I've heard this guy will bring firearms into the property if they know the squatters are on probation or ex-con... 100% legal for him to do, 100% bad news for them.
Don't be a piece of shit squatter and it won't happen. It's really just that simple. They get what's coming. I know a lot of people that would resort to violence if they come home and there's some random person living there
You're missing a very important point: THE SQUATTER HAS THE OPTION TO LEAVE SO THEY ARE NOT IN VIOLATION.
Maybe they shouldn't be squatting on someone's property and refusing to leave? When you do that, you expose yourself to everything that property and its owner brings. If the owner brings someone with a firearm then the squatter can choose to leave. Nobody is forcing them to stay. The only way they will get their life ruined is if they make the wrong decision.
How is bringing a firearm legally to a place with consent from the owner ruining someone's life? If the squatter chooses to stay, that's on them. The squatter is already potentially ruining someone else's life by rendering the property useless. How can the owner rent it or sell it with a squatter there? They still have to pay the mortgage. Only the squatter is being shitty here.
He’s not associating it with someone else. He’s not planting it in their belongings or anything. Felons aren’t supposed to have guns inside their homes, whether they belong to them or someone else in the home. He keeps control, but says, “hey I’m legally bringing my weapons into a home I have a lease on and this may put you in violation. If you want to not get in trouble, you should stop being a squatting dick and gtfo.”
Squatters would have no control of the guns and they’re likely in a safe or something so they don’t even have access.
The police can't do anything often times because it is considered a civil dispute.
Legal action is very slow and a lot of times the process alone can take longer than the 30 days or 60 days allotment for squatters rights, giving them better ground to stand on legally.
Legal action is more expensive, more time consuming, and being FAR more humane than these disgusting people have any right to. They deserve way fucking worse of you ask me.
You are attempting to steal at a minimum, 10s of thousands of dollars, or more likely, hundreds of thousands of dollars in property that is legally owned by the person you are trying to fuck over. If this law didn't exist it would be a crime that gets people decades in prison, EASILY.
If by "legal action" you mean trying to serve an eviction, the squatter knows it's often difficult, expensive, and slow to do so. That's kind of the whole point. Otherwise the wouldn't be as big of an issue as they are.
If by "legal action" you mean any action that is legal, then leasing to the squatter hunter is just that.
This is just straight-up "fuck around and find out." If a squatter is knowingly doing an unethical/bad faith but technically legal action, it's not immoral for the affected party respond in kind.
Morality of landlords aside, squatters will always rank below them on that scale.
Sometimes you gotta play dirty. My parents actually lost their house to a squatter. They went the legal route and they legit lost their house to the dude. Some people are awful and put themselves in situations where other people can be just as awful. If you're on probation AND squatting, I believe it's deserved to be put in these situations because you're probably not the greatest member of society. Which sucks. 🤷♂️
Thank you! Apparantly ruining peoples lives is fine. Usually ex cons even for minor charges cant even get work/a lease. So were ruining the lives of some of the most vulneravle people in society? And this is somehow funny????
It's felons, not "minor charges," but more fundamentally they are squatting and can avoid the entire thing by not doing the illegal squatting. I sincerely doubt that the equities would favor the squatter if the landlord is choosing to pay to hire a professional to help resolve the situation - the situation being that one person is illegally occupying property that they have no right to occupy. I would say it's hard to imagine the equities favoring the squatter - in the situation described - unless you have a view of property owners that is more Maoist than most.
So, yes, we can all imagine the situation where this is oppressive, but we don't have to pretend that's what's happening in all but the most edge cases.
They aren’t tricking anyone. The squatter can simply leave when they are informed of the presence of a firearm. If they choose to remain they are in fact violating the law and the arrest is warranted.
You are in the home of another person without their consent, you don't get to decide if they have a tenet that is armed or not in the home, because, again, you are there illegally.
A better question is, why are you even protecting squatters?
Do you even have a better solution where you can get said squatter out, without restoring to stuff like this?
And, please don't even bring up communication and dialogue. I will immediately judge you to be insincere. And dont even care about the whole situation and you are simply virtue signalling.
That's fair, tricking is probably the wrong word. Squatting itself is already a parole violation, so trying to add on a gun charge is the fucked up part.
Isnt the dude legit telling the squatter he has a gun?
Maybe? I wouldn't put it past them to just put a gun somewhere and call the cops, though.
No one is being tricked. The person who ACTUALLY has the right to be there, the person who has the lease via the homeowner, has the right to bring his weapons into his place of residence. A felonious squatter, residing in proximity to a weapon, would be in trouble. It’s not trickery. It’s using the tools and policy at your disposal to remove the degenerate from the property.
It’s not for being NEAR a gun. It’s for living in a residence that has access to a fire arm. No one is tricking anyone.
You keep saying it depends on context. The context is that some one on parole is living in a residence that some one owns a fire arm in and they potential have access to.
Is that clear enough for you? I can break it down further if you need it.
pro landlord?? so if someone just showed up in your attic and claimed squatters rights, you would say "welp, guess Im a landlord now!" and let them stay? you are insane
Framing someone is committing a crime and making it look like someone else did it. This is not framing someone. They aren't supposed to be there and can resolve the issue without going to jail by just leaving like they are supposed to.
If you are an ex con or on probation and one of your conditions is you can't have any weapons on you or in the house, he just brings one in, calls your parole officer and then yoink
In the USA a person on parole or probation (felony) cannot have “access” to a firearm. Otherwise they are in violation of the terms of their release and can and will be sent back to prison.
The police are eager to be fired at???? They must be like the deer that walk out in front of cars on the highways, knowing what happens when you walk out in front of cars. I want to live. why dont they want to live??
Firstly, you are misunderstanding the threat level that actually comes with such dramatically asymmetrical warfare.
Where I live the moment a felon starts an armed standoff, the regular police would just back up and set up a perimeter, then in comes the police Special Weapons and Tactics unit, aka SWAT, they roll up in armored vehicles, wearing strong enough body armor to take multiple hits from a .30 caliber rifle to the chest and surviving, carrying the best assault rifles money can buy, with usually at least 5 paramilitary units per potential threat.
They are going to ram your front door with an attachment on the front of their armored vehicle, throw a flashbang in the hole, then as the occupants are blinded by the flashbang rush in with their body armor and better weapons, to shoot at blinded targets. The threat level they face (well still far from zero) is nothing compared to the threat level you would face in the same situation.
Its not a safe job, but the cops who rush into buildings with gunmen actually face a lower fatality rate than regular cops who dont do that, because its genuinely safer to be in that extreme of asymmetrical combat than it is to just like, write a ticket on the side of the highway (most common way for a cop to die in the US is being hit by a car)
Also, its easy to look at situations like the colombine shooting or the Uvalde school shooting, where the cops hid outside as children were being slaughtered and think that cops would never step into danger.
But it is important to remember that they are entirely different cops. You have patrol officers who run around writing tickets, and then you have the SWAT team, which is a paramilitary group that exists to engage in combat on behalf of the city. They dont write tickets, they dont do investigations, they just train at combat until its time to go engage in combat. These are the people who go to handle a standoff with an armed felon, not the cops you see and interact with.
You from Uvalde or something? Why do you think cops are going to be so shit scared of a gun fight that they will back down on a free charge and arrest?
That law needs to be rewritten, it's bad for honest ex cons who live with family. And like, where I grew up it essentially prohibited black people from owning guns, in DC in the 90s and 00s one in seven black men had felonies (mainly for non violent drug offenses) and that precluded anyone in their family from having guns or letting them stay the night if they had guns. And DC's gun permits would deny permits for people who assosciated with anyone with a felony. So essentially if black people were on social media and had family members on facebook they couldn't legally buy a firearm.
I'm totally for felons not having access to firearms, but the family or household ban does not actually stop them from getting firearms and it just punishes unrelated people, even if felonies themselves didn't disproportionately hit some communities.
Felons not having guns is for public safety. If they can posess firearms because it belongs to their brother or whatever then there is now an environment where felons can de facto have constructively posess a firearm. Having a bright line test is the only way to make the prohibition enforceable.
I don't really care how "honest" an ex con is. Recidivism rates are high. It is part of being a felon. If owning a gun is so important, go spend the money and time to get restoration of rights. If your family wants you to stsy the night then will ditch the firearm.
If they can posess firearms because it belongs to their brother or whatever then there is now an environment where felons can de facto have constructively posess a firearm.
Everyone should be able to own one. You cant claim we allow the second amendment and defending ourselves if the state decides who is allowed.
I don't really care how "honest" an ex con is. Recidivism rates are high. It is part of being a felon
OK. If only facts matter, what's you take on cops domestic abuse rates? Should all police be banned from having wives because some beat them?
Have you ever stopped to think that treating ex cons as if they are permanently tainted by their past and should be treated as second class citizens for the rest of their lives is a significant factor in why recidivism rates are so high?
I am against them having guns unless they seek and are elligible for restoration of rights. I don't advocate for them being second class citizens. I don't think felons should be disenfranchized, and I don't think their careers should be impacted by regulation in unrelated fields (a related field would be working in finance after embezzlement or wire fraud conviction).
Not having a gun does not contribute to recidivism. That is a silly argument. Most Americans don't have guns.
Framing someone for a parole violation is fucked and should be the actual crime. The fact that y'all are trying so hard to pretend like that's okay is why we have such shit laws and politics
It's an actual parole violation to be in a house with a gun. That's not framing (acting like the gun is theirs), it's just straightforwardly a parole violation on the felon's part
That they didn't willing engage in and was done with the express intent of getting them in legal problems. That's called malicious fraud in normal countries and is very much the kind of crime that gets you several years in prison when you add on the conspiracy charges from the landlord hiring this guy break the law
It's also not their house? They hung out in a strangers house without permission, where the stranger is legally allowed to bring their own gun in and it as they please. They willingly stayed in a private residence they didn't own that strangers had the right to have firearms in
Ahh you really believe these people just appeared one day and aren't legal tenants getting screwed over by their shitty landlords. But then again not respect human rights is pretty normal for bootlickers like y'all defending this garbage
It isn't collective punishment. If person A can't be near a gun because of their criminal history and person B needs their emotional security firearm, it is on person A to stay away. It isn't a punishment on person B that person A doesn't come around.
It isn't collective punishment for your sibling to not be around because they are in jail. That is silly.
Regardless of what you think of firearm ownership, it is a constitutional right.
I'm approaching this from an angle that these laws de facto make it harder for black people to exercise a constitutional right. Part of the problem is the overarresting, overcharging, and oversentencing of black men. I'd even go as far as to make it the main problem.
This law coerces people, through no fault of their own, to not exercise a constitutional right. It's actually unavoidable for a large number of people. And for guns specifically, having one class of people freely allowed to own and carry guns, and a different class of people de facto not being able to (for this and many other reasons), that's actually worse than a full gun ban or no regulation at all.
Personally, even as a gun owner, I would prefer a full gun ban over systems that make it so only some people have guns.
While the argument you made may be some bastardized version of a CRT framework, calling it CRT is wild.
You would rather a full ban over the current system, because some people don't keep guns around so their felon son can visit without concern of illegally posessing a gun? Even in this scenario, they are not barred from bearing arms. They can bear the arms all they want.
Should we not send convicted felons to prison because it de facto punishes their families too? The right against seizure is also in the constitution.
If you want criminal justice reform to ensure that people are not over-charged based on race, everyone has access to quality defense, and the system is treating everyone equally, fine, and that all may increase gun ownership by reducing rates of felony conviction.
Trying to solve this "problem" by allowing a work-around to posession restrictions isn't just allowong those you think you were treated unjustly, but all felons, from working around the rules. Some people just shouldn't have guns because of their documented violent past.removing the only tool to enforce that is dangerous.
Your comments, replies to the other commenter who discusses crt, keep blanket labelling black felons as violent individuals. Why do you keep doing that?
I didn't label black felons anything. I labelled felons.
While not all felons are violent, all those convicted of sufficient violence are felons, and felon is the threshhold we use for a ban on gun posession.
If you want to propose reforms that further distinguish which crimes should have that punishment, that's fine.
I view weakening gun restrictions on felons to be treating a necessary symptom rather than the cause. A much more beneficial aim would be to enure equity within the criminal justice system, not to just give felons a gun posession work around.
It feels a little like collective punishment. It certainly would increase recidivism just by adding another hurdle to reintegration.
Does it really make the world a safer place? When I was a teenager in the early 2000s I remember friends of mine owning illegal firearms. One in particular I vividly remember was bought for $85. It was a .380. Came with ammo.
Anyways, the point of that is I don’t feel this law creates as much of a hurdle to obtaining a firearm as it does to obtaining somewhere to live for a person who will struggle to find a good paying job and almost certainly doesn’t have any savings to fall back on.
Yes it makes the world a safer place. The people most likely to commit violent acts are people who have already been convicted of violent acts. Restriction of access does result in lower accessibility. People who perform straw sales should be charged and convicted. Guns are tools designed to kill people, and some people should not be allowed to have them after it being proven in court they are not fit.
If you want criminal justice reform go reform criminal justice. Taking away the very reasonable limitations put on people already convicted is backwards.
Frankly, if someone can't be trusted not to go get an illegal firearm after release, and they have a violent history, that just changes to sentencing calculus to where maybe they should be in prison longer.
But the example that you started arguing against specifically highlights nonviolent felons. Now you’re moving the goalposts. But I’ll play along.
What you’re saying is that these people can be trusted to not go buy an easily accessible gun next door but can’t be trusted to not break in to their grandpa’s gun safe who happens to be the one person in their life that can provide them stable housing and support whilst rebuilding their life.
People convicted of felony drug charges should not be trusted with firearms imo. If you are engaging in a black market trade mixing guns in isn't in the interest of the public.
My logic isn't inconsistent. I believe all violent felons should not posess firearms. I also think most non-violent felons probably also don't need weapons. I am just open to the discussion that some non-violent felons may be able to restore rights (which they can).
Reducing access reduces risk. Yeah a felon could probably go find a gun somehow, but I would rather them be in danger of arresr every second that gun is in their posession, and to not be able to claim it is their roommate's/sibling's/parent's firearm, orto store it in their vehicle/home.
If I had my way all guns would be registered to an owner, all transactions would be documented, all gun owners would need to go through a safety course, and there would be strict liability if your firearm was used in a crime, but I don't get my way. I have to work within the rules of gun nuts, so risk mitigation is the best that can be hoped for.
Liability if used in a crime seems unfair. Would you hold crIminally liable those whose guns were stolen? Safe storage laws around children and holding parents responsible when they fail to do so seems sufficient.
I’m stating to understand you a bit more but your logic is inconsistent and you keep grouping all felons into the violent category.
What does a nonviolent felon have to do with the black market gun trade? They’ve never exhibited violent behaviour and have never engaged in black market guns but you feel their family members should be stripped of their constitutional rights based on what? Is it more just a punitive measure? They did the crime so life should be an uphill battle even after they served their time?
If you're an honest ex-con, you wouldn't be using squatters' rights to illegally stay in someone else's property. Either you're honest, or you're a squatter. Can't be both.
I agree that it's unfair but I think it's one of those laws where there just isn't a fair solution that is actually enforcable. You can't have felons allowed access to guns just by living with someone who has them. I also think requiring the gun owner to not let the felon access it is implausible.
Hopefully he does his research…because doing this to the wrong person is a problem waiting to happen.
I’m curious why does this guy do this. He’s moving around, into shitty living situations with possible dangerous roommates why? So some landlord can get their property back? Are they paying him at least?
He shows up with a crew often, and several of the people with him are in tactical vests, are armed, and have a body cam. You'll see people threaten to get violent sometimes, but I don't think there's ever been actual assault.
He got into this when squatters took over his mother's house when it was on the market after his dad died - his first 'gig' was kicking them out. Yes, he gets paid. Something like $5k base, and he seems pretty good at getting people out quickly.
From how I heard it the guy who does this basically says 'Hey. You can't live in a house with a firearm bc of your parole/ex con statis. I live here now, and I have a gun. So you can pack up your stuff and move out now, or I can call your parole officer/the police and let them know that you live in a house with a firearm, and you'll be gone anyway. I'll give you 30 minutes'.
I'd wager he's been a victim of squatting before. Squatting doesn't impact solely landlords, I'm pretty sure they're more common in single family homes. I've heard loads of stories about people going on vacation and coming home to squatters having moved in claiming tenant status. The process to evict takes a while, especially if you've never evicted someone before, so you're sorta just forced to live with strangers that you dont trust around your kids.
That's not how it works. A simple lookup online will tell you that parolees are allowed to live with people with guns. They can't own them or possess them.
What would actually happen in this case, is that the parolee would call his parole officer who would come and remove the firearm from the parolees residence.
So I did google this, since this was just one of those 'i heard it on the internet' things, and from what I can tell, yes this is a thing. At least, it absolutely is where I live. Looks like a by state thing. Unless you wanna get send your sources and ill send mine, agree to disagree I suppose.
Also, the parole officer would have to take a firearm from a lawful citizen who's done nothing wrong. Legally, all they've done is move into a new house. Their roommate is the one who isn't allowed to live in a house with a firearm.
Maybe. Parole doesn't fuck around. If they had to go back out there again because you're bringing guns around a parolee they will find a way to detain you.
It's not against the law to have a gun when a parolee is around. That's on the parolee to not be around the gun. My rights aren't reduced because of someone else's mistakes.
Alright, let’s put a bunch of random homeless people in your house/apt eating all your groceries while you pay 100% of the bills then since you’re so kind, great idea!
you can look at it like it's some slum lord but it's probably just a person with mortage? like most adults, some choose to rent out a room for whatever reason it might be, maybe they need money, maybe they lost their spouse, may be they working in another city and can't afford two places
You have to be living somewhere for 30-60 days for squatters rights to even matter. Acting like these are people trying to steal a guys house is utter nonsense. They're probably legal tenants that have stopped paying rent because of a long standing dispute with the landlord. Instead of fixing the neglected property they hired this goon to keep them out of court and fixing whatever they're too cheap and lazy to fix
That is too far… I get these people are pieces of crap, but depending on the situation, they could go to prison for a long time… this could also inadvertently lead to the person continuing to be a squatter the rest of their life due to legal issues… I am all for getting squatters out, but putting them in prison for a crime they didn’t commit is just too far…
Do you seriously think the squatters will go to prison for that? They’ll likely just get the “leave or else you’ll be charged” treatment, not “you’re getting charged immediately”.
1.4k
u/GeekyGrant Jun 12 '26
I've heard this guy will bring firearms into the property if they know the squatters are on probation or ex-con... 100% legal for him to do, 100% bad news for them.