Tenants/Landlords: Do you disclosure or require disclosure of firearms?

[spartana]

Please don't  turn this into a debate about guns and gun owners.

If you are a landlord do you require any potential tenant to disclose that they own firearms before renting to them? If you are a tenant would you tell the landlord you have firearms even if not asked? And would you ask the landlord if they, or any other tenants who might share the space, have guns? Would it make a difference depending on the type of rental - a private apt or SFH verses a room in your private home or an ADU on your shared property? Would you evict someone after they signed a rental agreement if you found out they have firearms?

I ask because I recently signed a one year lease on a great private ADU/mother-in-law place with a Nov 1st move in date. The owner of the main house (early 50s, no kids at the house, and lives there with his GF) didn't ask if I owned firearms (I do) nor had it in the application or lease agreement and TBH it never crossed my mind to mention it to him.  He now knows I have guns and would like to tear up the lease. I fully understand and am fine with it - even though I believe it might be illegal of him to do so - but am curious how other potential renters and landlords deal with this. I've been a long term home owner and this was my first long term lease situation in years so kind of a newb. In the future I will disclose that even if not asked just to put off any similar headaches.

[Metalcat]

Omg I never even thought of this.

Off to email my property manager to see if it's legal to put a "no guns" clause into my leases.

[Metalcat]

Omg I never even thought of this.

Off to email my property manager to see if it's legal to put a "no guns" clause into my leases.

I think some states in the US allow that clause in their leases or rental agreements - especially private owners who are renting private houses, apts or rooms - but I didn't think about it either and don't really know the laws.

I'm in Canada and guns here are just extremely rare, so I would never have thought of it.

[Sailor Sam]

I’ve signed about 15 leases over the years, and I don’t remember any clauses about not having firearms. Though, I could be misremembering because I’d sign a ‘no guns’ lease with every intention of ignoring that clause.

I did disclose my guns when I was living in a MIL basement below two very small children. In that case, I kept the guns at work. I can’t think of any circumstance besides young children that I’d disclose ownership.

My two cents from the tenant side.

[iluvzbeach]

I don’t think you’re under obligation to disclose any such thing and it would seem to me your rights under the 2nd Amendment prevail. That said, safely storing firearms is absolutely critical and it would seem you are a responsible gun owner.

[Ladychips]

Ha! If I put that in my lease agreement, I'd never find any tenants. I'm sorry this has happened to you. Finding a place to rent is a challenge these days! Keep us posted, will you?

[Paul der Krake]

I've signed a lot of leases, including in the most anti-gun areas of the US, always read them thoroughly, and I have never seen such a clause. Bringing this up to someone who didn't ask would be, frankly, quite creepy.

Generally speaking, landlords can't just decide after the fact they don't like something.

[jim555]

Seems unenforceable.  Say no and bring one anyway.

[Radagast]

Never heard of or thought to ask it. I know for a fact our current ADU tenant has a fire arm. It wouldn't surprise me if some others had one as well.

[use2betrix]

I don’t think that it would be legal to evict someone for this, pending they are a legal gun owner.

I would, however, hate to be a tenant who is now at such odds with a landlord over something like this.

The most reasonable instance in which I could think of a landlord enforcing “no guns” would be in a shared household (i.e. renting out a bedroom) in a household with children. If a homeowner doesn’t want a ‘potentially’ careless gun owner in their home, they should have that right.

[Villanelle]

I've signed a fair amount of leases and don't ever recall seeing this. I'm also a landlord (in CA) and I don't think this is in my leases. (I say, "don't think" because I use a property manager and he uses a lease template.  I've read through it and it is possible that it was there and I didn't take note of it, but I doubt it.) 

If it were a shared household, or maybe even a shared property (like an ADU where the landlord lived in the other house on the property), I can see it.  Otherwise, if my insurance doesn't care (and they've never asked when I've spoken to them about the policy), then I don't. 

[Metalcat]

I've signed a fair amount of leases and don't ever recall seeing this. I'm also a landlord (in CA) and I don't think this is in my leases. (I say, "don't think" because I use a property manager and he uses a lease template.  I've read through it and it is possible that it was there and I didn't take note of it, but I doubt it.) 

If it were a shared household, or maybe even a shared property (like an ADU where the landlord lived in the other house on the property), I can see it.  Otherwise, if my insurance doesn't care (and they've never asked when I've spoken to them about the policy), then I don't.

The main reason I would care is because handgun ownership is not considered normal here. Because it's considered extreme, handguns are generally only owned by people are...well...extreme.

[Michael in ABQ]

Never seen it. Wouldn't answer it anyways. We skip over that question on all the well child check-up forms from our pediatrician - both before and after we owned guns. I'm not paying a doctor to waste their time considering if we own any guns.

Plenty of leases I've signed have said no smoking or no pets, but that's about it as far as prohibiting otherwise legal things.

[Villanelle]

I've signed a fair amount of leases and don't ever recall seeing this. I'm also a landlord (in CA) and I don't think this is in my leases. (I say, "don't think" because I use a property manager and he uses a lease template.  I've read through it and it is possible that it was there and I didn't take note of it, but I doubt it.) 

If it were a shared household, or maybe even a shared property (like an ADU where the landlord lived in the other house on the property), I can see it.  Otherwise, if my insurance doesn't care (and they've never asked when I've spoken to them about the policy), then I don't.

The main reason I would care is because handgun ownership is not considered normal here. Because it's considered extreme, handguns are generally only owned by people are...well...extreme.

I definitely understand that.  I'm speaking from a US perspective.  I don't own guns (and am in strong favor of major gun law reform) but in a place where it's legal I don't have an issue with people owning and storing them on my property.    That said, I also don't have a problem if a landlord wants to prohibit it, just as they prohibit things like smoking or owning pets--two things that are also legal. 

[LightStache]

I don’t think that it would be legal to evict someone for this, pending they are a legal gun owner.

I would, however, hate to be a tenant who is now at such odds with a landlord over something like this.

The most reasonable instance in which I could think of a landlord enforcing “no guns” would be in a shared household (i.e. renting out a bedroom) in a household with children. If a homeowner doesn’t want a ‘potentially’ careless gun owner in their home, they should have that right.

I agree. I personally have no problem with a "no firearms" clause in a lease and kind of see it like a no smoking or no pets kind of thing. I do wonder how some places are allowed to list things like male or female only, no kids, no couples, no work from home, no guests, etc but maybe that's legal.for shared spaces like rooms for rent but not OK for a rental.house or apt. I wonder where ADUs fit in with that?

Laws often differentiate between "single room occupancy" (i.e. roommate situation) and renting a separate unit, allowing a much higher level of discrimination for the former.

Just based on a few minutes of reading, it seems like the question of firearms is legally ambiguous: https://rentalhousingjournal.com/can-a-landlord-say-no-guns-in-my-apartments

Of course if there isn't a prohibition in the lease and the possession isn't illegal, a LL can't just terminate based on personal preference.

It is interesting to consider the various protected categories we have in the U.S. -- gender, race, sexual orientation, veteran status, national origin, etc. -- and where one might draw an ethical line when it comes to rental arrangements with varying levels of intimacy. It's also interesting to consider that certain categories would likely see higher discrimination in progressive areas, e.g. a veteran in San Francisco vs San Antonio.

The main reason I would care is because handgun ownership is not considered normal here. Because it's considered extreme, handguns are generally only owned by people are...well...extreme.

Those deviants! From what I read, in Canada it's estimated that 26% of your people own firearms, 22% identify as visible minorities, 13% identify as LGBTQ and 1.5% are veterans.

[Metalcat]

I don’t think that it would be legal to evict someone for this, pending they are a legal gun owner.

I would, however, hate to be a tenant who is now at such odds with a landlord over something like this.

The most reasonable instance in which I could think of a landlord enforcing “no guns” would be in a shared household (i.e. renting out a bedroom) in a household with children. If a homeowner doesn’t want a ‘potentially’ careless gun owner in their home, they should have that right.

I agree. I personally have no problem with a "no firearms" clause in a lease and kind of see it like a no smoking or no pets kind of thing. I do wonder how some places are allowed to list things like male or female only, no kids, no couples, no work from home, no guests, etc but maybe that's legal.for shared spaces like rooms for rent but not OK for a rental.house or apt. I wonder where ADUs fit in with that?

Laws often differentiate between "single room occupancy" (i.e. roommate situation) and renting a separate unit, allowing a much higher level of discrimination for the former.

Just based on a few minutes of reading, it seems like the question of firearms is legally ambiguous: https://rentalhousingjournal.com/can-a-landlord-say-no-guns-in-my-apartments

Of course if there isn't a prohibition in the lease and the possession isn't illegal, a LL can't just terminate based on personal preference.

It is interesting to consider the various protected categories we have in the U.S. -- gender, race, sexual orientation, veteran status, national origin, etc. -- and where one might draw an ethical line when it comes to rental arrangements with varying levels of intimacy. It's also interesting to consider that certain categories would likely see higher discrimination in progressive areas, e.g. a veteran in San Francisco vs San Antonio.

The main reason I would care is because handgun ownership is not considered normal here. Because it's considered extreme, handguns are generally only owned by people are...well...extreme.

Those deviants! From what I read, in Canada it's estimated that 26% of your people own firearms, 22% identify as visible minorities, 13% identify as LGBTQ and 1.5% are veterans.

Rifles yes, handguns no. The number of non LEO, non veterans who own handguns in the city where my rental is is extremely low. That's why I specified handguns.

[Samuel]

I've not seen this in any lease I've signed but would not be surprised if it becomes more popular here in Seattle. Guns are fully a culture war issue around here now.

Seems pretty counterproductive to me, though. You're only screening out people responsible enough to read the whole lease and ethical enough to not knowingly violate that clause. It's such an easy thing to rationalize fibbing about (it really is none of their business in a standalone rental unit and the law would likely be on your side if the issue ever made it to the Supreme Court) that plenty of responsible people will just ignore it. And the irresponsible people you are really need to avoid renting to would most definitely ignore it.

[Jon Bon]

Landlord here, I am generally neutral on gun ownership. I had to look at my lease because I did not even know what my policy was.

"Tenant may not: possess a weapon prohibited by state law; discharge a firearm in or near the Premises; display or possess a gun, knife, or
other weapon in the common areas in a way that may alarm others; store any hazardous materials in or on the property"

After the fact this sounds like  a decent compromise when it comes to guns. Like if I was there on a maintenance call, and I saw a gun in plain view even in a bedroom or something that would be a huge problem for me. But yeah basically keep it to yourself and it don't let it be an issue we will be fine. Kind of like everything else at rental properties (drugs, parties, etc).

[lifeandlimb]

Tenant here. I live in an area where gun ownership is not common, and I've never seen it written in a lease (I just double-checked my lease of the last 3 years to be sure). We have a no smoking clause, but nothing about firearms. We rent the second unit from the landlord who lives here with their family and young child.

Although I know people have different preferences, I don't see why it should be a landlord/tenant issue if the firearms are possessed legally and stored legally.

My non-legal opinion thinks it's not enforceable that your landlord wants to renege on the lease just because of this, but you're right in that it's probably not worth the battle and souring the relationship. I don't think I would choose to own firearms, but if I did, I would not disclose them to my potential landlords unless asked directly.

[YttriumNitrate]

When I first put rental on the market, I went the opposite direction and advertised that a deer hunting lease at my nearby land could be included with rental of the main house. It turned out not to be much of a selling point, so I didn't bother including it the next time I was looking for tenants.

[GuitarStv]

Looks like three states have laws that clearly state what you can do regarding landlords banning guns:

Minnesota: Minnesota Statute 624.714 - Illegal to prohibit guns
Tennessee: Tennessee Statute 39-17-1307(b) - Legal to prohibit guns
Virginia: Virginia Rental Housing Act 1974 Tennessee 55-248.9.6. - Illegal to prohibit guns

Wisconsin has a confusing law that I think means you can ban guns:  W Stat. § 175.60(21)(b) - "A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision."

In other states you would likely be looking at a long trial with uncertain outcome.  Actually, scratch that.  This would probably go to the supreme court, which means a certain loss given it's current makeup.  So probably safest to assume that gun rights will trump the rights of the property owner.

[Metalcat]

I've not seen this in any lease I've signed but would not be surprised if it becomes more popular here in Seattle. Guns are fully a culture war issue around here now.

Seems pretty counterproductive to me, though. You're only screening out people responsible enough to read the whole lease and ethical enough to not knowingly violate that clause. It's such an easy thing to rationalize fibbing about (it really is none of their business in a standalone rental unit and the law would likely be on your side if the issue ever made it to the Supreme Court) that plenty of responsible people will just ignore it. And the irresponsible people you are really need to avoid renting to would most definitely ignore it.

Lease clauses are about screening people out AND having grounds to remove them if they violate lease clauses. So they have a dual purpose. The question is always whether they are enforceable if a complaint is lodged. There always has to be a balance of risks, because the more clauses you have, the more someone can take issue with a clause and elevate their concern to an official complaint.

We have generally quite tenant-friendly laws in Canada, so removing someone can be a very intense, very long process. 

[six-car-habit]

  " You're only screening out people responsible enough to read the whole lease and ethical enough to not knowingly violate that clause."

  We have already got 2 folks responding in this thread, who have said they would read the clause... And Ignore it, bringing and keeping their firearms on premise.
   So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

[GuitarStv]

So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Or . . . gun owners don't give a fuck about other people.  That's why they own guns.

MOD NOTE: Let's avoid the broad generalizations. Cheers!

[Paper Chaser]

Heres an example:

"Qualifications:
* Female student or full time professional employee.
* Proof of income and credit report.
* No home base employee.
* Background check, references required.
* No Pets and No Guest Allowed.
* No drama/smoking/vaping/alcohol/illegal drugs or firearms!"

To me, "No drama/smoking/vaping/alcohol/illegal drugs or firearms!" indicates no illegal firearms are allowed, but not a complete ban on all firearms. It seems that if all firearms were banned, they would've gotten their own mention "/firearms/" rather than being grouped in the same section of text with illegal drugs as they were.

I also wonder to what extent a complete ban might have repercussions with tenants who might be LEOs, Security Guards, Armored Car personnel, etc

[smisk]

Makes sense to me if you're sharing a home/ADU with someone since living in a home with firearms significantly increases your risk of being a homicide victim.
But not sure why you'd include it for an offsite property, and it'd be pretty much impossible to enforce anyway.

[YttriumNitrate]

To me, "No drama/smoking/vaping/alcohol/illegal drugs or firearms!" indicates no illegal firearms are allowed, but not a complete ban on all firearms. It seems that if all firearms were banned, they would've gotten their own mention "/firearms/" rather than being grouped in the same section of text with illegal drugs as they were.

Doing a grammatical analysis of Craigslist ads is rarely a fruitful endeavour.

[Paper Chaser]

To me, "No drama/smoking/vaping/alcohol/illegal drugs or firearms!" indicates no illegal firearms are allowed, but not a complete ban on all firearms. It seems that if all firearms were banned, they would've gotten their own mention "/firearms/" rather than being grouped in the same section of text with illegal drugs as they were.

Doing a grammatical analysis of Craigslist ads is rarely a fruitful endeavour.

Right. Communication can be difficult no matter the medium. Perhaps the person that wrote it means one thing, and the reader interprets another, leading to miscommunication. I'm just saying that at the very least, it can be interpreted a couple of different ways. And maybe interpreting the rule a certain way benefits the prospective tenant...

I think it's at least worth it for the OP to ask for clarification for any place that mentions some amount of restrictions on firearms. Getting the pertinent language in the lease would be ideal.

[Sailor Sam]

  " You're only screening out people responsible enough to read the whole lease and ethical enough to not knowingly violate that clause."

  We have already got 2 folks responding in this thread, who have said they would read the clause... And Ignore it, bringing and keeping their firearms on premise.
   So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Yerp. People do it all the time! Much like I signed a contract with the United States government in which I straight lied about being ye olde crotch licker because I personally decided that shouldn't bar me from government service. And much like many people (alas, tho, not me) indicated they will not consume cannabis while having their federal job.

The question becomes: do we assign greater moral failing to the tenant that ignores the 'no gun' clause, than the Fed worker who uses CBD for their insomnia?

[jim555]

So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Or . . . gun owners don't give a fuck about other people.  That's why they own guns.

Having a means to defend yourself is is not giving a fuck about people?  Strange logic.

[former player]

Makes sense to me if you're sharing a home/ADU with someone since living in a home with firearms significantly increases your risk of being a homicide victim.
But not sure why you'd include it for an offsite property, and it'd be pretty much impossible to enforce anyway.

Bullets go through walls: if your tenant is in an attached or neighbouring property then whether or not they have a gun seems relevant to your personal safety.

Here in the UK I can rely on pretty tough gun control laws in order to be reasonably certain that someone who has a gun would be responsible.  They would have to ask permission to install an appropriate gun cabinet, a request which couldn't be unreasonably refused.

[LightStache]

  " You're only screening out people responsible enough to read the whole lease and ethical enough to not knowingly violate that clause."

  We have already got 2 folks responding in this thread, who have said they would read the clause... And Ignore it, bringing and keeping their firearms on premise.
   So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Yerp. People do it all the time! Much like I signed a contract with the United States government in which I straight lied about being ye olde crotch licker because I personally decided that shouldn't bar me from government service. And much like many people (alas, tho, not me) indicated they will not consume cannabis while having their federal job.

The question becomes: do we assign greater moral failing to the tenant that ignores the 'no gun' clause, than the Fed worker who uses CBD for their insomnia?

LMAO -- I needed some of this hard reality before naively signing my life away.

But to the original point, yes there exist laws and contract terms that are unethical and should be ignored, obviated, circumvented, etc. Homosexuality in the UCMJ / executive order is a clear example. Guns on leasing agreements is fair game for debate.

[Villanelle]

  " You're only screening out people responsible enough to read the whole lease and ethical enough to not knowingly violate that clause."

  We have already got 2 folks responding in this thread, who have said they would read the clause... And Ignore it, bringing and keeping their firearms on premise.
   So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Yerp. People do it all the time! Much like I signed a contract with the United States government in which I straight lied about being ye olde crotch licker because I personally decided that shouldn't bar me from government service. And much like many people (alas, tho, not me) indicated they will not consume cannabis while having their federal job.

The question becomes: do we assign greater moral failing to the tenant that ignores the 'no gun' clause, than the Fed worker who uses CBD for their insomnia?

And do we assign greater moral failing to the tenant who gets a pet, despite a no-pet clause, or a person who gets a gun with a no-gun clause? 

To me, both are reasonable limits by the landlord so barring some extreme circumstance of some kind, I wouldn't feel right about ignoring either one.  Also, I wouldn't want to deal with an eviction, or fighting an eviction, if the LL found out as that would be super stressful and time (and maybe money)-consuming.

I don't think I'd call either one a "moral failing" though!

[Jon Bon]

Guns don't piss on my floors and require me to replace the hardwoods and the subfloors. Don't get me started on peoples ESA.

However, I guess a giant pool of blood would do that too.....

/s

[Malum Prohibitum]

I've never asked about it as a landlord (although I did have a "no pets" clause due to very costly damage over and over).  I never was asked about it as a tenant, except in two situations when I was a police officer and was offered steeply discounted rent in exchange for light patrolling of the complex from time to time (and I was expected to have a firearm with me, obviously).

When I was younger in room mate situations all my room mates and I had guns - but we never asked about it or included anything about it in a written agreement.

[iris lily]

So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Or . . . gun owners don't give a fuck about other people.  That's why they own guns.

This is not a sensible idea.

[Sibley]

So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Or . . . gun owners don't give a fuck about other people.  That's why they own guns.

That's unfair and you know it. There are plenty of responsible gun owners, who store their guns safely, follow registration/licensing laws, etc. There are also plenty of irresponsible gun owners. It's a much more complex topic than "gun owners don't care about other people".

And I don't own a gun, nor do I like them.

[Metalcat]

  " You're only screening out people responsible enough to read the whole lease and ethical enough to not knowingly violate that clause."

  We have already got 2 folks responding in this thread, who have said they would read the clause... And Ignore it, bringing and keeping their firearms on premise.
   So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

No screening measure is perfect.

However, having a "no guns" clause will screen out anyone with a gun who doesn't want to deal with the hassle of a landlord who prohibits guns. So it will screen out a certain percentage.

Of the people who will ignore it, a solid percentage of those will be "responsible gun owners" whom the landlord will likely never even be aware that there is a personal-safety weapon on the property.

Of those who ignore the rule and do make their weapon known, such as by keeping it visible, shooting on/near the property, or doing anything that might trigger a complaint from other tenants, the clause then provides grounds for removal if they do not comply.

For a clause to be enforceable, I would have to consult a real estate lawyer as to how exactly it would be phrased, exceptions for LEOs, etc.

It's the same way I can't prevent people from brining in pets by having a "no pets" clause, but it will dissuade many pet owners, and it would give me recourse with those who violate the rule.

This is also why I don't have a "no pets" clause, I have an "all pets subject to approval" clause, and I ask for an up to date health certificate from the pet's vet, and permission to contact the vet for more information about the animal. It won't stop anyone, but it will present a hassle that many irresponsible pet owners just won't want to contend with.

Again, this doesn't stop Joe-the-tenant from picking up a mange-ridden, incontinent pit bull from the side of the road, and locking it in the bathroom to tear apart the new shower stall, but that's the risk of being a landlord.

[Metalcat]

So ethics in contract law is a malleable concept it seems, subject to variances in opinion, that the tenant might have. {?}

Or . . . gun owners don't give a fuck about other people.  That's why they own guns.

That's unfair and you know it. There are plenty of responsible gun owners, who store their guns safely, follow registration/licensing laws, etc. There are also plenty of irresponsible gun owners. It's a much more complex topic than "gun owners don't care about other people".

And I don't own a gun, nor do I like them.

To be fair, Stv is Canadian and it's likely he's never been exposed to a responsible, sane handgun owner. We just don't have a cultural norm here of "responsible handgun ownership."

So typically if we have any exposure to non-LEO, private handgun ownership, in my experience in several regions in Ontario and Quebec, it's almost universally someone who is rather unnerving. Perhaps it could be different in Alberta?

If any of us do actually meet a sane, responsible handgun owner, they would likely never admit it. To us, the woman who owns a gun for personal protection is a movie character, not our friend or neighbour.

Long guns though? Yeah. Most of us have a relative who has one.  So it's not an anti gun sentiment, it's a lack of social norm of handgun ownership.

I've literally seen more people walk around in public with swords than guns.

ETA: to specify the regions I've lived in, I can't speak for anywhere else

[simonsez]

I'm having a hard time believing that the owner with no kids around is so sensitive to guns but wasn't explicit about it beforehand.  Like either they're not a big deal and you don't bother your tenants about it OR they are a big deal and you would be proactive about that in the screening process.  It would make me suspicious that they would be oddly opinionated on something else they're not disclosing up front.

I like the suggestion about a case-by-case basis like with pets.  There is a difference between the person who legally has a single digit number of guns who occasionally hunts or enjoys target practice at a facility or out in the woods or even has firearms for personal protection (and is discrete and keeps everything safely stored) - and the person who lives like Gary Busey's character in Black Sheep (the gun nut who is more in your face about it and there is no hiding it).  I'm not even saying the latter shouldn't exist, just if you're a property owner I totally get having unease about renting space to someone who is over-the-top with their firearms hobby.

Is there a chance for learning and responsible firearm education here on the side of the property owner?  Unless the OP presents themselves entirely differently in real life, I'd think if I was a property owner and Spartana was renting from me and I was uneasy about guns but learned Spartana had guns, I think I'd be curious to learn how Spartana uses them, stores them, etc. - have a dialogue and then come to some sort of understanding about firearm visibility or agreed upon practices to make the owner feel comfortable, and if not, I would think breaking the lease with no penalty would be in order and avoiding the court system entirely.  It would bother me to be a gun owner renting a space from someone who is not comfortable with me being a gun owner.  It would also bother me to be the owner who is uncomfortable with my tenants.

[Duke03]

I've signed a fair amount of leases and don't ever recall seeing this. I'm also a landlord (in CA) and I don't think this is in my leases. (I say, "don't think" because I use a property manager and he uses a lease template.  I've read through it and it is possible that it was there and I didn't take note of it, but I doubt it.) 

If it were a shared household, or maybe even a shared property (like an ADU where the landlord lived in the other house on the property), I can see it.  Otherwise, if my insurance doesn't care (and they've never asked when I've spoken to them about the policy), then I don't.

The main reason I would care is because handgun ownership is not considered normal here. Because it's considered extreme, handguns are generally only owned by people are...well...extreme.

Come to Texas!!! Yesterday I saw two people in my neighborhood open carrying on their hips while they were jogging or going to check the mail...Just in case anyone was wondering I live in a very affluent neighborhood. 

[ATtiny85]

How would any of this impact the right (?) of a tenant to have visitors? I have not had a lease in a long time, do they state "these conditions apply to you and any guest"?

[Villanelle]

How would any of this impact the right (?) of a tenant to have visitors? I have not had a lease in a long time, do they state "these conditions apply to you and any guest"?

I don't think they would need to.  I don't think my leases specify that visitors can't smoke or have dogs.  They just say, "no smoking, no dogs".  It doesn't matter who is smoking or who owns the dog.  The policy is "no smoking" and applies the home, not just the people named on the lease.  If they say "no firearms" then it seems that would apply in the same way the smoking and dog rules do--to everyone.  Now, I'm not going to give anyone a hard time if their friend and his Golden Retriever stop by for a few hours, and I wouldn't if their friend and his gun stopped by, either, but I probably could. 

[iluvzbeach]

It’s not as if guests generally know the terms of your lease and you may not know if they conceal carry. Many concealed carry people I know of, never even bring up the topic. They are usually pretty discreet.

[ATtiny85]

Thanks Villanelle, makes perfect sense with that explanation.

[Malum Prohibitum]

I see we have a lot of Canadians posting here (I found Malcat's perspective genuinely interesting - thanks for sharing it).  I do not know if the original poster is US based or not, but, if so, check your state's laws.  Several jurisdictions in the United States restrict the landlord's ability to ban firearms.  Some states actually have provisions that explicitly say a landlord can prohibit a tenant from having firearms, even if the tenant is licensed to carry.  There is even one state that permits banning guns but not if the tenant has a license to carry.  Since there are 50 states, I would just warn you to be familiar with your state's law regarding this issue.  If you are going to be a landlord, you need to be familiar with the laws that affect the landlord tenant relationship and stay on the right side of them.

Also, note that firearms law in the US is rapidly changing, especially recently. 

Liability - some states hold property owners liable for third party criminal acts if they ban firearms.  While that is not a landlord tenant law, if you live in one of those states, and ban your tenants from possessing firearms, and a criminal breaks in and injures the tenant, there may be liability. 

[Paul der Krake]

Liability - some states hold property owners liable for third party criminal acts if they ban firearms.  While that is not a landlord tenant law, if you live in one of those states, and ban your tenants from possessing firearms, and a criminal breaks in and injures the tenant, there may be liability.

Source?

[JLee]

Heres an example:

"Qualifications:
* Female student or full time professional employee.
* Proof of income and credit report.
* No home base employee.
* Background check, references required.
* No Pets and No Guest Allowed.
* No drama/smoking/vaping/alcohol/illegal drugs or firearms!"

To me, "No drama/smoking/vaping/alcohol/illegal drugs or firearms!" indicates no illegal firearms are allowed, but not a complete ban on all firearms. It seems that if all firearms were banned, they would've gotten their own mention "/firearms/" rather than being grouped in the same section of text with illegal drugs as they were.

I also wonder to what extent a complete ban might have repercussions with tenants who might be LEOs, Security Guards, Armored Car personnel, etc

You're right that probably wasn't a great example but I've seen a few others that were more concise. But again for shared spaces or attached but not shared MIL apts/ADUs. I let it go myself and now will be forced (FORCED I tell you) to continue travelling a bit longer and havi g fun ;-). When I get back I will look for a SFH to rent rather then an apt or ADU then I don't likely have to deal with it. I've occasionally  had roommates myself when I owned a home and all were LEOs or in armed security fields and I knew them so never thought about this stuff before.

I've also never encountered this or thought about it before this thread, having rented / roommated several times - in my LEO days nobody blinked (presumably it was known I had firearms, given my profession at the time), and since then I generally lived with friends who were gun owners or didn't have any at the time (or I owned the house).

[Fomerly known as something]

Technically this would be discriminatory towards law enforcement here in the US as I don’t know of any place where police don’t bring their guns home from work in some manner.

[Paul der Krake]

Technically this would be discriminatory towards law enforcement here in the US as I don’t know of any place where police don’t bring their guns home from work in some manner.

And my office policy is discriminatory towards nudists but it's not a protected class either.