TN: Tennessee AG Says Landlords can ban their tenants

[chamberc]

Until there is a statute on the books that is held constitutional, the property owner continues to have that right. Again the tenant has the right to negotiate the lease, or not accept the lease. Whats the problem?

I don't see any problem with it. I don't want my property rights violated.

[Kythas]

This may be nit picking, but doesn't the Constitution only prohibit government from violating the rights contained in the Bill of Rights?

If a private person, or private company, wants to say you can't say certain things on their property or can't carry guns on their property, it's OK because only government is prohibited from violating rights.

[chamberc]

This may be nit picking, but doesn't the Constitution only prohibit government from violating the rights contained in the Bill of Rights?

Yep.

[frazzled]

The government, not landlords.

[GaryAdrian]

I think all this may change when the SCOTUS rules if the second A is incorporated through the 14th A.

I think on that day the sun will rise in the west and set in the east and we will all have Peace.
Now, to be serious, I think you can find a better place to live. It's that or light up under a "No Smoking" sign.
KnowwhatImeanVern?

[frazzled]

Respectfully none of that matters. This is not state action. It is private action. If the landlord and leasee sign a lease contract that requires the tenant to walk around in a pink bunny suit then the tenant has to wear a pink bunny suit, becase thats what they agreed to do. This is free enterprise and Life, Liberty, Property, as spoken of by Locke. veryone has their rights and no one else is intruding on it trying to make you do or not do something.

[chamberc]

Respectfully none of that matters. This is not state action. It is private action. If the landlord and leasee sign a lease contract that requires the tenant to walk around in a pink bunny suit then the tenant has to wear a pink bunny suit, becase thats what they agreed to do. This is free enterprise and Life, Liberty, Property, as spoken of by Locke. veryone has their rights and no one else is intruding on it trying to make you do or not do something.

Bingo, to say otherwise would open the door to other restrictions BY THE GOVERNMENT on your private property.

[MechAg94]

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.

[MechAg94]

nm

[Oldgringo]

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.

[MechAg94]

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?

[Oldgringo]

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?

Neither I NOR anyone else in this country have to sign any contract...and that's the point. Good day, sir.

[chabouk]

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.

[HankB]

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 . . . )

[A-R]

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.

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. If you open your property to the general public, you can make a lot of rules that the general public must follow. But there are also many rules you are specifically prohibited by law from making and many laws you must follow as the proprietor of a public business. For instance, if you're property is open to the public - depending on size, etc. - you must abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act and make your property accessible to the physically disabled. You also may NOT exclude anyone for reasons of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, etc. Many businesses post a warning stating "we refuse the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". If they tried to refuse service to an African American because "we don't serve your kind", they would obviously be brought up on Federal charges in a New York minute.

Furthermore, if your property is for sale, you may not deny the sale of your property to any of the above listed "protected classes".

Does any of this necessarily apply to a private property owner's ability to ban firearms from his property? No, of course not. But it's just a reminder that private property rights are not absolute. If the state wanted to pass a law stating that "if you allow the general public on your property for any reason, then you may not deny that same public the right to legally possess a concealed handgun on your property" that would not be unprecedented or immoral in any way.

As I've said, there is a HUGE difference between private personal residence or other private non-public property, and property that willingly invites the general public. Once the general public is invited, many laws must be followed and many exclusions become illegal.