Firearm provision in lease agreement

I'm a university student and I shoot skeet on the weekends. Currently getting ready to sign an apartment lease for next year and I noticed this clause. Section C is the part I am confused about, as it involves roommate terminology and is worded in a rather specific way. I follow my state's (Missouri) laws and am knowledgeable about firearm safety. The unit I will be leasing is not shared with other roommates. Does this clause prevent me specifically from storing skeet gear (shotgun, shells, eye/ear protection, etc.) in my apartment, provided it is stored securely?

Tenant shall not, or permit any of Tenant's guests or invitees to, (a) unless otherwise permitted by the Rules and Regulations, keep any item of a dangerous, flammable or explosive character that might unreasonably increase the danger of fire or explosion or that might be considered hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company; (b) engage in the manufacture, sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute or use illegal drugs, controlled substances or drug paraphernalia; (c) engage in acts of violence or threats of violence, including, but not limited to, displaying, discharging, or possessing a firearm, knife, or other weapon that may threaten, alarm or intimidate others or roommates; (d) engage or assist in the consumption of alcohol by a person under the legal age to consume alcohol in the State in which the Neighborhood is located, or (e) engage in any other illegal activities. It is understood and agreed that a single violation of this section shall be a default of the Lease.

If clause (c) were to be read as preventing possession of a firearm, then it's going to be very difficult to live in this apartment. Plan to eat out every night, and you won't be able to possess a knife to prepare or eat food with.

@anonymous: Well, that's down to grammar. Is it "[. ] (firearm, knife or other weapon) that may threaten, alarm or intimidate [. ]" or is it "firearm, knife or (other weapon that may threaten, alarm or intimidate) [. ]"? Those are different sentences.

". or possessing a firearm, knife, or other weapon. " I wonder if they realize that they've eliminated the ability of their tenants to have silverware, or basic food-prep implements?

5 Answers 5

Clauses (a) and (c) are potentially relevant. You have to look in the Rules & Regulations to see what exceptions are permitted. Although firearms and especially shotgun shells are of a "dangerous, flammable or explosive character", it is reasonable to believe that when stored properly, they do not unreasonably increase the danger of fire or explosion, and would not be considered hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company. On the latter point, you could ask any responsible insurance company if they would consider such shells to be hazardous.

While in ordinary language simple possession of a firearm is not a threat of violence, the wording of clause (c) is open to a wider interpretation, since acts considered to be a threat of violence include displaying or possessing a firearm, knife, or other weapon that may threaten, alarm or intimidate others. The fact is that many people are alarmed by the simple existence of a weapon, so simply possessing a weapon could be interpreted as a "threat" in this special sense.

Since you are not in the position of having signed the lease and now need to deal with the consequences of this clause, the simplest solution is to explain your interest, and ask them if having your gear in your apartment would be a violation of the lease. Be really clear about this and get it in writing in some form, if they say "no problem". Then either pick a different place, pick a different hobby, or find a separate storage facility.

If you cannot possess a properly stored shotgun, than you cannot possess a properly stored knife which is going to make it hard to cook.

@StrongBad: That hinges on the assumption that "safe storage" means the same for both knives and shotguns. And since there's no objective answer there, the advice from this question is relevant. Especially where there's no objective answer, agreement between parties is a suitable replacement.

I do not see how you can violate this section without threatening someone.

(C) has, I count 6 components. Pay close attention to how they interact.

engage in acts of violence or threats of violence,

This is the crux. It's a pretty clear statement, and its definition is reasonably narrow. Perfectly appropriate for a rental agreement. Don't hurt people, don't threaten to hurt them.

”Threat" means a credible threat that would pass a "Reasonable Person" test, i,e. A reasonable person would feel threatened. If you go over to your goldfish bowl and say "sic 'em Nemo, tear his throat out", that's not a real threat. But don't push it.

If you said that same thing about a ferret, that could be credible, the issue isn't whether a ferret is physically capable of it, but whether a "Reasonable Person" would think it *might. It's a Reasonable person, not an Omniscient one.

That specific language means absolutely anything could cause the above effects, including your fists, a drone, pet ferret, whatever. It is saying that what follows are only examples to give you a sense of what the first part means. Nothing reasonable is excluded, but you probably can't violate the above rule with a bag of popcorn or a child's bubble blower.

The lawyers don't even need the examples that follow, they are more for the benefit of teenage tenants reading this.

displaying, discharging, or possessing

This part is irrelevant, since it's only providing examples of methods to accomplish the first part. "Stay away from my girlfriend, I have guns" would fit the example because it is a threat that is made via possessing.

But if you said "Stay away from my girlfriend, I have a big iron pipe", it doesn't matter whether you actually have a big iron pipe. So you can violate without displaying, discharging or possessing anything.

It doesn't even need to be about possessing a thing, threatening a fellow gamer or minor online celebrity would also violate.

a firearm, knife, or other weapon

This part is irrelevant, since it's only providing examples, again, it wouldn't matter if the attack weapon was a Cisco router.

that may threaten, alarm or intimidate

Again, we are still in the "example" zone, and it's only applicable to the first part. So they mean "a threat of violence that may threaten, alarm or intimidate".

• a threat of violence that may threaten (duh)
• a threat of violence that may alarm
• a threat of violence that may intimidate

The "Reasonable Person" test applies. Some snowflake can whip themselves into a lather because they saw a copy of Guns and Ammo in your mailbox, but that is not a threat of violence. That said, don't push it i.e. troll them or prey on their fears to make them uncomfortable, because the least misunderstanding could indeed turn into a credible threat.

Also irrelevant, since it means any human.

To be honest, the "Threats of violence [. ] including [. ] possessing a firearm" is not the same as "Threats of violence including telling someone about possessing a firearm". I can't speak for what's intended, but the sample given is "possession", not "speaking about possession".

@DavidMulder when you add the phrase "but not limited to" it becomes the same. You are saying lack of actual possession should make a difference, but that's only true if parties could definitely know that which is not legally possible. Israel has a policy of ambiguity on whether they have war-ready nukes. Egypt has to assume the worst because they can't know, so does the victim here.

Your parsing of the pertinent section is incorrect. The phrase "acts of violence or threats of violence" defines a category of prohibited conduct. The phrase "including, but not limited to" provides a clarifying modifier indicating that the following phrase is non-exclusive examples of the prior phrase. The Phrase "displaying, discharging, or possessing" provides the non-exclusive examples of conduct. The phrase "a firearm, knife, or other weapon" defines what that conduct applies to.

If you ever find yourself parsing the meaning or intent of a contract, and using the phrase "this part is irrelevant", that's a sign that you aren't parsing it correctly. (A particular part of a contract may be irrelevant to a particular situation, but it will never be irrelevant to determining the meaning or intent of the contract.

@TheoBrinkman all true, but I am using "this part is irrelevant" to provide a layman's meaning of "clarifying modifier" and "non-exclusive examples". Yes, they don't mean quite the same thing, but my goal is to deflect the idea that hitting someone with a frying pan should be OK since it is not enumerated. I mean, collectively the last 4 clauses basically mean brandishing, but clause 2 makes it clear the landlord reserves the right to broaden the definition e.g. To a Facebook threat.

Though the answer by @user6726 is correct and the advice good, you might still be interested to know the technicality that you asked about: Does a lease worded as you stated prevent anyone from possessing a firearm in that home?

People are usually looking for "yes" or "no" answers with this type of legal inquiry, but the reality is that, when the wording is ambiguous or has obvious major flaws, then the answer is not "yes" or "no" and it is up to the whim of whoever is making the decision. If this went to court, say, if a tenant believed the landlord was breaking the lease by kicking them out, then it would be up to whatever that particular judge felt like ruling at that particular time.

The landlord can easily point to (c) and say "They possessed a firearm, which is listed as being a 'threat of violence.'"

You can easily point to (c) and say "The lease also prohibits knives, so any sane person must assume that the lease makes certain reasonable assumptions."

Both parties would be correct. In a situation like this, there is not currently an answer, and there will only be an answer in the future if the matter is pressed. The correct way to view this is not that "As it stands now, the action is prohibited," or "As it stands now, the action is allowed," but rather as "As it stands now, the action is neither prohibited nor allowed, but it will become one or the other at some future time when the matter is pressed by either party, and which it becomes depends on the person making the decision."

If either party has any thought that it could be decided against them in the future, then entering into such a deal is a risk. Like all risks, the risk taker would need to weigh both sides, and without all the details (does your landlord hate guns? is your landlord a gun-rights advocate? are they nice? etc.) nobody is likely to be able to make an informed decision about what the answer will become in the future.

This is why the accepted answer's suggestion is good; both parties need to do something to disambiguate the contract so that the answer exists when the deal is being struck instead of in some unknown future.