TN: Tennessee AG Says Landlords can ban their tenants

[chamberc]

Attorney General Bob Cooper says landlords can ban their tenants from bringing firearms into their property even if they have handgun carry permits.


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.
But Cooper ads that violators couldn't face criminal charges if the landlord doesn't post signs.


The opinion was requested by Republican Rep. Tony Shipley of Kingsport. Legal opinions issued by the attorney general indicate his office's interpretation of the law, but unlike court opinions, they aren't binding.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091 ... ants++guns+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[frazzled]

Of course they can. Its private property and they have freedom to contract. Anything else is despotism.
The landlords are free to try put it in their leases.
The tenants are free to negotiate it away or lease somewhere else.
visitors/customers are free to bring custom to the tenant or not depending on what the tenant does.

[chamberc]

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

Tenants have the right to not live there, and the property owner has the right to set the rules.

[Oldgringo]

Of course they can. Its private property and they have freedom to contract. Anything else is despotism.
The landlords are free to try put it in their leases.
The tenants are free to negotiate it away or lease somewhere else.
visitors/customers are free to bring custom to the tenant or not depending on what the tenant does.

, this is America where there are still some choices.

[joe817]

When I first read the post and the article in the links, I though what wild, crazy stupid thing that is.

But I got to thinking, and it became very obvious to me that here in Texas, landlords have that same right. Yup. It's the 30.06 signs on commercial property. And there's another thread going somewhere where there's a gun ban stated in the lease.

And if an owner of an apartment complex, or duplex, or home for that matter wants to include an absurd "no guns allowed" in his lease, or indeed post a 30.06 sign on the property, it is their right. Thank God we live in Texas and don't see many signs banning guns.

And if we did see a gun ban sign or clause in a lease, like the others have so aptly said, we can take our business, and our residence, elsewhere. And there's PLENTY of alternatives to turn to.

[chabouk]

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.

[C-dub]

I understand that a weapon ban could be placed in a business lease, but could something like this really stand up in a lease for a residence? What about being able to possess a weapon in our homes for our own defense? There are other threads discussing this and even though the property owners have displayed 30.06 signs it was understood that they cold not prohibit anyone from possessing a weapon in their residence, or so I thought.

[Jeff B.]

I'm fine with that as long as a tenant can opt out of the lease (change in contract) if the landlord decides to post signs.

Jeff B.

[A-R]

IANAL but in terms of a residential lease, the term "possession" is very important. Everyone has heard the old adage "possession us nine tenths of the law." this is especially true in terms of the rights of a resident. Legaleze such as "rights of parties in possession" are extremely important in residential leasing, up to and including issues such as lawful eviction.

Point being, I'm not so sure this opinion would fly in Texas. Yes a landlord owns property,but that is not an absolute right. A LL could not put a clause in a lease banning "colored people" for instance.

Again, IANAL.

[PBratton]

So, what would the TN AG say if I, as a landlord, were to include a clause in my lease that said you had to have a firearm on the premisis and all times?

[C-dub]

So, what would the TN AG say if I, as a landlord, were to include a clause in my lease that said you had to have a firearm on the premisis and all times?

Or you would only lease to those with CHLs?

[chamberc]

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.

So I take it you're not a supporter of the employeer parking lot bill?

[cowboymd]

I wonder if that makes the tenant liable for visitors if it was written into the lease?

[MechAg94]

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.

A dress code is not equivalent to banning guns IMO. It might be more equivalent to regulating the use or maybe the storage of firearms.

Private property rights are not absolute. They never have been. I don't understand this notion that says they are. I almost get the impression some people would love to be a petty aristocrats in feudal Europe and lord it over their peasants.

Residents have certain rights in just about any state you care to mention be it legislation or court precedent. IMO, right of self defense and possession of firearms should be included. In Texas, there is a standard state form that most people use as a rent/lease contract. As far as I remember, it makes no mention of firearms.

Regardless of the legalities, most people I know who own rent houses have enough problems keeping renters who pay their rent on time, I seriously doubt they would worry about gun ownership.

I guess my opinion is focused on residents in rent houses and apartments. I think businesses are and probably should be more free to contract some of those options however they want.

[frazzled]

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?