Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like most of the reasonable posts to this thread, this one will probably be largely ignored.
In the first place, this is the kind of thing that should have been discussed before these young women decided to share a home, right along with ground rules about smoking, parties, overnight guests, pets, who handles the utilities, and whether or not food will be shared.
Since that did not happen, it comes down to a matter of who should move, as it's hard to imagine this relationship being salvaged. The fact is (and I speak in terms of practicality, not legality), it's probably going to be easier for the girl with the guns to find someone who needs one roommate than to find six others to share that apartment should the other girls leave. The six may be able to cover the rent short a roommate. It would be much harder for a lone tenant to replace six roommates, and probably almost impossible for her to cover the rent on her own.
I don't really understand why this has become a gun rights debate. It isn't. It's an object lesson in how not to choose a roommate. People do have a right to own guns. People who do not want to live with guns have a right to a gun-free home. People who cannot reach any kind of agreement about the matter should not attempt to live together. People who are considering living together should be honest about their habits and expectations.
That is all.
That really is it.
The landlord didn't kick the gun owner out because she had guns, the landlord asked that she be the one to leave or come up with the full rent. Does anyone think that any of those people can handle a huge rent bill on their own?
From a landlord's perspective, it's going to be a whole lot easier to find a replacement for one person than it is to find a replacement for all the other roommates, especially in light of the fact that the rent is 6 fricken thousand dollars. The landlord doesn't want to lose all tenants there because that's going to cost him money. He has to clean, repaint, maybe recarpet, put up advertising, do background checks...all the while, he's not getting his money on that apartment. From a business standpoint, that is why it makes sense that he ask one person to leave instead of everyone, or everyone else. Of course, that doesn't stop people from taking up their cross, either side, hate guns/like guns, because both are doing it.
When you are interviewing potential roommates, it's best to have a list of questions, and it's best to lay out what rules you will abide by and will not abide by. Be right upfront. This goes for the person who is already there, and it goes for the people looking to apply to live there. If you have a pet, tell them. If you have an allergy, tell them. If you smoke, tell them. If you purchase a lot of alcohol, and like to have friends come over, often - tell them. If you are a gun owner, tell them. The list goes on.
You are going to be sharing space with other people. It is ridiculous to think that just being friendly and getting along for the 5 minutes you've been sitting in front of each other is "good enough" to be roommates. It's not.
You should also not rent a place that you can't afford on your own. If everyone bails, what are you going to do? Do you think you're going to find roommates in time to cover the expenses? What if everyone bails at the last minute? You don't have time to come up with the money...what are you going to do?
As for the tenant with the handguns, once again, despite how many times certain posters on here want to act like lawyers, the police stated that the tenant was legally possessing her firearms. From the Heavy article that was linked on the first page:
Quote:
"Captain James Donovan of the Somerville Police Department...ensure[d] Pirnie’s guns were in compliance with Massachusetts law"
They were there, you were not, you are assuming what happened based on your biases.
Regardless of what you think, she was right, she was wrong, the end result is: She barely knew her roommates. That is the lesson everyone should be taking away from the story - you might get a roommate who owns guns, and you might get roommates who are nut jobs and do not value personal space. Had they sat down and talked to each other beforehand, and had their lists of questions and their lists of "will not tolerate/can tolerate", this wouldn't have ever become a news story - which, it really shouldn't have in the first place.
As I said on page one: Roommates have a debate. Why is this news?
Except for the very clear fact that media has agendas to push, there is no reason that this was in the news. But controversy sells, and what is better than reporting on some non story when it includes a MAGA hat, a gun owner, and people who like neither MAGA hats nor guns. No one wins in this situation, except the media - here we are, 31 pages later...and the media got everyone to click and bring them more ad revenue.
Nope. I am 100% correct. Remember, I'm the one who said the Colorado baker's SCOTUS case was going to be a slam dunk for the baker due to the Constitutional requirements of the US Constitution, Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Actually, it does. It's the same reason why a person with a Kansas (just as an example) driver's license can drive a vehicle in MA, use it as legally acceptable ID, etc.
Failing a vehicle emissions test besides being a poor analogy is certainly not more dangerous than firearms.
Vehicles are more dangerous than firearms. Keeping vehicles off the road due to failing a required emissions test means 5 times more people will not be injured/maimed/killed by those vehicles, compared to the incidence for same by firearms. But if you have an out-of-state vehicle, you're immune to the emissions test requirement.
Quote:
No its not a constitutional issue
It is a Constitutional issue. Idiots said the same thing about the Colorado baker case, and they were wrong. Due to the US Constitution's Article VI, Colorado state law CANNOT supersede Constitutional Rights.
If this issue was discussed prior to cohabiting or if it is spelled out in the lease then yes you are right. If not then it is none of your roommates business what is in your private space.
The landlord didn't kick the gun owner out because she had guns, the landlord asked that she be the one to leave or come up with the full rent. Does anyone think that any of those people can handle a huge rent bill on their own?
Having experience with this, landlords in college/university areas typically require ALL tenants to sign a lease which makes them jointly and severably liable for payment of the entire rent and any consequent damage to the facilities.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
2 people don't get to vote the 3rds rights away.
They however, have every right to pack their bags and lose their deposit.
Usually, in roommate situations, all tenants are "jointly and severally responsible" for the rent.
So, as the landlord pointed out, if they moved out she now is responsible for the entire monthly rent. Which is legally the case. If she moved out, then all the others are responsible for her share, and they can find another roomie.
Honestly, the very worst part of this story is this girl believes she has to have (multiple?) firearms in the home to protect her from a crazy she used to date who she believes might break in and try to kill her.
I wouldn't want to live in that situation for 5 minutes.
I am uncomfortable with the presence of traitor liberal socialist I’m my nation. I would like them removed please.
Ridiculous that these snowflakes think their discomfort gives them the right to violate this woman’s rights. It also was very clear they hated her pro Trump politics and stereotyped her for being southern. If her name was on the lease and she did not violate the lease in some way she should sue the landlord for violating the contract. One thing Yankees understand is lawsuits.
i assume it was a craigslist style room for rent situation (i've never seen a lease with more than 2 persons on it -- let alone 7 persons); therefor, she probably doesnt have any contractual rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
