The Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin recently sent out an informational handout for landlords. I was going to pass it along as being useful, but I noted one glaring error.
So, I had to ask . . .
6. What does this mean for landlords with regard to the occupants of their multi-unit residential buildings?
The Law amends Wisconsin’s criminal trespass statute, making it a crime to enter or remain on another’s property with a weapon after having received notice that weapons are prohibited on the property. However, under the amended criminal trespass statute, the occupants of a multi-unit residential building have the right to possess weapons anywhere on the premises of buildings that they occupy; such possession does not constitute criminal trespass. In other words, an occupant is allowed to possess weapons in his or her apartment and anywhere else in the building. This is understood as the default position.Although the criminal trespass statute sets the default (allowing occupants to possess weapons), it is possible that landlords may prohibit occupants from possessing weapons anywhere on their property as a term of their leases or as a reasonable rule affecting the property. However, landlords should consider whether enacting such prohibitions might make the them susceptible to fair housing challenges based on an occupant’s Second Amendment right to bear arms for self defense or their Fourth Amendment right to privacy in one’s home. Landlords who participate in public housing programs may have a higher level of risk. It is unclear whether such challenges would be successful, and an attempt at analysis is beyond the scope of these FAQs. Landlords who are interested in prohibiting occupants from carrying weapons should be aware of the risk and should consult with their attorneys
I tried and tried and tried to make the argument that would make that true. Couldn’t come up with one, so I had to ask.
Based on what protected class? Or is this just another scare tactic about fair housing laws?
A week later, I got the answer that the statement wasn’t true, with a nice/silly apology.
It concerns me that I don’t read their stuff and correct them more often. That’s twice in the past week or so . . . sigh.
