Harvard grad student told to move out after roommates find her legally owned firearms 'uncomfortable'

[spookyturtle 9,465]

4 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Actually, factually incorrect.  NB posts here quite often.  You, on the other hand...

Is that against TOS? 

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Chris Duffy said:

My roommate back in Austin Texas had plastic explosive he used to blow stuff up with.

 

I never cried...…….

I separate this into two things -

 

1. Roommates invading privacy - I don't agree with it, but I also honestly don't know the legalities around it. I imagine it depends who is on the lease.

 

2. Wanting to live without a firearm in the home - this is completely reasonable, and rational. Research has fairly consistently shown that the odds of death by suicide and homicide are higher when a gun is in the home (about 3x higher, http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic). While there may be confounders linking them together, it is also reasonable for someone not wanting to take that risk if they see no perceived benefit from having the firearm in the arm (and at this time there is no statistically significant benefit identified in research literature for having a gun in the home).

 

So either they leave or she leaves. Which seems to be exactly how things are going. Unfortunately for her if all 6 roommates are saying she goes, most likely majority will likely win out. Easier for the landlord to replace 1 than replace 6.

Edited December 3, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

Is that against TOS? 

No, NB has the same right to post here that we all do.  Don't be a suppressor.

[bcking 3,157]

22 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

No, NB has the same right to post here that we all do.  Don't be a suppressor.

Are you allowed to call out someone here for their lack of posting? Don't make it personal. (I don't think that was your intention)

Edited December 3, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Are you allowed to call out someone here for their lack of posting? Don't make it personal. (I don't think that was your intention)

There is no requirement here to post or not post.  No quotas.  I was simply responding to his comment to NB on the previous page.  Nothing personal at all.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Satisfied

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

6 hours ago, Satisfied said:

No, NB has the same right to post here that we all do.  Don't be a suppressor.

Against TOS  that's funny. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

6 hours ago, bcking said:

Are you allowed to call out someone here for their lack of posting? Don't make it personal. (I don't think that was your intention)

Pointing out someone posts a lot and someone else does not is hardly personal.  It's just am observation . It obvious your baiting someone.  

 

Would it be personal to point out you make very very long posts. With very good grammar and I usually make short posts with creative grammar. 

 

Absurd assertion 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

actually suppressor in a gun thread is kind of spot on!

 

[bcking 3,157]

26 minutes ago, The Nature Boy said:

Pointing out someone posts a lot and someone else does not is hardly personal.  It's just am observation . It obvious your baiting someone.  

 

Would it be personal to point out you make very very long posts. With very good grammar and I usually make short posts with creative grammar. 

 

Absurd assertion 

It was certainly not baiting, and I'm sure the person I quoted knows that wasn't my intention.

 

I'm not one of the people here who typically post things just to egg others on.

Edited December 3, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

It was certainly not baiting, and I'm sure the person I quoted knows that wasn't my intention.

 

I'm not one of the people here who typically post things just to egg others 

But you just did.

 

Everyone here posts to get a response 

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, The Nature Boy said:

But you just did.

 

Everyone here posts to get a response 

I post to get reply yes. This is a forum, the intent is for conversation. I don't to upset or anger people.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

38 minutes ago, bcking said:

I post to get reply yes. This is a forum, the intent is for conversation. I don't to upset or anger people.

You're making me mad.  Please report yourself. 

[Sonea 138]

If you are in a co-tenant situation its only logical to lock your firearms when not in possession. In many states, you would be held liable if a prohibited persons acquired the firearm and misused it if they were invited in to the apartment by a roommate or if one of the roommates are prohibited. Obviously, when home a firearm could be unlocked for use (or kept in a biometric safe).

 

 

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Hiiiiiieeeeeeee -- legal drive by from the maven (JD, summa cum laude) here! Bar review is underway.

 

Most of what has been said by bcking and Steeleballz on the legal issues is pretty much spot on. It appears that under the terms of the settlement, if the tenant with the gun refuses to leave, she will be stuck with the entire $6000/month. Those are almost certainly the terms of not only the settlement agreement, but also the lease. When you sign a residential tenancy agreement with co-tenants, you generally must agree that you are jointly and severally liable for the entire rent due under the term. So, if the other two tenants move out, them's the breaks.

 

Could she sue the other two tenants? Yeah! The best place to start would be with intrusion upon seclusion, which is a tort. In general, people have the right to a private life. Pecuniary damages are not necessary to support a cause of action for the invasion of privacy. 

 

In order to prove intrusion upon seclusion, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intruded upon a place where the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of seclusion, and a reasonable person would find the intrusion highly offensive. People have a reasonable expectation of seclusion in their bedrooms, and a reasonable person would find that others going through their personal effects without consent highly offensive. Damages are for embarrassment, mental anguish, etc. and can include punitive damages. 

 

It's a high enough profile case now that some chump will be delighted to take it.

 

Peace out from Barprepistan! <insert ululation here>

 

PS: glad to see my drive-by brother, spooky.

[bcking 3,157]

20 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Hiiiiiieeeeeeee -- legal drive by from the maven (JD, summa cum laude) here! Bar review is underway.

 

Most of what has been said by bcking and Steeleballz on the legal issues is pretty much spot on. It appears that under the terms of the settlement, if the tenant with the gun refuses to leave, she will be stuck with the entire $6000/month. Those are almost certainly the terms of not only the settlement agreement, but also the lease. When you sign a residential tenancy agreement with co-tenants, you generally must agree that you are jointly and severally liable for the entire rent due under the term. So, if the other two tenants move out, them's the breaks.

 

Could she sue the other two tenants? Yeah! The best place to start would be with intrusion upon seclusion, which is a tort. In general, people have the right to a private life. Pecuniary damages are not necessary to support a cause of action for the invasion of privacy. 

 

In order to prove intrusion upon seclusion, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intruded upon a place where the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of seclusion, and a reasonable person would find the intrusion highly offensive. People have a reasonable expectation of seclusion in their bedrooms, and a reasonable person would find that others going through their personal effects without consent highly offensive. Damages are for embarrassment, mental anguish, etc. and can include punitive damages. 

 

It's a high enough profile case now that some chump will be delighted to take it.

 

Peace out from Barprepistan! <insert ululation here>

 

PS: glad to see my drive-by brother, spooky.

If the legal world included more zingers like "intrusion upon seclusion", I would have more strongly considered a career in law.