Jtdylktuy

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.

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.

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.

including, but not limited to,

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.

others or roommates;

Also irrelevant, since it means any human.

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.

As per user6726's answer, it seems that clause (a) might apply to you, but in many jurisdictions, only significant amounts of ammunition (in the order of a large box or crate full of) are considered a fire or explosion risk, hardly a brick or two. For instance, a quick search shows from Fire Marshall's Office in Prince William County, Virginia carrying a small box of shotgun shells in a truck does not require a transportation license (only perhaps a firearms license), but transporting a crate weighing more than 500 pounds will require treating the cargo as an explosion hazard. I infer that possession at home might fall under the same or similar guidelines.

As for (c), the preamble explicitly states engaging in acts of violence or threats of violence, and it cites possession of a firearm as an example. As I understand, mere possession does not equate a threat of violence; proper ownership means having your shotgun unloaded, locked in a safe, with ammunition stored separately. It is my interpretation that to violate this section, you would have to display the firearm, as for example by sitting near the window, arm in hand, or walking around slinging your gun.

I cannot think you would get in trouble if you are a lawful owner and you do not do anything stupid. The only real risk I can think of is if someone wanted to "SWAT" you, e.g. if they held a grudge and they knew you owned a gun (saw you carrying it in a case, or they know you shoot at a range), they could call the cops on you and pretend you made threats, and when the cops come around, kicking down the door, they could find the firearm and submit it as evidence.