Harvard Grad Student Facing Eviction over Legally Owned and Stored Firearms

Yes, first of all it is legally her house and she has a right to quiet enjoyment of her home without intrusions or meddling by the landlord. A lease, assuming she had one, is ownership for a term of years. A lease by legal definition comes with almost all the rights of fee simple ownership save the obvious.

 

The 2nd is a right granted so that the government cannot confiscate your arm. It isn't a a guarantee that a private place of business cannot forbid you to store a weapon. Following your logic private companies wouldn't be able to fire their employees for exercising their 1st amendment right.

I would agree that the landlord won't be allowed the eviction if the no weapons clause is not written into the lease.

 

They stole her guns? By what law or legal authority did the police take possession? Did the police enter her domicile? Upon who's authority did they enter? Who opened the door for the police? None of this seems even close to legal.

 

She wasn't evicted

 

Was the box transparent or did they break the lock?

 

Yes. When and if the "News" media starts following the old "4 Ws + 1H" rule again they may start recovering some of their lost credibility.

 

It may not be grounds for eviction even if it was codified into the rental / lease agreement. Remember we're talking about one's home and statute, ordinance, case law and common law are mostly protective of one's individual rights while within.

This is going to come down to the difference between a 'rental agreement' for a term of less than a year (month to month tenancy, tenancy at suffrance etc.) and a lease. A lease, being for a term longer than a year, by statute confers substantial legal rights to the tenant that a month to month tenant just doesn't enjoy.

The congregate living arrangement suggests that the residental agreement is probably the least restrictive in terms of its ability to be broken or ended. It's a rental and not a lease. Im guessing that either party can break the agreement with statutory notice on x days before an anniversary date, the first of the month etc if a month to month tenancy.

 

They are snowflakes who have been brainwashed since they were toddlers to fear guns

 

Actually, it depends on the state.

https://arpola.org/can-say-no-guns-rental-property/

 

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But I do question this since lease or not, she doesn't own the property. Is there exist a a law that say an apartment you lease is to be treated the same as your house that you bought?

 

The thing is 2nd is a right just like free speech. It can go both ways. The tenant can sue the Landlord for violating her quiet enjoyment or harassment. There is other ways the tenant can refuse to pay rent, drag it out for months with free rent and force the Landlord in sufferance. Tenant can argue to the Judge she doesn't feel safe in the area, Landlord violated her "quiet enjoyment" with all the press etc. and needed to be armed.

How did the Landlord find about that she was armed? did he come on her property without notice? Regardless what can end this argument is the actual contract and was it included in the lease? If it wasn't written in the contract forbidding firearms then she is allowed to have firearms. The Landlord can try to "add" it to the contract but she can refuse to the sign. Obviously the moment I read Harvard we all know it's in an anti-gun state.

 

He was alerted to the firearms by a letter from the other roommates.

HINT: It helps if you read the thread in its entirety.

 

Exactly.

I hate it when people comment on threads without even reading the entire linked article/thread.

Anyway, it still begs the question:

What kind of a clueless moron would bring a MAGA Hat to Harvard?

 

Until a case is sent to the SCOTUS for an interpretation, the landlord will have the right to exercise whether or not he want to allow weapons on his properties subjected to state law. Now I would agree he needs to spell out everything regarding this exclusion in the lease ahead of time in order to be able to legally evict the tenant for violation of the lease.

It is a double edge sword for a landlord to allow or disallow weapons. On the one hand, he will be liable for any mishap should said weapons be negligently discharged and somebody get hurt. Victims go after those with deep pockets. On the other hand, now he might be dealing with lawsuit from this woman who is exercising her 2nd amendment right for self protection (note though that this could be a long drawn battle and as a student, can she withstand the amount of time and money to bring a case to SCOTUS). It's a lose-lose situation for the landlord.

Did you even read the case??

Well, we are not privied to the lease, so we will never know unless either party divulge the information. I have already said if the clause is not in the lease, then she cannot be evicted.

 

I'm @ work and the link is blocked, so that's my excuse.

 

Except this is nonsense.

The story says that the firearms were stored legally and owned legally, as per the PD.

There is no such thing as obtaining the proper "permits and licenses" to own a firearm.

Just clueless nonsense.

The only crime committed here was breaking into her room.

 

Is a safe unsecured if someone breaks into it?

Are things in your house unsecured if someone breaks a window and lets themselves in?

 

If one of her roommates was born a man, had AIDS, or had a poster of Osama Bin Laden in their room would that also be grounds to search their room?

All of those could potentially be unsafe.

 

Yeah just like a drunk girl in a mini dress.

 

In many places in the United States vast tracts of land, all subdivided into residential areas are held leasehold and not fee simple or free hold. Take Pensacola Beach Florida all 99 year leases. No warranty deeds, nothing fee simple. Most of Hawaii is leasehold. Manhattan, much of it is occupied leashold. The 'property owner' may be the government but most likely a private entity.

Ownership for many connotes some absolute but in reality, by law and custom, the bundle of property rights 'purchased' is functionally the same as property rights 'leased'. Its just the term of ownership that's different and the right of disposition. Sure, in single year leases the lessor usually retains the responsibility for maintenance, taxes and insurance. That's just practical. In longer term leases it's all assumed by the lessee.

In a lease which of these bundle of property rights is transferred to the lessee?

Bundle Of Rights

What is a 'Bundle Of Rights'
A bundle of rights is a set of legal rights afforded to the real estate title holder. It can include the right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition. Real estate ownership carries with it a complex set of rights, and the bundle of rights concept has traditionally been the way in which those rights are assigned.

BREAKING DOWN 'Bundle Of Rights'
When a person purchases a piece of property, he is not necessarily afforded all of the rights in the bundle of rights. The rights can be broken up and given to different parties. This may apply to situations where the property is leased to another party, limiting the property owner’s rights based on local landlord tenant laws and regulations.

Right of Possession
The right of possession refers to the rights given to the title holder of a particular property. These rights may be limited in certain instances, such as when a title holder fails to pay required property taxes, but in most regards, the title holder is considered the owner of the property.

Right of Control
The right of control allows the title holder the ability to manage the use of the property in any means deemed legal within the jurisdiction in which the property exists. Entry into an area regulated by a homeowners' association may lead to additional restrictions being in place, though the restrictions are not technically legal standards.

Right of Exclusion
The right of exclusion allows the title holder to limit who may or may not enter the property. This applies to most situations except when certain easements are in place, or when a warrant authorizing the search of the property is properly acquired and served by a member of the law enforcement community.

Right of Enjoyment
The right to enjoyment asserts the title holder's right to participate in any activities he finds pleasurable while on the property. The activities in question must fall within the confines of the law.

Right of Disposition
The right of disposition protects the title holder’s right to transfer ownership, either permanently or temporarily, to another qualified party at will. An exclusion exists if the property owner owes a current mortgage on the property, as he must pay off the debt before ownership can be transferred. An exclusion also applies in cases where the property is subject to a lien, such as when a homeowner has failed to pay property taxes.

Anyway, back on point.

Collateral Damage did the leg work for us here:

 

Maybe they should buy a gun.

 

You mean the group of illegal trespassers who broke and entered don't you? Roommates my azz.

 

Yes, but even if rented, where you live is considered your "home" and that comes with all the relevant protections.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for the information.

 

If you suspected your roommates were doing something illegal, would you investigate or just let it be?

Before you answer, I know you will say that possessing firearms isn't illegal. True, for the most part. But possessing firearms can be illegal under a variety of different circumstances.

And the truth is that this story doesn't explain in detail how the guns were discovered.

Were they in a locked closet behind a locked door, and the roommates actually broke in? Doesn't sound like it from either side.