Can A Landlord Do This?

[mamabearCali]

I don't know about TX law, but in va, you cannot sign your rights away in a lease. For example a lease that allows a landlord to walk into your home without 24 hours notice (setting aside emergencies) is deemed illegal and unenforceable. The only rub is you have to go to court to get it remedied. So you would have to be caught, then served eviction notice, then you can make them obey the law. How do I know this....experience, had to live it once. But the question is do you want to live in such a hostile place? Perhaps it is time to start exploring options.

[old farmer]

Concealed is concealed.

There it is. I'm shocked that it took almost two full pages before it showed up.

[tbrown]

Concealed is concealed.

There it is. I'm shocked that it took almost two full pages before it showed up.

One good meme deserves another.

Are you volunteering to be the test case?

[rwg3]

Landlord can technically do anything until a judge restricts that or the AG (or other Texas Peace Officer) enforces the real estate codes (good luck).

and

Concealed is concealed.

These two quotes sum up the spot you are in. The mgmt company doesn't really care if you stay there or not. It is just a business to them. Somewhere they made a decision to discourage possesion of guns on their properties. We dont know why, nor does it really matter. It is their property and when all the dust settles they will over time usually get their way. If you are willing to try to argue it out in the legal arena, you may prevail. However if they are a mgmt company of any size you can bet they have attorneys by the bucket-full to engage in the contest. So you gotta ask yourself, do you feel lucky or wealthy enough to outlast them? As has been suggested moving, even with all the hassle it entails may be the lesser pain. Further thought on this comes to the question of why would ( all other things being equal) we want to live where people like us are not wanted, and where an extra level of concealment is necessary to avoid ongoing conflict?

[tbrown]

Here's another thing to consider. Even if they can't change the rules mid-lease, despite you signing something that says they can, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping them from putting the new rules in the new lease if you want to renew. Unless the law expressly prohibits certain conditions, courts usually expect you to follow a contract you sign.

It's inconvenient to move at the end of your lease but at least they're not telling you to move out in one month because the apartments were sold. http://www.chron.com/business/article/G ... 973274.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tommyg]

I don't know if the land lord can legally enforce this or not.
Texas Chl records are not public. Keep the gun with you all the time
keep it concealed. Keep your mouth quiet about it. Only keep one gun in your apt.
Store the others at a gun range locker. Move out as soon as you can and
let the management know why. Tell the N.R.A. about this offense to the constitution.

[tommyg]

This is setting a bad presidence. Write to Senator Cornyn and the NRA
Also write to the TSRA and state senators and reps. This could be the start of Gun Free Neighborhoods
If landlords get by with this then the H.O.A. will try it next.

Something needs to be done to stop this I've already started writing

[texman45]

I know I said I would not be posting on this topic again, but I found out something that has me fuming, so I'm going to vent here! Hope y'all don't mind. The landlord who bought this Texas rental property, and is imposing this gun ban, is based in Minnesota. Just for the hell of it I looked up Minnesota's gun statutes and found the following dated in 2011.

"Sub d 17 Posting trespass (e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests."

So here they are forcing Texans to abide by a rule that is illegal in their own state!!!!!!! I find that amazing (and depressing).

[Kythas]

Tell the N.R.A. about this offense to the constitution.

I see people say things like this or similar to it all the time.

The Constitution only applies to government. Government may not prohibit free speech, right to keep and bear arms, etc. However, private individuals and/or corporations may. The Constitution doesn't limit private behavior - it only limits government behavior.

The management company restricting firearms ownership is not an offense to the Constitution.

[WildBill]

What's the worst he can do? Evict you? And how would he find out to evict you? It's not like hes actually gonna check every unit and if he does, can they really open or look in every nook and cranny? I doubt it would be a problem until you had to use it and even then, if you have to use your weapon in your complex, wouldn't you want to move anyways? I don't know, seems crazy, wouldn't want to deal with that myself.

Tell the N.R.A. about this offense to the constitution.

I see people say things like this or similar to it all the time.

The Constitution only applies to government. Government may not prohibit free speech, right to keep and bear arms, etc. However, private individuals and/or corporations may. The Constitution doesn't limit private behavior - it only limits government behavior.

The management company restricting firearms ownership is not an offense to the Constitution.

Leases are a business contract. Even if the lease states that you can't have firearms on the property, it not a violation of the law if you keep firearms. IMO, all they can do is kick you out. IANAL.

[tommyg]

How about an H.O.A. changing the by laws. They can forclose your property for violations of their rules
If you rent you don't have a lot to loose by moving out. If you own then it is a lot harder especially
if you do not have enough equaity to pay off your loan. This can be financial ruin if you have a gun for defense.

If there is a private road then it could be legally posted a lot of
H.O.A have private roads as the only way in or out.


I'm not a lawyer I'm a landlord. I have enough sense to avoid H.O.A. like the plague
But it is getting harder to avoid them and live in a decent neighborhood.
Need to make an issue of this one and try to nip it in the bud

[WildBill]

How about an H.O.A. changing the by laws. They can forclose your property for violations of their rules
If you rent you don't have a lot to loose by moving out. If you own then it is a lot harder especially
if you do not have enough equaity to pay off your loan. This can be financial ruin if you have a gun for defense.

If there is a private road then it could be legally posted a lot of
H.O.A have private roads as the only way in or out.


I'm not a lawyer I'm a landlord. I have enough sense to avoid H.O.A. like the plague
But it is getting harder to avoid them and live in a decent neighborhood.
Need to make an issue of this one and try to nip it in the bud

I am a "landlord", but I am not a lawyer. I believe that [in Texas], a HOA could not legally enforce regulations contrary to Texas law or the Texas Constitution. That would be an illegal contract.

[Heartland Patriot]

How about an H.O.A. changing the by laws. They can forclose your property for violations of their rules
If you rent you don't have a lot to loose by moving out. If you own then it is a lot harder especially
if you do not have enough equaity to pay off your loan. This can be financial ruin if you have a gun for defense.

If there is a private road then it could be legally posted a lot of
H.O.A have private roads as the only way in or out.


I'm not a lawyer I'm a landlord. I have enough sense to avoid H.O.A. like the plague
But it is getting harder to avoid them and live in a decent neighborhood.
Need to make an issue of this one and try to nip it in the bud

I am a "landlord", but I am not a lawyer. I believe that [in Texas], a HOA could not legally enforce regulations contrary to Texas law or the Texas Constitution. That would be an illegal contract.

That is what I have been wondering while reading this thread. What defines the contract as illegal? I understand property owners rights and they are very important to our way of life, but if they can tell folks that they can't have firearms in their homes, then can they tell them they may not engage in political speech in that same home? Or that the property owner may come in at any hour of any day without any sort of consent from the person living there and paying rent, and riffle through the belongings of the tenant and take anything the owners wants to take just because the owner feels like it? Or that the owner will be bunking some of their relatives with you, whether you like it or not? I know some of you are landlords and I mean no disrespect to the good ones, and I also understand that some of you'll "blankety-blank well do with your property as you please"...but there have to be some sort of limits where it comes to the basic rights of the individual...otherwise, what is to keep a political party from telling the private property owners that you WILL enforce ___________ (fill in the blank) policy if you know what is good for you, thereby making de facto law without it being on the books?

[WildBill]

That is what I have been wondering while reading this thread. What defines the contract as illegal?

Again IANAL, but I will give an example of an "illegal contract." Let's say I want you to kill someone so I have you sign a paper that states that you will kill a person for the sum of $10,000. You sign the contract, but don't follow through with your side of the agreement. I can not sue you for not killing the person because murder is an illegal act. This is a very obvious illegal contract.

Let's say that I sell you a house and tell you that you can't sell or rent the property to "black people" and you sign the contract and buy the house. If the original property owners tried to sue you at a later date for selling the property to "black people", even though you agreed to the terms of the sale, that would be an illegal contract. Again IANAL. If any lawyers want to give their opinion, please do so.

Things such as gun ownership are not so clear. I don't know if there is any case law on this subject.

[JALLEN]

I am not a Texas lawyer, but a California real estate lawyer, where the rights and duties of landlords and tenants are somewhat differently defined.

I recall going to a seminar years ago, on the topic of doing real estate business in Texas. Some title company sponsored it and had a lawyer from Houston, one from Dallas, a Texas broker and a Texas developer on the panel. At the end of the program, they opened it up for questions from the attendees. One fellow went to the microphone and said, "I want to know about subdivision regulations and tenant's rights!"

The panelists kind of looked at each other back and forth in uncertainty, not quite sure who would take the response, and finally the lawyer from Houston grabbed the microphone and said, "Few, and none!"

The answer to the question probably involves conflicting values under the law, and the answer will be given in a case involving the lease language and the existing statutes and case law in Texas. On the one hand, the lease reserves the right to the landlord to impose rules, and modify those rules during the term of the lease, as long as the term and cost of the lease is not involved. On the other hand, the claim of Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, self-defense, having a permit, etc. come into play. I have the feeling the outcome might be different in Houston or Austin than in, say, Junction or Amarillo.

When I grew up back there, property rights were often paramount, so an owner could do pretty much what (s)he wanted. Conflicts were most often resolved in favor of the owner. Whether that continues to be so now, I can't say.