NJ-Rental property owner bans tenants from keeping firearms in their homes

[Anti Federalist]

So...where to come down on this?

Just because you rent an apartment to somebody, do you get the right to ban their fundamental liberties?



New Jersey Housing Developer Bans Guns In Rental Properties!

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/05/hou...#axzz5F1DkibaG

Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 9, 2018 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson



New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- Another “nobody is trying to take your guns” success story. It has come to our attention that a housing development group called RPM Development Group is prohibiting their tenants from owning firearms. You have two choices: keep your gun(s) or become homeless. A new low for the anti-gun bigots!

While Mom’s Demand Action claims that “nobody wants to take your guns away,” one common theme keeps happening: our guns are being taken away either by usurpation or now by being barred from having them in our rental apartments. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court's Heller decision states that we have a constitutional right to own and bear firearms in our homes, RPM Development Group believes they are immune.

We were made aware that this sign was posted at RPM’s Richardson Lofts at 50 Columbia Street, Newark NJ. A search of RPM’s available properties shows they have multiple properties and buildings throughout NJ.

We are interested to see what criminals will think of this silly sign and policy. Given that all of Newark is a gun-free zone (yet leads the state with the highest level of crime and violence) we are confident these signs and policy will only attract rapists, murderers, and gang members. We are sure they will abide by RPM’s policy and not commit any crimes (with guns) now that they know their tenants are defenseless.

Feel free to reach out to RPM to let them know how you feel about their discriminatory and clearly unconstitutional policy:

RPM Development Group General Inquiries:
77 Park Street, Montclair, NJ 07042
Tel: (973) 744.5410
Email: info@rpmdev.com

Stay tuned as this story develops. Our lawyers have been made aware of this situation and we are currently working to have this policy removed to prevent legal action. As always we need your support to fight these insane and unconstitutional actions!

By supporting NJ2AS this month you could win a Glock 17 Gen 5! Click here to enter our May Giveaway! Proceeds go towards helping us with undercover investigations, lawsuits, and activism. Join NJ2AS today and become a proud card-carrying member by clicking here! Become a part of the fight for the Second Amendment in New Jersey before it is too late!

[angelatc]

I fall on the side of the rights of the property owner.

[dannno]

So...where to come down on this?

Just because you rent an apartment to somebody, do you get the right to ban their fundamental liberties?

While I find this at least as abhorrent as not allowing black people in a restaurant, they should have a right to disallow guns in their apartments. Why would you want to rent from somebody who wants to institute those types of rules anyway? I mean, let's pretend the government says, "hey, you can't do that, people have the right to own guns.." and let's say he still wants to ban guns from his apartment but he agrees not to because of the law - do you want to give that guy a rent check every month?

[Swordsmyth]

I fall on the side of the rights of the property owner.

While I find this at least as abhorrent as not allowing black people in a restaurant, they should have a right to disallow guns in their apartments. Why would you want to rent from somebody who wants to institute those types of rules anyway? I mean, let's pretend the government says, "hey, you can't do that, people have the right to own guns.." and let's say he agrees - do you want to give that guy a rent check every month?

You can make any rules you want for NEW tenants and then they shouldn't rent from you, OLD tenants can't have their rights removed retroactively and unilaterally.

[dannno]

You can make any rules you want for NEW tenants and then they shouldn't rent from you, OLD tenants can't have their rights removed retroactively and unilaterally.

...until their lease is renewed

But ya I agree if they are under lease they probably can't do that, but that's a contractual obligation.

[Swordsmyth]

...until their lease is renewed

But ya I agree if they are under lease they probably can't do that, but that's a contractual obligation.

Without a lease you shouldn't be able to change the rental terms without advance notice. (I don't know how long it should be but it should give them a reasonable amount of time to find other accommodations)
With a lease I would say that you still should have to either give them advance notice or let them stay on for a long enough period of time to find somewhere else to stay.

The bottom line is that renting puts you in the power of the owner to a certain extent and that the economy has been warped to make too many people rent without much chance to own their own home.

[dean.engelhardt]

You can make any rules you want for NEW tenants and then they shouldn't rent from you, OLD tenants can't have their rights removed retroactively and unilaterally.

I agree with this. The landlord is effectively breaking a contract with the current renters who's lease does not have the anti-gun rule. I don't see how this could hold up in court.

With all the anti-discrimination laws for landlords, I wonder how this is going to hold up for new tenants. I imagine the NRA has a team of lawyers working on this now. By the time the NRA is done, this property owners will probably have to sell to pay his lawyers.

[TheTexan]

"Effective as of May 1, 2018 this building will be a firearm free building."

Great idea, I bet the building and its occupants will all be super safe now

[Anti Federalist]

You can make any rules you want for NEW tenants and then they shouldn't rent from you, OLD tenants can't have their rights removed retroactively and unilaterally.

That's the weaker of the anti arguments.

If you can ban new tenants rights, there is no barrier to banning existing tenants rights.

[Anti Federalist]

I fall on the side of the rights of the property owner.

As a general rule so do I.

But I think it is realistic to think that you must sacrifice some of those rights when you rent a property in which somebody else will live, as opposed to visit briefly to conduct business.

[Anti Federalist]

While I find this at least as abhorrent as not allowing black people in a restaurant, they should have a right to disallow guns in their apartments. Why would you want to rent from somebody who wants to institute those types of rules anyway? I mean, let's pretend the government says, "hey, you can't do that, people have the right to own guns.." and let's say he still wants to ban guns from his apartment but he agrees not to because of the law - do you want to give that guy a rent check every month?

I would reckon that in NJ, if given the chance, landlords would universally say you would not be able to rent without that restriction.

I'm sure the insurance mafia would be more than willing to cut you a discount rate as well.

Leaving a law abiding gun owner with no choice at all, but to surrender or dispose of his arms.

Which is the point.

[Swordsmyth]

That's the weaker of the anti arguments.

If you can ban new tenants rights, there is no barrier to banning existing tenants rights.

The alternative is to open the door to the end of property rights for landlords.
Renting puts you in the power of the owner to a certain extent, that is why THEY have manipulated the economy to make so many people rent, the answer is to fix the economy NOT to let the government dictate to landlords.

[angelatc]

As a general rule so do I.

But I think it is realistic to think that you must sacrifice some of those rights when you rent a property in which somebody else will live, as opposed to visit briefly to conduct business.

I think renting is like any other business transaction. The problems only come when we try to force our values onto someone else.

[nobody's_hero]

I'd want to see the developer's finances. If so much as one penny of his funding comes from government, I'd sue.

Then again, I wouldn't live in New Jersey anyway.

Their customers don't seem very happy with them, lol:

https://www.google.com/search?source...d2f5d8bb9338,1,,,

This company is the worst company to rent from. You pay so much in rent for little to no real amenities. They're customer service is horrible. No one is knowledge enough to help. Everything cost you money with them. You want to park your rental car in your assigned parking space, ? guess what, not allowed. smh. You need to replace a parking pass... whip out that cash. You're told how you should upkeep your apartment. They're apartment is not worth the rent we dish out, especially for the poor neighborhoods the apartments are located at. There's no REAL AMENITIES with renting with RPM. I lived in an Englewood apartment complex, paid a little bit more now (like $50) and had access to a gym, two parking space assigned (to park whatever car I pleased), access to a public pool on the complex, a park and free dish cable (basic) with a phone line and my own free wifi. smh I wish I never left. Only left for a bigger space but the amenities with renting at RPM is non existent. RUN!!!!!!! Plus they raise your rent every year you continue your lease with them. If I could give 0 stars I would. But one star was required to write this review.

[Swordsmyth]

I'd want to see the developer's finances. If so much as one penny of his funding comes from government, I'd sue.

Good point.

Then again, I wouldn't live in New Jersey anyway.

Better point.

[asurfaholic]

NJ is a $#@!hole state

[pcosmar]

I fall on the side of the rights of the property owner.

Right v right.
One God Given,, the other acquired..

[Swordsmyth]

Right v right.
One God Given,, the other acquired..

The right to own and control property is also GOD given.

[pcosmar]

The right to own and control property is also GOD given.

Perhaps but is it a protected Right under the Constitution? The 2nd amendment is clear.

Business transactions (Rentals) are not so protected.

[Swordsmyth]

Perhaps but is it a protected Right under the Constitution? The 2nd amendment is clear.

It should have been but slaves were considered property at the time and the abolitionists didn't want to give slavery any protection, they should have just declared that 100 years after the adoption of the constitution slaves would not be considered property and slavery would be illegal unless states ended it sooner.

Business transactions (Rentals) are not so protected.

A1S10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

[angelatc]

Perhaps but is it a protected Right under the Constitution? The 2nd amendment is clear.

Business transactions (Rentals) are not so protected.

Congress shall make no law....

[Raginfridus]

I'd want to see the developer's finances. If so much as one penny of his funding comes from government, I'd sue.

Then again, I wouldn't live in New Jersey anyway.

Their customers don't seem very happy with them, lol:

https://www.google.com/search?source...d2f5d8bb9338,1,,,

I'm certain they do. Indiana offers tax dollars for making their sidewalks and appartments accessible. I'm sure the Feds and other states do the same for compliance. It has to be rated and such, but there's absolutely tax money in that regard.

My employer isn't allowing smoking on the property after remodels. When the lease is up, they comply if they want their remodel now or not.

Its not the tenant's to say what the rules are.

[Michael Landon]

Quick question... what happens when mortgage companies decide to do this to all the people with mortgages? "If you have a loan with us for your home, you must not have any firearms in the home."

- ML

[specsaregood]

Quick question... what happens when mortgage companies decide to do this to all the people with mortgages? "If you have a loan with us for your home, you must not have any firearms in the home."

- ML

It won't because there is so much money to made off of giving mortgages to gun owners.

[Swordsmyth]

It won't because there is so much money to made off of giving mortgages to gun owners.

That won't necessarily stop them.

Unfortunately THEY have warped the market so much that it is almost unheard of for anyone to buy a home without a mortgage.
If things get bad enough it may be necessary to use laws to prevent such "free market" attacks on freedom until the economy can be fixed or things get bad enough to "kick over the table" and start a shooting revolution.

[oyarde]

I am a landlord . I do not really think that entertains me the right to suspend the Bill of Rights on a property . Nor do I think it would make it past a judge here if anyone challenged it . So what would really happen is you could pretend to be a tyrant king and then they would not follow the rules anyway making the decree stupid . Might as well say you can never smoke weed , drink beer , masturbate and free speech is suspended too .

[Raginfridus]

That won't necessarily stop them.

Unfortunately THEY have warped the market so much that it is almost unheard of for anyone to buy a home without a mortgage.
If things get bad enough it may be necessary to use laws to prevent such "free market" attacks on freedom until the economy can be fixed or things get bad enough to "kick over the table" and start a shooting revolution.

Boobus is too fat to start a shooting war (and keep his jelly donuts) so like in every timeline, the State wins until the cycle turns in Liberty's favor again.

If we really wanted freedom, we would deport all the landwhales. ... but I never said that.

[Swordsmyth]

I am a landlord . I do not really think that entertains me the right to suspend the Bill of Rights on a property . Nor do I think it would make it past a judge here if anyone challenged it . So what would really happen is you could pretend to be a tyrant king and then they would not follow the rules anyway making the decree stupid . Might as well say you can never smoke weed , drink beer , masturbate and free speech is suspended too .

You are correct that you do not have a MORAL right to do so and that it would be difficult to enforce but you DO have a LEGAL right to set any terms you wish when renting out property and you could have anyone you caught violating them evicted.

Like so many other things you must have the LEGAL right to do things you don't have a MORAL right to do in order to protect other rights that are both legal and moral.

[phill4paul]

If pregnant you have to provide an ultra-sound for this landlord....

When she wouldn't give her landlord an ultrasound photo, woman lost her apartment

Tiesha Davis, a single, working mom of three, thought she had found a suitable apartment for her young family. But the home turned into a major stress test when her landlord told her he wasn't going to renew her lease.

The reason: She didn't provide her landlord with an ultrasound image of the child she was carrying.

She signed her rental agreement on Sept. 26, 2017. She was four months pregnant at the time.

About four months later, on Jan. 11, Jose Galindo, the assistant property manager at Sorrento Rental Community in Miramar, a privately owned affordable housing complex, told Davis, 26, he wasn't going to renew her 12-month lease because she hadn't disclosed her pregnancy or provided an ultrasound photo, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Fort Lauderdale on April 3. The project was financed, in part, by tax dollars.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...210768809.html

[shakey1]

If pregnant you have to provide an ultra-sound for this landlord....



http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...210768809.html

wtf?