-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Tenn. AG Cooper: Landlords may ban guns for renters
- Thread starter KBCraig
- Start date
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
sketchy "article" - can you find and post the actual opinion?
I find it hard to believe that an owner of land may prohibit via tresspass law the lessee from possessing guns on land leased by him without any gun carry restriction built into the lease to begin with.
sketchy "article" - can you find and post the actual opinion?
I find it hard to believe that an owner of land may prohibit via tresspass law the lessee from possessing guns on land leased by him without any gun carry restriction built into the lease to begin with.
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
It's not thetresspass law. The AG is saying if it is the lease or rental agreement the landlord can forbid the possesion of firearm.
http://www.tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/op/op09-170.pdf
It's not thetresspass law. The AG is saying if it is the lease or rental agreement the landlord can forbid the possesion of firearm.
http://www.tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/op/op09-170.pdf
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
This is why some malls are gun free zones. The businesses within a mall lease space from the building owner, that apparently has a "no firearms" claus in the lease agreements.
But I don't know that this extends to residential property. It may not.
This is why some malls are gun free zones. The businesses within a mall lease space from the building owner, that apparently has a "no firearms" claus in the lease agreements.
But I don't know that this extends to residential property. It may not.
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
Don't forget to tell the criminals that these are "gun free" zones. Wouldn't want them violating the rules, would we?
Don't forget to tell the criminals that these are "gun free" zones. Wouldn't want them violating the rules, would we?
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
Fallguy wrote:
There has been at least one other opinion on this. (see TN AG opinion 07-148 Oct. 22, 2007 question 7.)
If the landlord has verbally informed the tenant or informed the tenant in the form of a signed contract then why wouldn't the tenant be subject to criminal charges if he brought a handgun onto the property? I know that Opry Mills does not have properly posted signs. They have told me verbally they do not want handguns on their property. Why couldn't I be charged with trespass? Why wouldn't a tenant be charged with the same? (see AG opinion 07-148 Oct 22, 2007 question 6.)
The Tennessee Constitution allows for the State Government to regulate arms. The Legislature has passed laws which make having a gun on any posted property a crime (except State Parks if posted the signs carry no weight against someone who has a carry permit). People with guns do not have a protected status and one is free to agree or disagree with terms of a contract.
The only problem I have is with the AG when he said in his opinion (09-158 09-22-09 question 6)concerning public park carry that signs do not have to be posted for carry to be a criminal act and now this opinion (09-170 1-26-09 question 3)where it is not a criminal act unless signs are posted. Either you need a sign or you don't. There shouldn't be one position for the gov and one for everyone else.
Fallguy wrote:
There has been at least one other opinion on this. (see TN AG opinion 07-148 Oct. 22, 2007 question 7.)
If the landlord has verbally informed the tenant or informed the tenant in the form of a signed contract then why wouldn't the tenant be subject to criminal charges if he brought a handgun onto the property? I know that Opry Mills does not have properly posted signs. They have told me verbally they do not want handguns on their property. Why couldn't I be charged with trespass? Why wouldn't a tenant be charged with the same? (see AG opinion 07-148 Oct 22, 2007 question 6.)
The Tennessee Constitution allows for the State Government to regulate arms. The Legislature has passed laws which make having a gun on any posted property a crime (except State Parks if posted the signs carry no weight against someone who has a carry permit). People with guns do not have a protected status and one is free to agree or disagree with terms of a contract.
The only problem I have is with the AG when he said in his opinion (09-158 09-22-09 question 6)concerning public park carry that signs do not have to be posted for carry to be a criminal act and now this opinion (09-170 1-26-09 question 3)where it is not a criminal act unless signs are posted. Either you need a sign or you don't. There shouldn't be one position for the gov and one for everyone else.
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
If a property owner does not have 39-17-1359 signs buttells you not to come back armed and you do...you would be tresspassing, not in violation of 39-17-1359.
Since you are living in your rental property, I don't think tresspassing would apply. But even if it did...again it wouldn't violate 39-17-1359 without signs posted.
If a property owner does not have 39-17-1359 signs buttells you not to come back armed and you do...you would be tresspassing, not in violation of 39-17-1359.
Since you are living in your rental property, I don't think tresspassing would apply. But even if it did...again it wouldn't violate 39-17-1359 without signs posted.
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
I would think trespassing would apply. If I lease a store front at opry mills and they tell me I can't have a gun, but also tell me I can be there w/o what is the difference between that and giving the same warning to someone off the street?
Trespassingwould only be a class C misdemeanor with no fine compared to a$500 fine for 39-17-1359 and a possible violation of 39-17-1315(b)(1) which might take away your defense of carrying a handgun in 39-17-1308(a)(2) which could leave you open for a 39-17-1307(A)(2)(a) class C misdemeanor and $500 fine for the 1st offense.
I would think trespassing would apply. If I lease a store front at opry mills and they tell me I can't have a gun, but also tell me I can be there w/o what is the difference between that and giving the same warning to someone off the street?
Trespassingwould only be a class C misdemeanor with no fine compared to a$500 fine for 39-17-1359 and a possible violation of 39-17-1315(b)(1) which might take away your defense of carrying a handgun in 39-17-1308(a)(2) which could leave you open for a 39-17-1307(A)(2)(a) class C misdemeanor and $500 fine for the 1st offense.
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
Trespass would not apply. The "leasee" (business owner)and "leasor" (property/building owner) enter into an agreement of terms of the lease. If one or the other fail to meet the terms of the lease (in this case, the business owner keeps a gun in the store, when the lease states "no guns") you have a breach of contract. This is a civil matter and not criminal. The "leasor" can terminate the lease and get a eviction order against the "leasee".
Not sure what you mean by "w/o".
kwikrnu wrote:
Trespass would not apply. The "leasee" (business owner)and "leasor" (property/building owner) enter into an agreement of terms of the lease. If one or the other fail to meet the terms of the lease (in this case, the business owner keeps a gun in the store, when the lease states "no guns") you have a breach of contract. This is a civil matter and not criminal. The "leasor" can terminate the lease and get a eviction order against the "leasee".
Not sure what you mean by "w/o".
ProguninTN
Regular Member
imported post
I think he meant "without", as in he would be welcome on the premises provided that he is without (not carrying) a firearm. Anyways, you are correct that this is an issue of civil law pertaining to contracts and not criminal law.
I think he meant "without", as in he would be welcome on the premises provided that he is without (not carrying) a firearm. Anyways, you are correct that this is an issue of civil law pertaining to contracts and not criminal law.
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
If it is in the lease and can be enforcedit would limit where police and other LEO types can live.
If it is in the lease and can be enforcedit would limit where police and other LEO types can live.
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
lockman wrote:
That depends on what state your talking about. In most states this doesn't apply to residential rentals/leases. Residential landlords can not bar residents from owning or having within their rented units firearms.
HUD may be an exception though.
lockman wrote:
That depends on what state your talking about. In most states this doesn't apply to residential rentals/leases. Residential landlords can not bar residents from owning or having within their rented units firearms.
HUD may be an exception though.
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
Task Force 16 wrote:
But that is exactly what the TN AG is saying a landlord can do.
Task Force 16 wrote:
But that is exactly what the TN AG is saying a landlord can do.
stuckinchico
Regular Member
Heller makes it illegal for landlord to prohibit one from possessing a firearm in their home just cause you rent doesnt make it not your home
KBCraig
Regular Member
Only if your landlord is the government.
Heller doesn't address private contracts such as leases. It only addresses what the government may or may not restrict.
Correct.
This is simple contract law. If you don't like the terms of the lease, don't sign it and look elsewhere to rent.
- OS
Last edited:
stuckinchico
Regular Member
Absolutely I treat landlord that oppose fire arms the way i treat business that oppose them... They dont get my money