If Texas is going to deny the ability of landlords to prevent their

[avebury]

tenants from stockpiling weapons then the landlords should require that gun owning tenants carry a multi-million dollar liability insurance policy. Failure of a tenant to maintain the required level of insurance would be grounds for eviction.

[Joe941]

1. You will create criminals out of the poor. Bad idea.

[mr_lebowski]

5. It just goes to show ya ...

It's always something ...

[Maru Kitteh]

8. Nope. Free market. They can just go find a gun-humper landlord and live

in a gun-humper accommodating apartment complex. Done.

Where did you see law in the OP proposal, anyway?

[Shrike47]

10. No criminal issue here. Landlord-tenant law is civil, not criminal.

[Joe941]

12. Then its worthless. People will just lie and say they don't have a gun...

Then what?

[SunSeeker]

34. OFFS. The old "criminals don't obey laws" NRA talking point.

What total bullshit. That's like the NRA line that if we ban assault weapons, only criminals will have assault weapons.

If your assertion was true, then why have ANY laws?


Laws change human behavior. That's why we have them. I can't believe I have to say that here.

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. Thank you

I can't believe you had to point that out either.

[NYC Liberal]

63. Then they get evicted if they're caught. Just like what happens with any other lease violation.

[virgogal]

2. Most renters couldn't afford that type of insurance

[avebury]

6. The insurance requirement would pertain only to gun owners.

It is all about playing the game better than the NRA and Rethugs and finding a way around lax gun laws.

[calimary]

40. Yep. At this point, that's what we're left with.

Trying to figure out how to get around them to achieve what WE want.

And why the hell not?

They do that EVERY minute of EVERY day! And look how well they're doing. The proof is in the results.

I no longer believe that when they go low, we go high. That doesn't work anymore. That's one for the Nice-Guys-Finish-Last club.

Seems to me the only way we can level the playing field is to outthink and out-game and outwit the bad guys. And if we have to be devious and sneaky and go around the rules, or WHATEVER, well then, so be it. Do we want a level playing field or don't we? Seems to me that rules only work with both sides play by them. When you DON'T have that, when one side follows the rules and the other side does whatever the fuck they think they can get away with, just to WIN, then the side that's playing by the rules simply gets ROLLED.

The only OTHER way to level the playing field is to force both sides to play fair. But since one of them has no intention of playing fair, THEY'RE never gonna de-weaponize. And even if they claim they do, they'll be lying. Because they want to win, at all costs, since therein lies the domination, the power they crave. The power over people they don't like or disagree with, to FORCE those unfortunates to bend to the winners' will. It's being forced at the point of a political gun. They'll never willingly dis-arm. Especially for the sake of merely playing fair or following rules. It's "we don't need no stinkin' rules." Rules are for suckers. And suckers don't win because they're not willing to do fucking ANYTHING to win. But we have an opponent who lusts to win literals at all costs. Regardless what it takes or to whom they have to sell their souls.All that counts is to win. Because when you win, YOU get to rule. AND you get to MAKE the rules.

So therein lies the conundrum. And therein lies the donald.

[happybird]

7. Stockpiling guns isn't a cheap hobby

They can spend some of their yearly gun and ammo budget on insurance. Or, they can just forego the unecessary arsenal altogether.

[Shrike47]

11. Most renters wouldn't need that kind of insurance.

[Jake Stern]

14. If I'm required to carry renters insurance (with liability) as a condition of renting this unit

then they can carry liability insurance to rent theirs.

[sarisataka]

15. Do you have any idea

How much it would cost?

[VMA131Marine]

19. You do realise that the cost is related to the risk, right?

If the cost of liability insurance for a gun owner is so high they can't afford it then we have to assume the risk of them doing something requiring the activation of that insurance is also very high.

It's not a good argument for gun ownership.

[sarisataka]

21. Yes I do understand risk

I don't think many who talk about prohibitive insurance rate for firearms owners do.

Liability insurance for firearms is very inexpensive. Insurance companies consider the risk to be very low. I have a million dollar liability coverage which covers be when I carry as well as at home. I can afford it by bringing lunch to work one day a month instead of eating out. Simple ownership liability insurance would be even cheaper.

[VMA131Marine]

23. So for most gun owners, affording liability insurance shouldn't be a problem

I suspect rates will vary depending on the individual's background and where they live in much the same way car insurance rates do.

[sarisataka]

29. I could definitely see background

Being a factor. It is unlikely that where they live could be taken into account as that could be deemed discriminatory. Cars are a bit different because they are used on public roads with traffic that varies by neighborhood.

Liability insurance for gun owners is a good idea but mandating it would face a Constitutional challenge.

[VMA131Marine]

48. Call it ammunition insurance instead

Require proof of insurance to buy ammunition.

[SunSeeker]

35. Most people don't own guns. nt

[hlthe2b]

3. That was exactly what I was thinking earlier this morning. I don't see how that could possibly be

outlawed. The policy has to cover liability from accidental death, or deaths secondary to the gun being stolen and any and all property damage that occurs from the gun's presence on the property, including police forced entry, whether justified or not.

Alternately, the tenant can prove to the landlord that they have a sufficiently secure gun safe that eliminates access to others.

[NutmegYankee]

37. No need to offer insurance for "deaths secondary to the gun being stolen".

Common law already provides no liability in that scenario. As for police action, that can occur regardless of firearm ownership - many police departments serve all warrants for drugs, no matter how minor, via SWAT.

[Wounded Bear]

4. I'll just wait for the first landlord to get shot collecting late rent...

seems almost inevitable now.

[soldierant]

25. IIRC from about 12 years of working P&C personal lines, auto and home,

all personal liability policies exclude coverage for intentional acts of the insured. A landlord getting shot collecting late rent would be assumed to be the result of an intentional act. The burden of proof would be on the insured to prove it was not intentional (if he r she could.) That, I'm confident, is why the coverage not expensive.

Intentionally shooting someone would be like setting fire to your own house, or murdering someone on whose life insurance you were a beneficiary. That is not what insurance is for (only what insurance fraud is for.)

[Crunchy Frog]

30. The shooter wouldn't be the beneficiary, the victims would.

[soldierant]

32. Trust me - the insurance would not pay in that situation.

Insurance paying a victim would be a benefit to the shooter, because it would be money the shooter wouldn't be responsible to come up with.

[KT2000]

9. Add a fee per weapon

In Washington, landlords cannot limit the number of people living in a unit. Exceptions can be made for septic system limits so the landlords charge per person living in the unit.
Charge for each weapon.

[aikoaiko]

13. Brilliant.

Why not just comply with the law and let people rent apartments?

[avebury]

28. I am not saying that they can't rent an apartment.

I am just saying that they had abetter be able to provide evidence of a high enough $ of insurance coverage.

[NoPasaran]

33. The law currently requires motorists to carry liability insurance when they operate a motor vehicle

But if you've ever been in an accident in this godforsaken state you'll quickly learn that lots of them miss that little detail.

[NotASurfer]

16. I'm missing something

When it comes to dogs, for example, a landlord can require a security deposit, and put limits on the size of the dog, and an upper limit on how many dogs, and can prohibit breeds of dogs deemed (fairly or not) to be dangerous. All for reasons of health, safety, and preserving the value of an investment property.

Why would the same reasoning not apply to inanimate objects with much higher potential public health risks?

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Because it's Texas.

[Skittles]

18. Texas sucks up to gun humpers

[Codeine]

20. Presumably because there isn't a

Constitutional amendment currently interpreted to mean people are guaranteed the right to own dogs?

[safeinOhio]

38. Well regulated dogs?

[sarisataka]

22. You did miss something

But caught it in your last line. A dog is an animate object. It can act on it's own, even against the wishes of the owner. Inanimate objects cannot do anything on their own.

[Kaiserguy]

31. Gun do sometime act on there own

A loaded gun can discharged on it own and they have done so. The simple act of falling over has cause guns to discharge sometimes. It doesn't happen a lot but it does happen. They have also fallen out of a pocket or holster and discharged. Of course it can be avoided by not leaving a round in the chamber. Sadly some gun owner are not responsible people and don't follow even the most basic safety precautions. There in is the problem with easy and mass gun ownership and laws like open carry to many people own guns and carry guns who shouldn't.

[sarisataka]

36. It is not impossible

in 20 years of military service I saw guns fire without a trigger being pulled twice. In both cases it did still involve human action in some way as would falling. You could load a gun and store it for a century untouched and I will would bet that it would never fire itself in that time.

IMO most mechanical failures where a gun fires after being dropped also involve a careless finger on a trigger, such as the video of dancing FBI agent.

[UniteFightBack]

55. Then EVERY gun owner needs to carry insurance not just renters. Talk about discrimination. nt

[Mr.Bill]

24. Another glitch here is

the NRA is in the business of selling that insurance and would profit from a law like that.

[keithbvadu2]

26. Have the NRA and gun orgs sell the insurance.

Have the NRA and gun orgs sell the insurance.

Protects gun owners and the public, and makes profit for NRA and gun orgs.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. IN a sane world all guns would be turned in and the deaths would stop.

Instead of 20 killed, one person will get stab wounds.

[Vinca]

39. There are real safety concerns for the landlord beyond the actual gun since guns require

ammunition and ammunition is an explosive. Suppose the tenant is a gunhumper who decides to make his own ammunition. The apartment building is a potential powder keg. Texas has put landlords discriminating between gun owners and non gun owners into the same category as discriminating on the basis of race. Landlords of like mind should band together and sue the state.

[aikoaiko]

45. Ammunition in a fire doesn't explode like dynamite.

The shells and billets separate with a pop. The bullets don’t travel fast because of Newton’s 3rd law. Plus no barrel to build pressure.

[Vinca]

61. Okay. So why are there reports every so often about firefighters being hindered fighting fires

because stashes of ammunition are going off? I realize ammunition is unlikely to spontaneously explode, but it is a hazardous product and no landlord should have to put up with a tenant who decides to stockpile the stuff for his arsenal of guns.

[UniteFightBack]

56. And what if the landlord is a gun humper storing ammo? No protection for that tenant right.

I know because this society only values married people with children who own homes and who are white.

[Vinca]

62. I'd go apartment hunting as soon as I learned the landlord kept explosive

materials around the building. No offense, but your post is a bit strange. Are you implying nonwhite people don't marry, have children and own homes? I'm sure that will be news to them.

[cpamomfromtexas]

42. I will add this to my contract. Thank you

[pintobean]

43. What other constitutional rights should landlords

be able to take away from their tenants? Are we wanting to go back to property owners having more rights? How about equal protection?

[SunSeeker]

44. Stockpiling assault rifles in your apartment is not a constitutional right. nt

[pintobean]

46. The law doesn't mention "stockpiling"

That's the OP's characterization. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The 2A says "arms", plural. Most gun owners own more than one gun.

Nor does it mention "assault rifles". You added that. Again, I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

House Bill 302 amends the Penal Code and Property Code to prohibit the owner or landlord of an applicable condominium or rental property, a tenant or guest of such an owner or landlord, or a guest of a tenant from being prohibited from lawfully possessing, carrying, transporting, or storing a firearm, any part of a firearm, or firearm ammunition in the applicable property, in a vehicle located in the property's parking area, or certain other locations unless prohibited by state or federal law. The bill establishes related defenses to prosecution for the offenses of criminal trespass, trespass by a handgun license holder with a concealed handgun, and trespass by a handgun license holder with an openly carried handgun.

[SunSeeker]

47. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention "assault rifles," if you want to get pedantic. nt

[treestar]

49. a landlord isn't the government

I would think landlord's property rights would prevail. No one says you don't have free speech if a private party won't allow you to speak on their property.

[pintobean]

50. Renting property is a business.

We, as a society, force businesses not to discriminate. That's what Texas is doing with this law.

[Mosby]

57. Your looking at it the wrong way

Private property owners (like retailers and apt owners) can and do restrict all kinds of things, including bringing guns into stores or apartment complexes.


..

.

But in the case of private property, the decision to keep firearms on the premises may not be up to you. For tenants in apartments or rental homes, depending on the state you live in, your landlord may have the ability to restrict gun ownership.

While the Second Amendment establishes the right to bear arms, it does not keep individual property owners from restricting the presence of guns. Retail stores across the U.S. place signs at entrances that establish the spaces as a gun-free zones – and in many cases landlords will do the same.

...

For the sake of avoiding future problems, if you fundamentally disagree with a landlord’s firearm policy, look to live elsewhere in the same way you’d avoid an apartment building that doesn’t allow dogs if you have a Labrador retriever.

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-limits-can-your-landlord-put-on-gun-possession

[pintobean]

58. Texas fixed that.

Renters there are no longer easy prey.

[Mosby]

59. It's going to result in litigation

Gun owners are not a "protected class" and the second amendment doesn't apply because banning guns from a rental unit (or requiring insurance) does not restrict the gun owner from having guns, they just have to be stored somewhere else.

[wasupaloopa]

51. I understand your motive but what is the risk you are insuring against? If it is that the gun owner

might do a mass shooting then we need red flag laws to take his guns away.

[bitterross]

52. How about if the landlord claims sincere religious beliefs?

That would be interesting. If the landlord claimed their sincere religious beliefs prevented them from allowing people to have weapons then we could see some great show there!

[NotASurfer]

60. That would fly in Texas

Now, if the tenant sued as a member of The Church of the Blessed NRA, claiming their religious rights were jeopardized...

[madville]

53. Why would a landlord be inspecting a tenants personal property?

I've never seen a landlord inspect a tenants personal property, restricting a particular type of weapon would not be enforceable, kind of a moot argument.

[UniteFightBack]

54. So only tenants who pay your mortgage should be required to carry insurance ...YEAH OK. nt

[fescuerescue]

64. The NRA would LOVE THAT

Probably solve much of their money woes.

Gun liability insurance is one of their business lines.

[calimary]

65. Shit - I think I'd get probably get out of the landlord business.

Find other ways to invest my money.

If I were a landlord in Texas.

Buy income property in another state!

Even if a prospective tenant denied having guns, how could you be sure they weren’t lying? And how could you check? Would you be able to check? I have no idea and I’m not an expert on property law or renters rights but, shit - look what state we’re talking about!