Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  Feature  >  Current Article

Planning Commission to Discuss Selling Guns in Residential Homes

By   /   March 11, 2014  /   8 Comments

    Print       Email

gunsafetyYucca Valley, Ca.,- Do you want your neighbor selling guns as permitted by the Town of Yucca Valley? If you own an apartment unit, should your tenants be conducting gun sales at your building, as allowed by the Town of Yucca Valley?

The Planning Commission will meet this evening, March 11, 2014, at 6pm at the Yucca Valley Community Center to give directions to Staff regarding Home Occupation Permits.  The will meet at 6pm this evening agenda item #3.  Here is the agenda>LINK

The issue is NOT about the right to bear arms, as Chair Tim Humphreville advocate with smoking mirrors because he owns many guns stored at his isolated residence, as is his right to do so.  He will also state it is no different than anyone selling Avon or Tupperware.  I don’t remember Humphreville shooting duck, geese or kit foxes with a tube of lipstick or a plastic salad bowl. Hunting is NOT the issue either.  Will Humphreville use this misguided banner in his campaign for Town Council this November without regard for the rights of private property owners?

The broader issue of personal rights and home ownership is the right to live with an expectation of “Quiet Enjoyment.” There is legal precedence as explained below and  future lawsuits against the Town of Yucca Valley would be based on “Quiet Enjoyment.”

Quiet Enjoyment

A Covenant that promises that the grantee or tenant of an estate in real property will be able to possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants.

 

Quiet enjoyment is a right to the undisturbed use and enjoyment of real property by a tenant or landowner. The right to quiet enjoyment is contained in covenants concerning real estate. Generally a covenant is an agreement between two parties to do or refrain from doing something.

 

Courts read a covenant of quiet enjoyment between the Landlord and Tenant into every rental agreement, or tenancy. Thus a renter, or tenant, has the right to quiet enjoyment of the leased premises regardless of whether the rental agreement contains such a covenant.

In the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the landlord promises that during the term of the tenancy no one will disturb the tenant in the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises. Quiet enjoyment includes the right to exclude others from the premises, the right to peace and quiet, the right to clean premises, and the right to basic services such as heat and hot water and, for high-rise buildings, elevator service. In many respects the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is similar to an Implied Warranty of habitability, which warrants that the landlord will keep the leased premises in good repair. For example, the failure to provide heat would be a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment because the lack of heat would interfere with the tenant’s use of the premises and would also make the premises uninhabitable, especially in a cold climate.

 

Other rights related to quiet enjoyment may be tailored to specific situations. For example, at least one court has found that the ringing of smoke alarms for more than a day is an interference with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of leased premises (Manzaro v. McCann, 401 Mass. 880, 519 N.E.2d 1337 [1988]).

 

Tenants have at least two remedies for a landlord’s breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment: the tenant can cease to pay rent until the problem is solved, or the tenant can move out. A tenant who moves out may be liable for any rent owing under the agreement if a court decides that the landlord did not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

A covenant of quiet enjoyment may be included in an exchange, or conveyance, of land ownership at the option of the parties to the deed. Quiet enjoyment has a slightly different scope in the context of land ownership than it has in the context of a tenancy. When a seller gives a deed to the land to another party, the seller no longer has control over the property. The covenant of quiet enjoyment, when contained in a deed to real estate, warrants that the title to the land is clear, meaning that it has in the context of a tenancy. When a seller gives a deed to the land to another party, the seller no longer has control over the property. The covenant of quiet enjoyment, when contained in a deed to real estate, warrants that the title to the land is clear, meaning that it has no encumbrances, or claims against it by other persons.

A warranty deed includes a covenant of quiet enjoyment. By contrast, a quitclaim deed makes no warranties regarding the title and contains no covenant of quiet enjoyment.  Source>LINK

Further readings

Kroll, David G. 1992. “The Landlord/Tenant Warranty of Habitability and the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment.” Colorado Lawyer 21 (June).

“Real Property.” 1994. SMH Bar Review.

 

Incoming search terms:

  • tim humphreville home gun sales
  • implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and zoning issues
  • selling firearms from leased building
    Print       Email

About the author

Margo Sturges

Yucca Valley Editor

Note: Margo Sturges has written many articles for Cactus Thorns and is the founder of Citizens4Change.info. Email contact: MargoSturgesYV(at)aol.com "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."- George Orwell

8 Comments

  1. Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

    I don’t have a single solitary problem with an individual practicing his or her Constitutional Right to bear Arms. I see absolutely no problem with the sale or transfer of personal arms in either a commercial or private setting.

    It makes me no never mind, at all. It is all about the 2nd Amendment.

    Anyone with a problem with that is a flipping un-American twit that needs to be sent back to junior high civics class.

  2. 1. Right to bear arms? Check
    2. Right to hunt duck, geese,turkey, tuna, chicken? Check
    3. Right to collect large cache of guns & ammo? Check
    4. Right to shoot in self defense? Check
    5. Right to shoot off toes or fingers when cleaning gun? Check
    6. Right to defend one’s home against intruders? Check
    7. Right to purchase guns & ammo at Walmart? Check
    8. Right to purchase same at gun shows? Check
    9. Right to buy/sell same in commercial/retail building? Check

    There is no debate on these rights listed above.

    The problem exists when someone conducts gun sales at their home or apartment as a business. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment…we are talking about weapons commerce and gun business that should take place at a brick & mortar establishment instead of an apartment building or tract home that violates the rights of the majority “Quiet Enjoyment,” case law in California.

    Other states have a different approach:

    Selling guns over the internet as a business in Florida requires the sales transaction takes place at a pre-approved gun dealership. There are no sales transactions at the apartment or residential housing tract. There is no one coming to the apartment or residence to transact business and walk out with their AK47 or Colt45.

    • Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

      Huh? How is selling a weapon any different than selling Amway or Girl Scout Cookies for that matter?

      Unlike AVON a potential buyer has to pass a background check and be approved by the DOJ for a purchase and in most cases must suffer a waiting period.

      A purchaser of a firearm is much safer in a neighborhood because he is identifiable and forever tied to that weapon purchase.

      Your argument holds no water and at best is hysteria…. Now if your argument is that all home based businesses be banned and all should be forced to base their businesses from a commercial building, I as a commercial building owner might agree with you.

      You do not have the enumerated right to buy AMWAY, or AVON or even Girl Scout Cookies, but then the Right to Own, Carry, and Buy a Firearm is indeed enumerated, right there in the United States Constitution.

      Love you like a rock, Margo, but your gun control argument is totally bogus.

      • It is important to read the current HOP, Home Occupation Permit, as it stands in Yucca Valley.

        It states any business that is “normally” conducted in a commercial setting is prohibited. That would also apply to tattoos, massage parlors, hair salons, and buying/selling guns, which at this time all are allowed but do not fall into the definition of residential neighborhood or “Quiet Enjoyment” of a an apartment building, duplex or triplex.

        Avon, Amway, Herbalife and Fuller Brush or any other multi-level programs are home businesses that usually do not have the customer coming into the residence from 8am-8pm to conduct transactions.

        I consider selling Girl Scout cookies a blood sport among Moms…just kidding!

        As far as safety and back ground checks to give tattoos or dye your hair pink…are there always “Happy Endings?” These businesses should not be conducted out of the home with “customers” visiting a residential environment 8am-8pm.

        We are talking apples and oranges here discussing the TYPE of home businesses…

        The Right to Bear Arms is “meat n’ potatoes”….

        It is important to have a balance among all the food groups and life is short so eat dessert first!

        Going for my own CCW so no sense trying to pull the “race card” or “2nd Amendment card” with me. I
        had my permit in the 70′s…time to apply again.

        What do they do in 29 Palms?

  3. Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

    I am thinking that this is more about who is asking for a home occupancy permit that what the items of commerce are.

    Historically up until 1989, most of the transfer of firearms was from the kitchen table. Your argument is not based upon historical fact or for that matter reasonable safety issues.

    As for your CCW bull shit Margo, like Diane Feinstien, she bemoans gun control too, whilst all the time packs a .38 Special in her purse. B F D.

    In 29 Palms we have home occupancy Gun Shops. They have never been an issue.

    When a fellow or gal gives up his/her 4th Amendment Rights pertaining to searches and seizures to get a FFL License at their home, that shows me that they have every intent to follow the law to the letter. To then ask for the local government to put its blessing on the endeavor further proves their intent to not upset the apple cart.

  4. Diane Feinstein still around? My main focus is the Morongo Basin…nothing I can do on the National or State level. As someone once said, “All politics is local.”

    • Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

      Really, you’re going to pull that canard?

      Well ok… the Second Amendment by virtue of the 14th Amendment is as Local as you can get….. Ask the Supreme Court….. Even the most liberal court in the land the 9th circuit sees it as a local issue. The right to conduct commerce and the right to defend yourself is as local as you can get.

      You brought it up as a local issue, don’t try to change the rules in midstream when you feel uncomfortable slugging it out using logic and the facts.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
UA-9539515-1 e0a5d0bb00574423a5afb96d6b854248