Legal Question, appreciate the help.

All of my regulated firearms are registered to my home address. Since I've moved in with my girlfriend recently, do I have to formally change my address before I can keep my weapons in her house? Thanks in advance for the replies.

Squig

You're fine. Registration is voluntary

Maryland doesn't register, they record.

squig said:

All of my regulated firearms are registered to my home address. Since I've moved in with my girlfriend recently, do I have to formally change my address before I can keep my weapons in her house? Thanks in advance for the replies.

Squig

Click to expand...

Nope. However, since you do not own the home. I would get the owner's consent in writting that you may store them at her house. Just a good CYA move.

Cool, thanks for the help, and for pardoning my misinterpretation of Maryland law. Now if I can just get her into shooting....

Yeah, I've argued with people who tell me Maryland has mandatory firearm registration. It's easy to see how they come to that conclusion.

Your A ok, but at the least make sure your GF doesn't have a "no-firearms" clause in her lease.

If your GF is a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a weapon (regulated or not) you cannot provide her access to them in any way. That means moving them in (even in a safe she will not have the combo to) is not a good idea. Someone here got denied by MSP for a transfer based on the fact they shared an address with someone (roommate or GF I cannot remember) who was prohibited.

I doubt this is your case, but I figured I'd toss it out there so you can see the general gist of the laws.

gprimr1 said:

Yeah, I've argued with people who tell me Maryland has mandatory firearm registration. It's easy to see how they come to that conclusion.

Your A ok, but at the least make sure your GF doesn't have a "no-firearms" clause in her lease.

Click to expand...

pretty sure a no firearms clause would be an unconstitutional violation of rights, even according to the law.


i believe in san francisco the NRA won a lawsuit about a lease provision banning guns in public housing.

Patrick said:

If your GF is a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a weapon (regulated or not) you cannot provide her access to them in any way. That means moving them in (even in a safe she will not have the combo to) is not a good idea. Someone here got denied by MSP for a transfer based on the fact they shared an address with someone (roommate or GF I cannot remember) who was prohibited.

I doubt this is your case, but I figured I'd toss it out there so you can see the general gist of the laws.

Click to expand...

it was a brothers gf what i recall...

but never too safe to have a safe..

Chaunsey said:

pretty sure a no firearms clause would be an unconstitutional violation of rights, even according to the law.


i believe in san francisco the NRA won a lawsuit about a lease provision banning guns in public housing.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between State action denying a constitutional right and private action.

Didn't Rand Paul just try to go into this the other day?

kac said:

There's a big difference between State action denying a constitutional right and private action.

Didn't Rand Paul just try to go into this the other day?

Click to expand...

that is true, however we're not talking about possessing guns in someone elses homes, we're talking about possessing in your own legal residence.

just like a land lord could not tell you what to say or what religion to follow or how to fdress or whether or not you can have sex in your apartment, they cannot tell you that you cannot own guns in your own legally rented residence.

now, whether they can make certain rules governing their storage etc, i dunno, but no matter what, even though you do not "own" the property, there are simply some things that you cannot stipulate in a lease agreement.

Chaunsey said:

now, whether they can make certain rules governing their storage etc, i dunno, but no matter what, even though you do not "own" the property, there are simply some things that you cannot stipulate in a lease agreement.

Click to expand...

You have some citation for that, other than, say, race cases and Shelley v. Isaacs?

The Supreme Court has ruled many times in many ways that a rented place of residence carries for the renter the same immunities and privileges (rights) to the renter as those of an actual home owner. The alternative would mean that "property owners" are granted more rights than others. If you look back in history, that term ("property owner") combined with "Rights" has been a serious issue (see: Jim Crow; Slavery, et al.).

A Fundamental Right cannot be abridged by a landlord. The "voluntary" nature of the renter's contract is actually non-voluntary -- every person needs a place to sleep and residential housing has a special place in law. This concept is the genesis of the many laws that abridge private contract rights when it comes to residential rentals -- everything from non-discrimination to price controls.

For instance...a landlord cannot barge into your apartment unannounced. Likewise, he cannot abridge your 4A Rights just because he owns the building (letting the police in without a warrant on his permission alone). All of this has been tested repeatedly.

Landlord restrictions must be tied to a denial of landlord rights. For instance, smoking can be banned because the residual smoke stays with the building after you leave and therefor can diminish the value of his building. Likewise, noise prohibitions demean the quality of life of other residents.

Guns are currently banned in many private lease agreements, but we've never had 2A incorporated throughout the US. If McDonald incorporates in a strong manner, these lease provisions are probably not worth the ink they are written with.

So right now private lease restrictions on guns are probably a gray area and are definitely on shaky ground. By July they should be thoroughly bunk.

EDIT: There will almost surely be cases testing gun rights on the basis that gun ownership "diminishes" values or quality of life of other residents. I am pretty sure how those will turn out (eventually). Again...all this assumes a strong incorporation of 2A.

A landlord cannot barge into your apartment because he has contracted with you to give you use and possession except under certain circumstances.

He can't abridge your 4A rights because those interests in being secure in your person, place, or thing is personal to you, not the lessor. Similarly, if we're on the street and I'm just a friend of yours, I can't waive YOUR fifth amendment rights.

This is confounding the lessor's position with the State's position. The question here is can a private person "infringe" on a person's rights. The rights in the Bill of Rights are rights held against the state, not against the public at large. Can I tell you that you have to consent to a search if you enter my house or business? Of course. Does that violate 4A? No, because I am not a state actor.

I have no idea what incorporation has to do with lease agreements. All incorporation will do will apply the second amendment to the states, not to private persons. Do you think every incorporated right suddenly means that, absent state action, no private person can affect those rights? Is that the point of the Boy Scout cases?

Anyway, this is all fun stuff that we should discuss over a beer some time! OP's question is simply answered, and I think we would both agree. He doesn't have to notify ANYBODY because he's moving the address of his guns, unless he has Title II or III implements.

Inigoes said:

You're fine. Registration is voluntary

Maryland doesn't register, they record.

Click to expand...

lol, yeah they even put "voluntary registrant" next to the line you HAVE to sign to buy a regulated gun.

Just don't try to buy a gun in MD without "voluntarily" registering it

kac said:

A landlord cannot barge into your apartment because he has contracted with you to give you use and possession except under certain circumstances.

He can't abridge your 4A rights because those interests in being secure in your person, place, or thing is personal to you, not the lessor. Similarly, if we're on the street and I'm just a friend of yours, I can't waive YOUR fifth amendment rights.

This is confounding the lessor's position with the State's position. The question here is can a private person "infringe" on a person's rights. The rights in the Bill of Rights are rights held against the state, not against the public at large. Can I tell you that you have to consent to a search if you enter my house or business? Of course. Does that violate 4A? No, because I am not a state actor.

I have no idea what incorporation has to do with lease agreements. All incorporation will do will apply the second amendment to the states, not to private persons. Do you think every incorporated right suddenly means that, absent state action, no private person can affect those rights? Is that the point of the Boy Scout cases?

Anyway, this is all fun stuff that we should discuss over a beer some time! OP's question is simply answered, and I think we would both agree. He doesn't have to notify ANYBODY because he's moving the address of his guns, unless he has Title II or III implements.

Click to expand...

These are interesting discussions as long as everyone realizes we're all just talking out of our (educated) asses and as long as people don't get personal. A beer is a good idea someday, but don't laugh at me when I order Iced Tea. I stopped drinking beer as a teenager, and Scotch is not a good drink if you have to drive home.


Anyway...

Incorporation affects private lease agreements to the extent that contracts between landlord and tenant (regardless of construction) are treated with special care by the courts and the law. We are landlords and the extended family also is heavily into it. In general contract law you can ask anyone to agree to anything and keep it pretty much binding. Tenant law is highly restrictive, basically because you are dealing with someone's "castle" even when they don't own the bricks.

So while I can tell a guest that by entering my house they must give up certain rights (audio/video recording, for instance), as a landlord I cannot require the same of my tenants. Basically, if it is a "Right" that you have in public, a landlord cannot stop you unless he can demonstrate it infringes one of his own (i.e. smoking damaging the value of his property).

I think the current firearms restrictions seen in some lease agreements are a grey area right now. A strong incorporation of 2A makes it a liberty that cannot be infringed except under limited and special circumstances. So the same parallel will likely to exist: I can ban guests in my home from bringing in guns, but cannot restrict the right of my tenants the same in their "castle".

So landlords can restrict firearms now because 2A is not a Right. Next month things change. There will be arguments in the "damages landlord rights" vein to restrict firearms but they will fail, just as arguments against leasing to black people (on the "there goes the neighborhood" argument of devaluation) all failed.

And for the record, we do not restrict firearms in our lease agreement. Nor does our extended family in WI, IL and NY (we get all the fun states). But I think my wife's old LA condo is in a building that has some restrictions. They are frequently ignored because the HOA has no teeth on that one.