| Author | Post |
|---|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 01:29 am |
|
I absolutely support the right of private property owners to control their property as they see fit. I also urge consumers to express their displeasure with such policies by shopping or renting elsewhere.
story URL
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:04 am |
|
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
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:20 am |
|
It's not the tresspass 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
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:55 am |
|
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
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:12 am |
|
| Don't forget to tell the criminals that these are "gun free" zones. Wouldn't want them violating the rules, would we?
|
kwikrnu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
Fallguy wrote: It's not the tresspass 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
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.
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 12:56 pm by kwikrnu
|
Fallguy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 01:55 pm |
|
If a property owner does not have 39-17-1359 signs but tells 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
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:50 pm |
|
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?
Trespassing would 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.
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:57 pm by kwikrnu
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:22 pm |
|
kwikrnu wrote:
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?
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
| Joined: | Sat May 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 08:37 pm |
|
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
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 12:01 am |
|
| If it is in the lease and can be enforced it would limit where police and other LEO types can live.
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 12:25 am |
|
lockman wrote: If it is in the lease and can be enforced it would limit where police and other LEO types can live.
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
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 01:45 am |
|
Task Force 16 wrote: lockman wrote: If it is in the lease and can be enforced it would limit where police and other LEO types can live.
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.
But that is exactly what the TN AG is saying a landlord can do.
|
Current time is 02:06 am | |
|
