Can a landlord ban firearms?

[jluck]

ORS 90.245 states (among other things) that:
(1) A rental agreement may not provide that the tenant:
(a) Agrees to waive or forgo rights or remedies under this chapter;

The rights you cannot be forced to waive are those listed within the chapter, section 90 specifically. A rental agreement can require you to forgo the storage of lawfully obtained and posessed personal goods on the property. This is neither opinion nor conjecture.
For example it is legal to own a 5 gallon can of gasoline, but it is also legal for your landlord to prohibit the possesion and storage of gasoline on his property.

It is legal, if you don't wish to abide by those contractual terms then don't contract with that landlord.



ORS section 90 and all subsequent subsections are available online and detail landlord/tenant relations.
There is no need to hire a lawyer, just read the law.

This is useful info, Thanks.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

As a landlord in Oregon I have the right to legally discriminate against anyone that is not federally protected. I can't refuse to rent to someone based on color, faith, sexual orientation, etc. but I can discriminate against pet owners, smokers, gun owners, etc.

Generally, a landlord may not enforce a lease that purports to limit a tenant's legal rights. You can't have a lease that prevents the tenant from suing you if they are injured due to your negligent maintenance practices, for instance. You do have a constitutional right to own firearms. I'm not sure a landlord can force you to bargain that right away either.

 

[Koda]

I think in Oregon the landlord is only required to post 24 hour notice of entry. Unless a state law prohibits a "no gun" clause in leases its enforceable.

When I rented I rented both rooms in a house and apartments. I was honest with the house landlord though and surprisingly he accepted me. Anyways, In all cases nobody not even my roommates saw my pistol. As a renter my gun was out of sight out of mind.

 

[CJ1089]

Generally, a landlord may not enforce a lease that purports to limit a tenant's legal rights. You can't have a lease that prevents the tenant from suing you if they are injured due to your negligent maintenance practices, for instance. You do have a constitutional right to own firearms. I'm not sure a landlord can force you to bargain that right away either.

The example given does not address the question asked. The question is concerning the storage of firearms within the rental space. The hypothetical rental agreement does not ban the ownership of firearms, just that they are not welcome within the rental space.
A landlord can place any manner of restrictions on activities allowed within the boundaries of his property. These 'rules' can be almost anything, unless specifically prohibited by law. A hyperbolic example would be a restriction stating: no parking of green cars in the garage, they must be on the street. While absurd, this is legal.
This is good and right, it is his property so he sets the rules. While the landlord's rights to specify conditions are vast, they do have limits and are front loaded. They have to be in the contract before it is signed to be enforceable.

Additionally, while the 2nd underlines the right to own firearms, that right is not absolute according to the interpretation of the SCOTUS, e.g. you can own a pistol but not take it into the local county courthouse.

If you don't like the man's rules, negotiate a new set or live somewhere else.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

The example given does not address the question asked. The question is concerning the storage of firearms within the rental space. The hypothetical rental agreement does not ban the ownership of firearms, just that they are not welcome within the rental space.
A landlord can place any manner of restrictions on activities allowed within the boundaries of his property. These 'rules' can be almost anything, unless specifically prohibited by law. A hyperbolic example would be a restriction stating: no parking of green cars in the garage, they must be on the street. While absurd, this is legal.
This is good and right, it is his property so he sets the rules. While the landlord's rights to specify conditions are vast, they do have limits and are front loaded. They have to be in the contract before it is signed to be enforceable.

Additionally, while the 2nd underlines the right to own firearms, that right is not absolute according to the interpretation of the SCOTUS, e.g. you can own a pistol but not take it into the local county courthouse.

If you don't like the man's rules, negotiate a new set or live somewhere else.

CJ is right on this point. While the 2A Right is enumerated in the US Constitution a property owner does not have to allow them on his/her private property. When you rent the apartment, you are in a space on the landlords private property. They can tell you you are not allowed to have guns there, just like a store owner can prohibit guns in their establishment.

My ADVICE to OP, as a long time renter in both Washington and Oregon. Read the fine print of the rental agreement. Some are more lengthy than others (the devil is in the details). IF you don't see anything about firearms, great. They didn't bring it up in the agreement, you shouldn't bring it up either. Additionally wherever you rent READ all of the pertinent regulations in the State first. Google will be your best friend here (it seems the two of you have already met). Search "Landlord/Tenant Law {Enter State Name}"

My safe was in the back corner of my closet and had other boxes of misc. stuff stacked around it. You would have to really be looking to find it. However anytime the manager wanted to enter my home for annual inspection, maint., etc; I made sure I was home.

The bigger problem as I see it is neighbors. I was real careful about how I would move firearms from my apartment to my car. You don't know who is watching you at any given moment in an apartment setting, no need to advertise you have something worth stealing. Also no need to call the landlords attention to something they may want to prohibit when it comes time to renew your lease.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[PainCakesx]

Thanks for the responses. I haven't actually seen the lease agreements yet for this specific house - I just wanted to be armed with knowledge on the issue before going in to sign it. For all I know, it's a complete non-issue.

The 3rd potentialy roommate seems like they're backing out, so it's me, a friend of mine and an unknown 3rd person. The friend I have should be good to go - I've known him for a while, he's always been an upstanding guy, and he grew up in a gun owning family (shoots with his dad, owns a gun or two, etc.) No felony convictions that I'm aware of. He and I have come to an agreement of no drug use in the house, including marijuana, so that at least should not be a problem. (not only a gun issue, but any drug accusations would really throw my medical school plans in the can)

The house is not affiliated in any way with the university, it's owned by a family. I would be keeping the guns and ammo locked up at all times unless I'm personally carrying the firearm. Additionally, the house is in an area that is commonly inhabited by students, but it's also in a neighborhood that is also occupied by families and permanent residents. The adjacent neighbor specifically usually keeps a lookout for suspicious activity and is very protective of the property that we'll be in (he has been known to confront people in the neighborhood suspected of breaking into cars). Additionally, I'd be taking all my firearms with me when leaving for an extended period of time.

A couple more questions:

Someone mentioned that I should check to ensure that the prospective roommate isn't a felon. This is my first time seeking out a roommate that I'm not personally familiar with, so I'm pretty inexperienced in this area. How would you recommend I screen him? Since I technically don't own the property, I'm not sure what leverage I would have in barring a potential felon from moving in. Additionally, would keeping them locked up along with a lock on my bedroom be sufficient if he were a felon (assuming I don't tell him about them)?

These may be really, really basic questions but I want to try to be as in the clear as I can. Thanks!

 

[The Heretic]

You can pay to have a background check done - depending on the depth and breadth, it should cost under $100.

I would suggest just backing out of the deal if the 3rd "unknown" has anything bad in his background. You don't have to sign the lease with anybody, and any time someone new comes into a rented/leased property, generally all current occupants have to resign a new lease with that new party part of it.

As for having a felon in the house with firearms, the legalities of that are a grey area to a flat out no-go - especially for the felon. So avoid it altogether.

 

[JSJPDX]

Thanks for the responses. I haven't actually seen the lease agreements yet for this specific house - I just wanted to be armed with knowledge on the issue before going in to sign it. For all I know, it's a complete non-issue.

The 3rd potentialy roommate seems like they're backing out, so it's me, a friend of mine and an unknown 3rd person. The friend I have should be good to go - I've known him for a while, he's always been an upstanding guy, and he grew up in a gun owning family (shoots with his dad, owns a gun or two, etc.) No felony convictions that I'm aware of. He and I have come to an agreement of no drug use in the house, including marijuana, so that at least should not be a problem. (not only a gun issue, but any drug accusations would really throw my medical school plans in the can)

The house is not affiliated in any way with the university, it's owned by a family. I would be keeping the guns and ammo locked up at all times unless I'm personally carrying the firearm. Additionally, the house is in an area that is commonly inhabited by students, but it's also in a neighborhood that is also occupied by families and permanent residents. The adjacent neighbor specifically usually keeps a lookout for suspicious activity and is very protective of the property that we'll be in (he has been known to confront people in the neighborhood suspected of breaking into cars). Additionally, I'd be taking all my firearms with me when leaving for an extended period of time.

A couple more questions:

Someone mentioned that I should check to ensure that the prospective roommate isn't a felon. This is my first time seeking out a roommate that I'm not personally familiar with, so I'm pretty inexperienced in this area. How would you recommend I screen him? Since I technically don't own the property, I'm not sure what leverage I would have in barring a potential felon from moving in. Additionally, would keeping them locked up along with a lock on my bedroom be sufficient if he were a felon (assuming I don't tell him about them)?

These may be really, really basic questions but I want to try to be as in the clear as I can. Thanks!

Talk to your potential landlord about screening applicants. I screen all my potential tenants and generally will screen out felons and not rent to them. The lease with all three room mates will be with the landlord and not with you so the landlord has a lot of skin in the game.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Your local county courthouse should have a public access Oregon Judicial Information Network (OJIN) terminal. Look up the name.

 

[RicInOR]

Felons who have served their time may be good guys. I work with a fellow who at 18 did something stupid in HS and his parents got him to accept the felon deal. Now in his 40s he is a good guy.

But others - especially sex offenders - can get you visits from LEOs.

And since Felons cannot be in possession of a firearm, you wouldn't want some cop concluding that you let that happen. Would that stand in court? Does it mater?

 

[ocarolan]

I was real careful about how I would move firearms from my apartment to my car. You don't know who is watching you at any given moment in an apartment setting, no need to advertise you have something worth stealing.

Remember technically this is concealed carry under ORS 166.250. There is no exception for transporting a locked, unloaded firearm to your car parked on the street. As the law currently stands, you must open carry.

In fact, this year the court ruled carry on your own yard and driveway may also be concealed carry. Your place of residence under 166.250(2)(b) does not include your property. Applying this decision, a firearm must be carried openly to your car.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1658323.html

As an alternative, you can disassemble the firearm and transport it with multiple trips. Per Briney 2008, a partial firearm is exempt from 166.250.

Of course, in practice it's not likely to be an issue. Do not attract LEO attention and do not consent to any searches.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Remember technically this is concealed carry under ORS 166.250. There is no exception for transporting a locked, unloaded firearm to your car parked on the street. As the law currently stands, you must open carry.

In fact, this year the court ruled carry on your own yard and driveway may also be concealed carry. Your place of residence under 166.250(2)(b) does not include your property. Applying this decision, a firearm must be carried openly to your car.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1658323.html

As an alternative, you can disassemble the firearm and transport it with multiple trips. Per Briney 2008, a partial firearm is exempt from 166.250.

Of course, in practice it's not likely to be an issue. Do not attract LEO attention and do not consent to any searches.

This is certainly an interesting interpretation of the regulation. I am not entirely sure it is accurate to my point however. Please forgive the minutiae of detail here but I earn my living interpreting government regulations, no I am not an attorney.

In transporting firearms to my car, locked in a gun case, with the key on the key ring (not in the case), I would not have committed the crime of unlawful possession under ORS 166.250(1)(a). Such a violation requires the gun to be "concealed upon the person." It is not upon my person but rather locked in a gun case being transported to my vehicle or apartment.

Furthermore such activity would not satisfy the definition of unlawful under ORS 166.250(1)(b) because the firearms are stored in the trunk of my car. If I had a truck they could be stored behind the seat and still be within the regulatory allowance as they would be locked and the key is on my key ring and not in the lock of the case.

ORS 166.250(1)(c) doesn't apply at all since I am over 18 years of age.

Additionally let it be known to all here (including the NSA) I have slept, eaten and consumed non-alcoholic beverages within my car. Therefore I can honestly declare it as part of my "place of residence" .

I also got my concealed licenses in both Washington and Oregon.

Lastly such a reading of the courts opinion is going to drive you crazy dude. If you don't engage in general asshattery, like shooting your significant others cell phone and then trying to hide the evidence, you won't be put in the big house because you were carrying your gun to your car or house. However open carry your rifles to your car in an apartment setting and see what kind of attention you attract then.

 

[ocarolan]

In transporting firearms to my car, locked in a gun case, with the key on the key ring (not in the case), I would not have committed the crime of unlawful possession under ORS 166.250(1)(a). Such a violation requires the gun to be "concealed upon the person."

The Court has consistently ruled carry in a bag, suitcase or other container qualifies as "concealed upon the person". This was affirmed against Ms Finlay (2002) and Mr. Anfield (1992) for example.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1329219.html

"...The contents of those bags were "upon the person." The particular characteristics of the bag here do not obviate the fact that defendant carried the bag and that the bag contained a firearm. Thus, defendant's conduct falls squarely within the interpretation of ORS 166.250(1)(a)"

Lastly such a reading of the courts opinion is going to drive you crazy dude. If you don't engage in general asshattery, like shooting your significant others cell phone and then trying to hide the evidence, you won't be put in the big house because you were carrying your gun to your car or house.

Just remember the resulting case law still applies to everyone. An anti-gun circuit judge could easily take that case and use it against you. Look at Ms. Finlay. She was innocent and is now a felon, based on the case law of a druggie (Anfield).

Next, I aim to be fully legal, as I never know when my conduct could be questioned. Consider this scenario for example:

You carry a cased rifle to your car. The rifle falls out and you replace it. A passerby notices and calls in "man with a gun" to 911. While carrying a second rifle case to your car, the police show up and search you. They charge you with concealed carry.

Here in Multnomah County, with the right judge, such a charge could very well be pursued against you. Technically you are breaking the law and have no recourse.

I agree open carry is a poor idea, but would ensure the gun is "inoperable" (per Briney) and locked in this scenario. Or get a CHL.

 

[Koda]

Ocarolan, thank you for the case law source... ive always had questions on this. Even though i have a chl Ive always wondered how someone can tranport a firearm legally on foot without a chl.

To add to this and correct me if im wrong but its my understanding the on the federal level it doesnt even matter if the firearm is disassembled.... a reciever is a firearm. I dont know if thats really true or how it would apply on the state level but its something to question.

 

[ocarolan]

To add to this and correct me if im wrong but its my understanding the on the federal level it doesnt even matter if the firearm is disassembled.... a reciever is a firearm. I dont know if thats really true or how it would apply on the state level but its something to question.

I think we discussed this before. The state court has decided non-functional guns and disassembled guns still meet the definition of "readily capable of being used as a weapon" with respect to ORS 166.270. See Goltz or Gortmaker.
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/how-to-legally-transport.170385/#post-1105549

(Some folks might dissent from the idea that a rifle with no bolt is "a firearm readily capable of use", but there you go.)

Fortunately the court tempered those decisions in Briney. They decided a gun with no firing pin did not qualify as a firearm, but only with respect to ORS 166.250. That ruling was carefully worded to avoid reversing the Goltz and Gortmaker decisions on 166.270.

So even though ORS 166.210 (2) has one definition of 'firearm', the court interprets the definition in two different ways.

 

[The Heretic]

The Court has consistently ruled carry in a bag, suitcase or other container qualifies as "concealed upon the person". This was affirmed against Ms Finlay (2002) and Mr. Anfield (1992) for example.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1329219.html

"...The contents of those bags were "upon the person." The particular characteristics of the bag here do not obviate the fact that defendant carried the bag and that the bag contained a firearm. Thus, defendant's conduct falls squarely within the interpretation of ORS 166.250(1)(a)"




Just remember the resulting case law still applies to everyone. An anti-gun circuit judge could easily take that case and use it against you. Look at Ms. Finlay. She was innocent and is now a felon, based on the case law of a druggie (Anfield).

Next, I aim to be fully legal, as I never know when my conduct could be questioned. Consider this scenario for example:

You carry a cased rifle to your car. The rifle falls out and you replace it. A passerby notices and calls in "man with a gun" to 911. While carrying a second rifle case to your car, the police show up and search you. They charge you with concealed carry.

Here in Multnomah County, with the right judge, such a charge could very well be pursued against you. Technically you are breaking the law and have no recourse.

I agree open carry is a poor idea, but would ensure the gun is "inoperable" (per Briney) and locked in this scenario. Or get a CHL.

Interesting interpretations of the law but a CHL does not help with a rifle.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

ORS 166.250(1)(c) doesn't apply at all since I am over 18 years of age.

Too true, Oregon's gun laws are so jumbled and contradictory it's pathetic.


Eagle

Edit: It would be interesting to see if the courts found that a case that is specifically designed to be fore a gun would possibly make it OC. After all it is reasonable to assume that a gun would be in a gun case... though not so in a guitar case or something similar.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

The Court has consistently ruled carry in a bag, suitcase or other container qualifies as "concealed upon the person". This was affirmed against Ms Finlay (2002) and Mr. Anfield (1992) for example.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1329219.html

"...The contents of those bags were "upon the person." The particular characteristics of the bag here do not obviate the fact that defendant carried the bag and that the bag contained a firearm. Thus, defendant's conduct falls squarely within the interpretation of ORS 166.250(1)(a)"




Just remember the resulting case law still applies to everyone. An anti-gun circuit judge could easily take that case and use it against you. Look at Ms. Finlay. She was innocent and is now a felon, based on the case law of a druggie (Anfield).

Next, I aim to be fully legal, as I never know when my conduct could be questioned. Consider this scenario for example:

You carry a cased rifle to your car. The rifle falls out and you replace it. A passerby notices and calls in "man with a gun" to 911. While carrying a second rifle case to your car, the police show up and search you. They charge you with concealed carry.

Here in Multnomah County, with the right judge, such a charge could very well be pursued against you. Technically you are breaking the law and have no recourse.

I agree open carry is a poor idea, but would ensure the gun is "inoperable" (per Briney) and locked in this scenario. Or get a CHL.

Okay well I have to admit when my summation was incorrect in its understanding. Thanks for presenting the case relevant case findings. I have spent a bit this morning reading through them in greater detail. It does appear on the surface, underneath and at all other levels that carrying a firearm in a case could be construed as concealed carry. So the idea that it is not on your person while carrying, in said container, is not a valid defense and can land you in hot water just out of spite.

However I find it difficult to overlook one important part of each of these cases. The defendant did something to attract attention to their actions. Which speaks to your earlier point of don't attract attention.

Finlay - She failed to follow Federal regulation regarding the carry of firearms for transport on commercial aircraft. She also failed to follow the airlines regulations on the same. I don't know her state of mind, only she knows that. Is she innocent because she was stupid? Ignorance is never a good defense.

Anfield - Either he or his friend wrecked a car at 3am by driving it into a tree. His friend left the scene, convenient . Anfield removes the loaded guns from the car. He is holding the when the police arrive and the drops it on the ground.

Clemente-Perez - Psychologically abused his wife and destroyed her property, then tried to play slick with the evidence. He in essence screwed himself.

Is the courts interpretation correct? Not in my opinion, but last I checked my opinion counted for precious little in the grand scheme of life.

All of these cases prove one thing. If you violate rules one & two of life the law will find a way to ensure you will pay dearly for your mis-step.

Rule One - Don't Ef Up!!
Rule Two - Don't get caught violating Rule One!!


Mandrake