everything, and they generally say things like, "we can make up any regulations we want to at any time with or without notice to you, and you have to abide by them". And the only general limitation is that the regulations cannot interfere with the tenant's right to "quiet enjoyment" of the leasehold interest.
2) HOWEVER, most such places are subject to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. And there is a provision in the act that covers the situation we're talking about:
So they can tell you that you cannot have alcoholic beverages in your apartment, but they cannot restrict your right to be in possession of a firearm "within individual dwelling units" on the property, and that includes reasonable access to the apartments. But "common areas" is a diffent kettle of fish, and someone has apparently figured that out. So my opinion is that if they have a regulation that says "no firearms in common areas", that means those common areas that have nothing to do with your ability to get to your apartment, but it's otherwise effective if the regulation is legally part of the lease contract.
1) There are three kinds of leasehold interests, and only "a term for years" is an interest in real property. That's a lease in which the landlord conveys the property for one or more terms measured in years (as opposed to months, weeks, or days). So if the lease says, "twelve months", that's a period tenancy, but if it says, "one year", that's a term for years. Because everything other than a term for years conveys an interest in personal property, not real property, the landlord is pretty much in charge - the personal property interest conveyed is a contractual interest, i.e., the lease itself, rather than the real estate. So most commercial rental projects, if not all, are careful to spell out the term of the lease in months. That means that the lease controls everything, and they generally say things like, "we can make up any regulations we want to at any time with or without notice to you, and you have to abide by them". And the only general limitation is that the regulations cannot interfere with the tenant's right to "quiet enjoyment" of the leasehold interest.
2) HOWEVER, most such places are subject to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. And there is a provision in the act that covers the situation we're talking about:
So they can tell you that you cannot have alcoholic beverages in your apartment, but they cannot restrict your right to be in possession of a firearm "within individual dwelling units" on the property, and that includes reasonable access to the apartments. But "common areas" is a diffent kettle of fish, and someone has apparently figured that out. So my opinion is that if they have a regulation that says "no firearms in common areas", that means those common areas that have nothing to do with your ability to get to your apartment, but it's otherwise effective if the regulation is legally part of the lease contract.
grylnsmn
Regular Member
Are you sure about that, user? (I know, it's heresy to question user on a matter of law, but here it goes.)
Wouldn't it depend on what the definition of "public housing" in 55-248.9(A)(6) is? Previously, you mentioned "commercial rental projects". Does a privately-owed "commercial rental project" meet the definition of "public housing", or does that only apply to publicly-funded (or subsidized) housing projects?
Where would we look for that definition, and whether it applies here?
MKEgal
Regular Member
TFred said:
But they don't know that you have a permit. Ask them if they're giving you permission to break the law.Uber_Olafsun said:
Um, hello? What's the name of this site?Uber_Olafsun said:
That you can get from the PD. The officer they send to do the chat might not have the data.
And if you have it yourself, ahead of time, you can say things like "according to information I got from Bugscuffle PD, there were X# assaults, Y# burglaries, and Z# car breakins in this neighborhood in 2012."
I'm sure User will be back to clarify (or, rather, I hope & believe he will).grylnsmn said:
IMHO, there's what most people think of as public housing (taxpayer owned welfare apartments),
and there's what the law might really define as public housing (privately owned but rented out).
(As distinct from private housing, which is owned & occupied by the same person.)
A commercial project would seem to me to be an office park, strip mall, or the like.
Or I might be thoroughly confused.
It's happened before.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
This question on "public housing" has come up before. I could find no definition of the term in the Code of Virginia, but in a related section of the code, there is a definition which includes the term:
§ 55-248.4. Definitions.
I would think the use of the word "other" implies that to be a "public housing" the unit must also be subject to regulation by HUD.
Just my guess from what I was able to easily find.
TFred
§ 55-248.4. Definitions.
"Application fee" means any nonrefundable fee, which is paid by a tenant to a landlord for the purpose of being considered as a tenant for a dwelling unit. An application fee shall not exceed $50, exclusive of any actual out-of-pocket expenses paid by the landlord to a third party performing background, credit, or other pre-occupancy checks on the applicant. However, where an application is being made for a dwelling unit which is a public housing unit or other housing unit subject to regulation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, an application fee shall not exceed $32, exclusive of any actual out-of-pocket expenses paid to a third party by the landlord performing background, credit, or other pre-occupancy checks on the applicant.
I would think the use of the word "other" implies that to be a "public housing" the unit must also be subject to regulation by HUD.
Just my guess from what I was able to easily find.
TFred
user
Accomplished Advocate
Certainly not heresy - no one "knows the law"; it's too big. And I need all the help I can get. So I'm always glad when people point out stuff I've missed.
There is no definition of "public housing", this phrase is used to clarify that phrase, "housing unit subject to regulation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development".
My take on the use of that term in the exception was that there was a legislative assumption that such housing had to be specially pointed out since everyone normally has a right to have firearms in his home and a landlord can't use the economic power exerted over public housing applicants to strong-arm them into being disarmed. Other people wouldn't need such a provision because they are assumed to have that right.
On the other hand, your question made me think that there could also be a legislative assumption that people who are retail lessees don't need special protection because they can just go live somewhere else.
So now I'm thinking, I'd have to do a lot more research to figure that one out for sure.
Uber_Olafsun
Regular Member
They also have public areas listed as a no no. I would assume common areas to be the office, pool etc.
You have options.
A. Hire a lawyer and fight them.
B. Conceal to and from your car.
C. Conceal and go where you please (Of course no one would consider this)
D. Stop carrying.
E. Move.
That about covers it.
Uber_Olafsun
Regular Member
If it wasn't for the money and baby situation we would have moved already. This is the last lease. I am still working from within to try to change their view.
SaltH2OHokie
Regular Member
I like to think that the rights of the property owner would trump the renter in a "retail rent" situation, whether we agree or not.
Seems to me that if I put up my money to buy a piece of property, take the risk and use my money (or credit) to build apartments and then assume the liability that comes with multi-unit rentals, that I ought to darn well be able to disallow anything I like from my common areas...you don't like it...find a new apartment.
I mean the above with no disrespect at all, and it sounds like you're actively pursuing an amicable and mutually agreeable solution. I just think that some things, while not agreeable to my sensibilities, are the right of others (in this case, the right of your property owner to disallow things on portions of his property).
Peter Nap presented a list of potential resolutions, one of which was the one that immediately came to my mind when you intially posted...and comes to mind often for me...
Seems to me that if I put up my money to buy a piece of property, take the risk and use my money (or credit) to build apartments and then assume the liability that comes with multi-unit rentals, that I ought to darn well be able to disallow anything I like from my common areas...you don't like it...find a new apartment.
I mean the above with no disrespect at all, and it sounds like you're actively pursuing an amicable and mutually agreeable solution. I just think that some things, while not agreeable to my sensibilities, are the right of others (in this case, the right of your property owner to disallow things on portions of his property).
Peter Nap presented a list of potential resolutions, one of which was the one that immediately came to my mind when you intially posted...and comes to mind often for me...
I agree with you completely. I've always been a strong advocate of private property rights.
It's a little different with commercial rentals, but the owner still is the owner and his word should be adhered to within reason.
With residential rentals the owner has damaged apartments, deadbeat tenants, municipal regulations and state law to keep his profits low.
Including a clause that he thinks benefits the majority which gives him fewer vacant units should be his right despite the fact I don't like it.
TFred
Regular Member
Here's the problem with these ideas, it's apples and oranges.
There are objectionable actions, and there is the possession of perfectly legal personal property. I think it's fine to prohibit actions that are likely to be bad for the property or the people on the property. But I think prohibiting the mere possession of arbitrary personal property goes too far.
Watch yer toes: let's compare firearms to cigarettes.
Many places prohibit smoking in the building, or even on the outside areas of the property. This is fine. Smoke stains walls, stinks up the place and the furniture, and it's bad for people. Ok, so let's prohibit shooting. Shooting is loud, likely damages the walls, stinks up the place, and you just might kill someone. I don't think anyone would have an issue with this.
So when was the last time you heard of a place banning the CARRY of a pack of cigarettes? Even in a place where smoking is prohibited? Never. Why are firearms not treated the exact same way? No smoking in here. But sir, you're going to need to take those cigarettes back out to the car if you want to eat here tonight. How utterly ridiculous, and how ridiculous to treat firearms any differently!
I'm all for allowing a ban on shooting. I do not see any justification to ban someone from carrying their own personal property on their person.
TFred
TFred, Thats a fantastic analogy!! I will certainly be borrowing that. I love it.
Uber_Olafsun
Regular Member
I second that.
SaltH2OHokie
Regular Member
I don't disagree with your point. I can't justify WHY one might want to ban an inanimate object in this situation any more than I can in any other situation...but just as I think you should be able to do as you please in your place (in this case your apartment), I think the owner of the complex should be able to do as he pleases with the areas that are arguably "his". I look at any common areas that aren't truly 'necessary' to living there as being his to manage as he pleases (and again I DO NOT see why he'd ban guns, but its his call just the same).
I look at it like this: if he's got an office for you to drop your rent in, a laundry area, a section with the mailboxes and rec/exercise center, they're like tiny businesses that you happen to have an annual membership to, and we're pretty clear than in VA a free-standing office, laundromat, pack-n-mail and arcades can all put up their "guns not welcome" signs. I appreciate that it is more complicated than that since there is a lease agreement involved, but to my way of thinking the principals are the same.
Again, I empathize with your situation, and I do not agree with folks banning guns, but I think just the same as you are allowed to set the rules in your house and place of business, so can everyone else. In college I rented from 2 different places that both banned the carry of guns. I also went to VT which in its student code of conduct banned guns. I might not have done it the best way, but I found a way to make it work that my girlfriend at the time (now wife) was happy with, I was happy with, and I never got evicted, convicted of trespassing or any other crimes related to carrying nor kicked out of school.
TFred
Regular Member
You miss my point. It would be absurd to prohibit someone from carrying a pack of cigarettes in their pocket, even in a no-smoking zone. What about a sign that said, "You may not enter our office if you are wearing a red shirt." What sensible person would seriously make... or defend such a demand?
I'm not trying to diminish property rights, I'm trying to show that it is absolutely absurd to make this a property rights issue. Just like a shirt color would be.
Until we realize and concede that carrying a firearm is the same as a pack of cigarettes, or a red shirt, we are losing the battle ourselves. If we can't concede to ourselves that it is absurd to prohibit the carry of a firearm, how do we expect to sell it to those who oppose us?
TFred
SaltH2OHokie
Regular Member
I just think we view personal property rights differently...which is perfectly acceptable. I think if I want to have a "dress code" for my business that includes "no pants with pockets", while I'm likely to lose a ton of customers, that's purely my decision to make. I do understand the point your making as to the implications for everyone when we make it acceptable to ban a gun somewhere...but I think private parties have that right. Gov't, on the other hand, should not.