Public Housing

Does anyone know if local governments and prohibit weapons in public housing?

*Delete*

I don't see how they could since the state does not allow local governments to preempt the state constitution unless there's some sort of hidden clause written into the laws of public housing.

Weapons in Gov't housing

Preemption does not allow for any local or state government to regulate the manufacturing, sale, or possession of handguns or long guns. That is why when they try to enforce a regulation they get their brains beat in. If you regulated weapons in a housing project, you are usually denying poor persons from protecting themselves.

Public Housing?

I think one has to define 'Public Housing'. Around here, the public housing complexes are privately owned and leased to Housing Urban Development. So does the property owner still have the right to ban firearms? I dogleggedly posed this question on another thread where a friend of mine returned home from work to find a sign on the main entrance reading NFA. So if the government leases a complex from a private owner, and then sublets it to the lower income, who regulates the property? Seems it would be the same as if I find a home to rent and then apply for HUD assistance, would HUD be able to implement a NFA policy on my home. I think not. (Just some chicken feed, pick it if you want.) This issue could be further advanced by posing the question A.) If one purchases a home through the availability of funds brought forth by the Community Reinvestment Act, can the government control the posession of a firearm in the house. NO. [WAIT...did something good come out of the CRA?] B.) if I own the home, and I rent to you through HUD. Can I control the posession of a firearm in the home? Idunno......do you? Obviously, as answered in the aforementioned post, the matter would have to be stated so in the original lease, or added upon lease renewal. GOOD THREAD TO DISCUSS.

FLB_78 may be on to something, "some sort of hidden clause written into the laws of public housing"

I agree wholeheartdly..., KRS 237.115 does not allow Local Governments to Regulate Firearms in Public Housing Buildings at all.
However..., KRS 237.115 does allow Local Govenments to prevent Concealed Carry into Public Buildings, not used for Housing purposes, in their Jurisdiction, provided; that no Criminal Penalty can be attached to the Act, but Concealed Carry Permit Licensees must either Openly Carry while there, or leave.
Local Governments are prohibited from Regulating this subject matter any more stringently, per KRS 65.870.
The analysis provided by both hotrod and gutshot are correct.
***One does not need a Permit to Openly Carry in Kentucky, so as long as you are not a Felon, and Open Carry in Public Builidngs throughout Kentucky is Legal.***

Crux of the problem.

That's an interesting question.

Public housing has the ability to say No Smoking, No Pets.

No Firearms would just be right up there with potentially damaging things that the property owner would have to contend with.

*Delete*

Congrats!! Hope you can make a difference.

gutshot said:

Interesting? Maybe, but smoking and owning pets are not constitutionally protected activities and neither of them are specifically mentioned as excluded in KRS 237.115.

I don't see how the mere possession of a firearm is potentially damaging to property. I own and rent several pieces of property and none has ever been damaged by firearms, from actions of me or my tenets. Now, admittedly, the improper discharge or negligent handling of firearms may cause damage to property. If that is the concern, then that conduct is what they should ban. Property damage by tenets is the reason we have damage deposits and owner inspections, it shouldn't be an excuse for violating peoples rights.

Click to expand...

Sure but landlords routinely set up rules and regulations that are against common sense and the law.

No musical instruments.
No working on cars in your parking space.
No alcohol.

From what I have read, a landlord can make any rules they want because they are the property owner and if someone who wants to live there doesn't like the rules, they don't have to live there.

The only thing that landlords can't set a rule against would be federal state or local discriminitory statutes based on Race Religion Disiability Ethnicity Sexual Orientation and stuff like that.

But as far as I've researched they can set a rule against anything that isn't covered by that last sentence.

The reason I think it's interesting is because of exactly what you said. You are a property owner and it makes perfect sense to you that No Smoking is reasonable because it's not constitutionaly protected.

Well Gun ownership is only protected from the Government taking it away from people. The fact that a property owner of a Gas station can put up a sign that says NO GUNS, and it has to be obeyed means that your fellow citizens have no actual law telling them they have to respect your right to gun ownership when you are on their property.

So it seems perfectly legitimate for a property owner who is renting a space to disallow firearms in that space.
Even if I owned the building that a restaraunt was in, I could set a no firearms policy for the whole building and the restaraunt owner would have to turn away people who entered the place OC.

Public housing isn't any different. Most public housing is privately owned and only operated through the public housing system as a gateway. So private owners who can set No Smoking , or No Pets rules can easily set No Firearms rules as well and there is very little legal recourse for that.

I understand the position of property owners, cause I've had to help my uncle clean up a rental house of his after some college kids destroyed it.

At the same time, I never trust my landlords. I do everything under the assumption that the landlord is actively trying to find a way or an excuse to steal my deposit. So I generally always get my deposit back.

Thanks for the encouragement, Gutshot!!


I'm pretty new to the public housing scene, but I would assume that the landlords would be able to determine their own lease agreements for section 8 renters. The leases that I am referring to are the ones written and executed for government owned housing.

langzaiguy said:

Thanks for the encouragement, Gutshot!!


I'm pretty new to the public housing scene, but I would assume that the landlords would be able to determine their own lease agreements for section 8 renters. The leases that I am referring to are the ones written and executed for government owned housing.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the assumption that a landlord can determine his own lease requirments. As a section 8 provider you must assume the same lease that would be required in public housing (i.e. owned by the government). So gutshot is correct that the owner of the property becomes a de facto government landlord.

As far as publicly owned property, it has been established in the Supreme Court that banning weapons is in violation of the constitution. This was ruled in 1997 I believe. I will look for it and post the ruling later.

Also, as a side note, have fun with the Scott County Judge Executive and his dominion of county commissioners. I have heard some horror stories. Getting new things done are tough, unless you are associated with Georgetown College. Great LUCK to you!

Hotrod, I disagree. I know I'm new to the game here, but as I see it, Section 8 is simply a voucher program. Most of the time, landlords formulate their own leases and they simply receive around 70% of the rent money from the local housing authority.

I've never had any trouble with our judge exec. here in Scott Co--he's actually been quite cooperative in remedying firearms issues. I don't know about the magistrates. Regardless, this is a city issue, not a county issue and this time around I'm part of the problem

langzaiguy said:

Hotrod, I disagree. I know I'm new to the game here, but as I see it, Section 8 is simply a voucher program. Most of the time, landlords formulate their own leases and they simply receive around 70% of the rent money from the local housing authority.

I've never had any trouble with our judge exec. here in Scott Co--he's actually been quite cooperative in remedying firearms issues. I don't know about the magistrates. Regardless, this is a city issue, not a county issue and this time around I'm part of the problem

Click to expand...

But in order to recieve a voucher you must sign an agreement with HUD. In the agreement it specifies that you will follow all regulations in renting to HUD participants. The HUD regulations also have guidelines for being accepted in the program and lease agreement are part of the guidelines. You can see the guidelines online if you wish

We sign away rights all the time--the right to be silent, the right to bear arms while on the job, the right to sue in certain situations. I believe it's conceivable for someone, to sign away on their right to possess a firearm. It would be a very stupid decision, but I believe that people--with their own consent--may give up these rights. Certainly wouldn't do it myself.

gutshot said:

If you sign a lease that says you will not vote and then change your mind. Your landlord can't go to court and prevent you from voting or evict you after you vote. It is not enforceable. Rights are not just for property owners. We got past that years ago

Click to expand...

I would like to agree with you. I really would. The problem is I think your point of view is coming from the "What it SHOULD BE" camp, and not as much the "What it really is", camp.

Rights are more and more set up just for property owners, who by the view of the law are "more legitimate" than people who do not own property.

Cause under your definition then you couldn't ban smoking, or pets, or just about anything for a naturalized US citizen.

14'th Amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See just under that there is no definition of what the "privileges" are. Under section 1 of the 14'th, a property owner cannot limit my privileges if I choose to rent his property and thus pay him fairly for the use of space.
Unless you are going to make a giant list saying what every American citizens privileges ARE, you have to assume that anything they want to do which is legal, is a privilege. SMoking it legal, pets are legal, working on cars is legal.
So you can't selectively infringe on their privileges unless the government has ruled that behavior illegal.

So in the perfect world under the constitution as a pure piece of guidance, you are correct. A landlord can't stop a legal gun owner from having a gun on the property.

But in the real world it has been common practice that the property owner can put restrictions on the renter because the property owner is the one with the investment to be maintained and not the renter. Thus in the eyes of the law making the property owner MORE legitimate than the renter because the property owner is potentially creating more benefit to the tax base.

BUT The civil rights act of 1968 explicitly covers housing and you might like to look at the types of discrimination listed under the 1968 expansion of the 1964 addendum.

4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.


So "interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons " could definitely cover those persons who legally own or want to legally own a firearm.

It could be just a flat out breach of the fair housing act to discriminate against someone for types of behavior that they feel are in the interests of their Life, and Liberty, and Privileges.

But I can't find any references to any case law dealing with it on those grounds.

I also cannot find any references to case law where a tenant was denied the right to bear arms by a landlord specifically.

BUT, public housing is considered ANY property where the OWNER DOES NOT LIVE THERE but it is regularly rented out as a residence to other people.
In other words private housing is literally the place where you live. Public housing is a living space where the owner is not present on the property.

The problem with this, is that if someone went to court and won that firearms can't be banned from public housing, it opens the door for court cases that disallow property owners to ban any behaviors that the renter may feel further their pursuit of life liberty and happiness.

Like smoking, animals, drugs, and so on. So if Landlords could no longer set rules for their property, would they just sell the property, or deal with the reality that they are no longer able to infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens to make a profit at all.


Like I said before....interesting.

Gutshot is on the mark here. According to HUD, and I checked with an active and a retired HUD inspector, if the government pays 1% or 100%, your constitutional rights stand. The lobby, hallways, stairwells, elevators may be regulated by the property owner but not the residential area. There are specific guidelines a property owner MUST follow. I'm in the process of getting a print of those.