Remove your guns from the apartment or you are evicted

[longbow]

Mail came, No certified letter yet!

 

[Bill of Rights]

While it is good that the company is responsive, I am sorry to see someone lose his employment in this economy. This is not to say that the fault of that job loss is anyone's but the former manager's; the only person who can get you fired is you.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[FutureButterBar]

not a lawyer, but a lot of states have laws that say if you are within our rights, you can not be punsihed for it. Personally, I'd move out anyway. who wants to live somewhere like that? tell them to give you your money back and ull leave

 

[snowman46919]

not a lawyer, but a lot of states have laws that say if you are within our rights, you can not be punsihed for it. Personally, I'd move out anyway. who wants to live somewhere like that? tell them to give you your money back and ull leave

Its been said several times that the person in question is moving out and a request for a pro rated return of rent has been requested.

 

[longbow]

Its been said several times that the person in question is moving out and a request for a pro rated return of rent has been requested.

Yep!!!

 

[japartridge]

ya'll new-comers to the thread really need to read the whole thing!

Hey, I understand, it takes a lotta time for me here at work to be able to keep up on all these threads, but somebodies gotta do it!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I may catch hell for this but I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of people on this thread. I generally think the government should stay out of people's business as much as possible so I side with the private property owner and say that they should be allowed to decide whether or nor firearms are allowed on their property, unless specifically bound by a contract to allow firearms.

It may be stupid and without reason that a private property owner bans firearms. But private property is private property and people should be able to decide what is and is not allowed on their own land without government interference. Unless there's a contract or some other agreement in place.

Please feel free to disagree but let's keep it civil.

Your not going to catch hell from me at least. I agree with you on this. The property owner should have the right to ban whatever or whoever he/she wants. But it needs to be stated up front, in the contract there is nothing banning firearms, if the property owner wishes to ban them it should be in the contract. It works both ways, the tenant cannot go against the contract, and neither can the owner. Once a contract is signed, it needs to be followed.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I bet be still workaround there; it's surprisingly hard to fire people even in at at-will employment state. To save face and to deal with someone a bit more professional than the manager, I bet they are having you deal with corporate. I can also imagine a scenario where the manager recounted his tale to HR how he was exposed to a disease known as EBR (evil black rifle) of which there is no known cure... And he asked for his precious eyes to no longer be exposed to such violence. Or maybe corporate thinks you're a gun nut lunatic who will shoot him in anger the next time you sew him and they want to remove the object of your "anger" .... Where is that roll eyed smiley?

 

[Indy317]

sounds to me like it's time to contact a lawyer.... let's see, trespassing, breaking and entering, illegal search, violating constitutional rights.... yeah, I'm thinking an NRA lawyer would have a field day.... so do you and your son want to own the complex?

It isn't time to contact an attorney. That, to me, would be money wasted. I wouldn't even have had that discussion with them about gun definitions, etc.. I would stated that the firearm was stored safely and if they feel that the inspector can just randomly pick and choose what he/she feels is unsafe or whatever, then we all need to go to court on the eviction hearing and let the judge rule. The fact that someone who is a target of legal action is willing to let the judge decide is sometimes more than enough to make those issuing threats of legal action to back down.

Call their bluff. Tell them you need names of everyone involved so you can have summons to appear at the eviction hearing sent out. Lots of people love to threaten legal action, most don't want anything to do with having to actually present an argument to a judge. People not paying their rent is one thing, issues like this that are subjective are on another level. If rent has been paid on time and the person is in good standing, then I would discuss the rational about having two or more employees called to court, the possibility of having to pay an attorney to show up to argue their side, etc.. That might be a good time to discuss a mutual ending of the rental agreement and going your separate ways (minus any fees, rent owed for the remaining contract, etc..). Why continue to live at Reich Commons or whatever the place is called?

 

[japartridge]

ya'll new-comers to the thread really need to read the whole thing!

Hey, I understand, it takes a lotta time for me here at work to be able to keep up on all these threads, but somebodies gotta do it!

It isn't time to contact an attorney. That, to me, would be money wasted. I wouldn't even have had that discussion with them about gun definitions, etc.. I would stated that the firearm was stored safely and if they feel that the inspector can just randomly pick and choose what he/she feels is unsafe or whatever, then we all need to go to court on the eviction hearing and let the judge rule. The fact that someone who is a target of legal action is willing to let the judge decide is sometimes more than enough to make those issuing threats of legal action to back down.

Call their bluff. Tell them you need names of everyone involved so you can have summons to appear at the eviction hearing sent out. Lots of people love to threaten legal action, most don't want anything to do with having to actually present an argument to a judge. People not paying their rent is one thing, issues like this that are subjective are on another level. If rent has been paid on time and the person is in good standing, then I would discuss the rational about having two or more employees called to court, the possibility of having to pay an attorney to show up to argue their side, etc.. That might be a good time to discuss a mutual ending of the rental agreement and going your separate ways (minus any fees, rent owed for the remaining contract, etc..). Why continue to live at Reich Commons or whatever the place is called?

refer to where I quoted myself... all this has already been done.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Tell me how they were able to simply open someone's private property during an inspection? Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't they be inspecting the well being of the actual unit, not what the person has for personal possession?

I'd be FLIPPING my wig on these guys...

because the leassors ARE NOT the government and they do not need a search warrant to go into something you are leasing from them.

 

[misconfig]

because the leassors ARE NOT the government and they do not need a search warrant to go into something you are leasing from them.

I don't think that matters, property owners have an obligation to uphold, that obligation is respect and honor of the tenants personal property. It does NOT give the owner the right to snoop around people's private property.

I myself, would have personally split someone's wig.

 

[DarkRose]

because the leassors ARE NOT the government and they do not need a search warrant to go into something you are leasing from them.

My understanding is that they could inspect the unit itself, not items inside of closed and/or locked containers within the dwelling itself, UNLESS they were to spot something causing obvious damage (such as an unidentified container leaking onto the floor/carpet/wall/etc.)

 

[Scutter01]

because the leassors ARE NOT the government and they do not need a search warrant to go into something you are leasing from them.

The government doesn't need warrants anymore, either.

 

[rotag84]

Dude, simple. Go to toy store and by a toy AR and replace the rifle with it. Then tell them it was the toy they saw and they should quit snoopin'.

 

[snowman46919]

Will you people please start reading the thread and make a quality post?

 

[longbow]

Got the letter today!

 

[IndySSD]

Got the letter today!

........................





you tease!!!


**EDIT**

I see you posted it......


The part I find funny is.....


"Either way you must still remove the gun immediately"......

Or what? You'll evict him even though he's already moving out?....oh noes!!

 

[snowman46919]

Got the letter today!

........................





you tease!!!

Would you people just read the thre.... Oh... yeah you tease.

 

[hooky]

Myabe I missed something, but that sure doesn't sound like what you proposed.