# TN AG Allows Gun Ban in Apartments



## MA-Caver (Oct 28, 2009)

> *Tennessee: AG says landlords can ban tenants' guns*
> 
> http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/oct/28/tennessee-ag-says-landlords-can-ban-tenants-guns/
> 
> ...


Sigh... just when I was planning to move to an apartment sometime within the next year this comes up. It doesn't make sense why the AG would want to inhibit someone's right to defend life and home by allowing paranoid Landlords to ban guns, even with CP's that is just plain stupid IMO
One doesn't even want to tempt fate by asking potential Landlords if guns are allowed and somehow go ahead with the possession of a firearm for defense purposes.  
Granted in certain Tennessee cities (*ahem* Memphis comes to mind) this is understandable if not a hazardous decision because a handgun/firearm would make PERFECT sense in an apartment dweller's home. 
How long before it's spread to other states?


----------



## Carol (Oct 28, 2009)

A person won't face criminal charges when the landlord doesn't post signs, so this should be obvious upon touring the apartment.

In addition, every potential tenant should read and understand the potential landlord's lease terms before putting money down on the apartment and signing the lease. 

I don't agree with the AG's decision, but I don't see why this would stop anyone from finding an apartment.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 28, 2009)

Personally... I see it as simply recognizing property rights.  An apartment is the property of the landlord, entrusted to the lessee.  Just like if the lease includes a "no pets" policy, you can't bring a dog in, if the landlord makes "no guns" condition -- it's his right.  And it's your right to find an apartment that'll let you have your dog -- or your gun.  (Or both, if you want... though I don't think I would have wanted someone with hound dogs as a neighbor when I lived in an apartment.)


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 29, 2009)

If signs are posted saying no guns, then every criminal will know that every tenant IS UNARMED.

I would suggest any tenant in the apartment complex SUE if they are harmed in any way. Since the land lord has decided to take away their safety, then the land lord is responsible for their safety.

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 29, 2009)

Yep. This is going to turn VERY ugly the first time someone is harmed and a very, very nasty can of legal whoopass is opened on every landlord in the state over just this thing.


----------



## Carol (Oct 29, 2009)

Every tenant is unarmed?  No.  Only the honest tenants.


----------



## Brian S (Nov 18, 2009)

With visible signs in place it will be a sure bet which complexes will be getting robbed and which ones won't. The AG made criminals jobs easier.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 18, 2009)

Most apartment complexes won't enact such bans, at least not in Tennessee.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Personally... I see it as simply recognizing property rights. An apartment is the property of the landlord, entrusted to the lessee. Just like if the lease includes a "no pets" policy, you can't bring a dog in, if the landlord makes "no guns" condition -- it's his right. And it's your right to find an apartment that'll let you have your dog -- or your gun. (Or both, if you want... though I don't think I would have wanted someone with hound dogs as a neighbor when I lived in an apartment.)


 
While I understand the rights of the landlord argument, my question is does the Bank now constitutute as a Holder of such property and can such an argument be applied to a house with a mortgage? 

If so, then I would be very frustrated and upset. 

If not then does it only apply to Apartments, what about Stand alone houses you are renting? What about when you travel and "rent" an hotel room?


----------



## Carol (Nov 18, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> Most apartment complexes won't enact such bans, at least not in Tennessee.



I could easily see that happening in Memphis.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Nov 18, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> While I understand the rights of the landlord argument, my question is does the Bank now constitutute as a Holder of such property and can such an argument be applied to a house with a mortgage?
> 
> If so, then I would be very frustrated and upset.
> 
> If not then does it only apply to Apartments, what about Stand alone houses you are renting? What about when you travel and "rent" an hotel room?


 
arent guns banned from las vegas most las vegas hotels... if they discover a person has one they kick the out and threaten them to be trespassed if they return again with a weapon.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> arent guns banned from las vegas most las vegas hotels... if they discover a person has one they kick the out and threaten them to be trespassed if they return again with a weapon.


 

Vegas laws and around the Amount of money floating around at the cash boxes allows for one to argue for special circumstances and for it to be reasonable. 

I was just asking if people thought they might take the next step and say no guns for a major hotel chain. It could be in the small print to register online and it could also be posted at their headquarters visible to anyone who wants to look for it. 

But if you pull in off the road and just ask for a room and someone sees your firearm (* Printing *) and now you may have more to worry about. 

Do we extend to corporations the right of individuals? 
Do we limit the Landlord to personal owned and not a small business or corporation?

Do we look at it in reverse we allow for corporations and businesses but not for the individual to ... ? 

Not trying to make a stink out of this, just asking the questions of where could this go.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 18, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> While I understand the rights of the landlord argument, my question is does the Bank now constitutute as a Holder of such property and can such an argument be applied to a house with a mortgage?
> 
> If so, then I would be very frustrated and upset.
> 
> If not then does it only apply to Apartments, what about Stand alone houses you are renting? What about when you travel and "rent" an hotel room?


No; the bank in a mortgage situation isn't seen as the owner unless & until the borrower goes into default.  That's why foreclosure isn't called eviction.  But, yes, it would (and does) apply to hotel rooms, or rental homes.  

If I rent a house out -- I can set the conditions of that rental.  Any tenants have to comply -- or find somewhere that will let them do what they want.  If my conditions are so odious that I can't rent it, then I have to decide whether to change the conditions, or sell the house.  Same argument for a hotel; if the rules I establish drive too much business away, I either have to change the rules or go broke.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 18, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> Vegas laws and around the Amount of money floating around at the cash boxes allows for one to argue for special circumstances and for it to be reasonable.
> 
> I was just asking if people thought they might take the next step and say no guns for a major hotel chain. It could be in the small print to register online and it could also be posted at their headquarters visible to anyone who wants to look for it.
> 
> ...


We already give a corporation many of the same rights as an individual when it comes to property.  In this scope -- they absolutely have the right to set the rules.  And they do in many cases...


----------



## David43515 (Nov 19, 2009)

Isn`t it interesting that they can`t make rules telling you not to exocise other freedoms like religion or speech, but they can say you can`t bring a firearm into what is essentially 'your' home? I understand that it`s the owners` right, and there are plenty of other places to live.....but how does this differ from someone not wanting to rent to a person of another race, religion, sexual prefferance, or political affiliation? (I`m not trying to be a prick. I am genuinely curious as to how the law works, because it makes me wonder where an owner`s rights end and the protection of the renter`s rights begin.)

For instance, what about search warrants? Can the landlord tell the police they are free to search w/o a warrant if the renter has denied them entry? Why or why not?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 19, 2009)

Actually, a private landowner can make RULES that, were they LAWS passed by Congress, would be unconstitutional.  On my own property, within a pretty broad stripe, I can make whatever rules I want.  I can prohibit you from carrying a gun, or require that you be armed.  I can largely prohibit or prescribe religion... though not your actual beliefs.  (Think about a parochial school...)  There are limits against refusing housing to someone on the basis of race, religion, and a few other protected categories (and I'm not completely happy with the ever-expanding scope of antidiscrimination laws), but, for the most part, a private landowner can make the rules whatever they want.  It's important not to confuse the landowner's rules and the legislature's laws.

A search warrant is a different situation entirely -- and they are strictly controlled.  A search warrant is an order authorizing and commanding any "authorized officer" to search a specific location for specific items, and if found, to seize them.  Search warrants must, per the US Constitution, be based on probable cause.  A landlord cannot grant a consensual search of the tenant's property (and even tactics such as a detective accompanying an apartment manager on an "inspection" of the property are very limited in scope) over the tenant's objections; a warrant trumps anyone's objections outside a court of law.  In fact, a ruling a few years ago stated that one co-tenant (like a spouse) can't override the present objections or denial of a consensual search by the other party...


----------



## K31 (Nov 28, 2009)

While some people rightly thought of the argument that the signs prohibiting firearms would be beacons to criminals, I was thinking about other apartment owners doing just the opposite as a enticement. Think about it. You are almost ensured then that your neighbors are law-abiding and that your apartment building is going to be break-in free.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 30, 2009)

K31 said:


> While some people rightly thought of the argument that the signs prohibiting firearms would be beacons to criminals, I was thinking about other apartment owners doing just the opposite as a enticement. Think about it. You are almost ensured then that your neighbors are law-abiding and that your apartment building is going to be break-in free.


People tend to be reluctant to put up "Firearms welcome here" signs on the fear that it is the equivalent to putting up signs which read: "Extremely valuable, very portable items located herein, please break in while I'm not at home and steal them."

I understand the concern.  Though I admit, a few years back I taped one of my wife's "Shoot-N-See" targets to the front door for a few days.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 19, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Personally... I see it as simply recognizing property rights.  An apartment is the property of the landlord, entrusted to the lessee.  Just like if the lease includes a "no pets" policy, you can't bring a dog in, if the landlord makes "no guns" condition -- it's his right.  And it's your right to find an apartment that'll let you have your dog -- or your gun.  (Or both, if you want... though I don't think I would have wanted someone with hound dogs as a neighbor when I lived in an apartment.)



Yes and no..........violating a lease should result in eviction.  However, facing criminal charges as the result of violating a lease, is violating the spirit of the common law contract between landlord and renter.

The issue here isn't the Land Lord's right to control his property, he always had that right to restrict certain things in regards to the lease, including firearms........his recourse is eviction!

The ISSUE here is the States power to enforce the property as a 'Gun Free Zone' for purposes of posting signs and charging tenants with violations of the law, and THAT should be considered a Constitutional Issue, as a renter, per English Common Law, becomes legal de facto owner of a property, and it becomes his dwelling for the term of his residency (which, again, can be terminated by court order per civil violation of the lease).

What I see here is a VIOLATION of the 2nd Amendment BY THE STATE, not by the Land Lord (who, again, always had recourse per a violation of his lease......eviction!).


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 19, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yes and no..........violating a lease should result in eviction. However, facing criminal charges as the result of violating a lease, is violating the spirit of the common law contract between landlord and renter.
> 
> The issue here isn't the Land Lord's right to control his property, he always had that right to restrict certain things in regards to the lease, including firearms........his recourse is eviction!
> 
> ...


 
sgtmac_46,

Sit down.

You sitting.

Ok.

I agree with you.

I know. Take a drink. 

Seriously, I do agree. When ever I have had to deal with lease living arrangements and to deal with the police, unless the crime was still going on when the police decided to drive by they would tell the complaintent to call the management in the morning and file a complaint. 

Even in cases of destruction of private property (* Vehicles *) with witnesses. The police were not witness, and as the Apartment was private property it was up to the Management to represent the owners and contact the authorities.


----------

