TN: Tennessee AG Says Landlords can ban their tenants

[A-R]

Cooper said in an opinion released Wednesday that landlords can either include a firearms ban in the lease or through signs posted on the property.

Hmmm . . . this doesn't sound right. I can see the arguments that a landlord can included certain restrictions in a lease, but if he can impose restrictions simply by posting a sign, doesn't that mean that one party can unilaterally change the terms of a contract?

I mean, if someone signs a lease with no firearms restrictions, and THEN the landlord posts restrictive signs . . . how can they be valid and enforceable? (Unless a provision in the lease says the landlord can make changes any time he feels like it . . . )

IANAL
I agree. Once a lease has been consumated, the "rights of parties in possession" become paramount and the tenant is free to engage in any activity not specifically prohibited by law or in the lease. A landlord posting such signs after the lease is consumated would likely be a breach of contract on the landlord's part.
IANAL

[A-R]

Someone visiting your property IS NOT THE SAME as someone renting/leasing your property as a residence. Once you lease a property to someone so they can use it as their home, you give up rights to the property in exchange for rent. You might have rights to access for maintenance/inspections, but you can't just show up and start going through all the closets in the middle of the night. If guns are NOT listed in the rental/lease terms, can the property owner come in and say NO GUNS? I would say no, he can't. If they are in the lease contract, I guess that depends on the law in that state. I don't like it though. IMO, a person retains their rights in their residence whether it is rented or owned.

IANAL
You are correct, as long as the provisions are not spelled out in the lease the tenant is free to do as he/she pleases on the property.

Taken word-for-word from an old Real Estate 101 textbook ... "A lessor (landlord/owner) may restrict a lessee's (tenant's) use of the premises through provisions included in the lease. ... In the absence of such limitations, a lessee may use the premises for any lawful purpose."
IANAL

[chabouk]

How many of your rights do you think you can sign away by contract?

All of them, if I'm foolish enough to sign such a contract.

IANAL, but I am a licensed real estate agent and Realtor and I can tell you some of your assumptions above are dead wrong. There are clear legal distinctions between an occupied residence (a "homestead") and a business that is open to the public.

No offense, austinrealtor, because I know you're talking about what the law currently is. I agree that you've accurately stated what the law is, but I think you missed the fact that I don't give one whit about a law that violates either constitutional or natural rights.

I didn't address what the law is, I addressed what is right versus wrong. Even though I may strongly disagree with a property owner's restrictions (based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.), fundamental property rights guarantee them the right to be despicable jerks if they choose to be. Statutory and case law to the contrary are wrong.

It should be no surprise that both statutory and case law can be wrong: I think everyone here agrees that Illinois statutes about handguns are wrong, and a violation of the fundamental right to self defense. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that slaves, former slaves, and children of slaves were not U.S. Citizens; part of the Court's ruling pointed out that if they were citizens, they would have the right to bear arms. This was something considered unacceptable at the time, but almost everyone in the RKBA community agrees that all people have the natural fundamental right to be armed, regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

Sometimes those who are closely wrapped up in what the law is, need to step back, draw a breath, and consider what the law should be.

Again, no offense, you and I were simply addressing different topics.

[dihappy]

Yep, this is often a tough problem for true conservatives because it's the violation of personal property rights or 2nd Amendment Rights.

The 2nd Amendment is not involved in any way. There is no constitutional right to enter or use someone else's property in a way that violates their wishes.

Your 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression is not violated when an employer enforces a dress code, and your 2nd Amendment rights are not violated when a private property owner bans guns.

What about dress according to your right to freedom of "religion"

Can an employer ban a muslim woman from wearing a Hijab? And if they cannot, why not?

[dihappy]

If the rental rate is not acceptable or other terms of the CONTRACT are not acceptable, either negotiate the articles to mutual acceptance or walk away. The USA is still a basically free country.

How many of your rights do you think you can sign away by contract?

All of them, if I'm foolish enough to sign such a contract.

The very nature of a contract requires that it be voluntary and uncoerced. You can voluntarily give up your rights to free speech, your property, practice of your religion, or your guns, or all of the above, in consideration of something. Entirely your choice.

Someone above asked if I oppose the employer parking lot bill. Yes, with one exception: government property (because the people are the owners). The government should never tell property owners what (or whom) they must allow on or in their property. To deny property owners free enjoyment of their property to see fit, is to accept the government telling you that you must allow others to use your private property against your wishes.

I even believe this should extend to anti-discrimination laws. I hate racism, and businesses that deny entrance to others based on their skin color or ethnicity should be ridiculed and boycotted, but even racists have the right to freedom of association.

There is no moral, logical, or philosophical distinction between a shopping mall and your home. Either place may invite anyone they wish, including opening the doors to everyone who wishes to enter. Both should also be equally free to reject or deny anyone for any reason.

Telling a property owner they must allow everyone to exercise a certain right against the owner's wishes leads to some interesting situations:
- Pagans practicing their freedom of religion during Sunday morning service in the sanctuary of the First Baptist Church
- Teenagers asserting the right to be free from unwarranted searches of their rooms by their parents
- PETA and the Brady Bunch exercising their freedom of speech by waving signs and yelling at shoppers in the aisles of Bass Pro

Either all property owners have the right to control their property, or none of them do. If the government can tell you that you can't ban guns, they can also tell you that you must ban guns.

I see Judge Judy, Joe Brown, etc telling people their contract doesnt hold water many times. Im guessing that just because you have something in the contract, it doesnt mean its legal.