{"id":88240,"date":"2022-12-01T16:52:06","date_gmt":"2022-12-01T22:52:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=88240"},"modified":"2022-12-01T16:52:06","modified_gmt":"2022-12-01T22:52:06","slug":"88240","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=88240","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Tennessee Court Says YES! Tenants of Public Housing Have Right to Possess Guns<\/a><\/p>\n

Tennessee \u2013<\/strong>\u00a0-(AmmoLand.com)-<\/a>\u00a0On October 13, 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals released a decision that addresses whether tenants in a public housing project can be forced by government landlords to \u201cwaive\u201d their 2nd Amendment rights. The decision came in the matter of Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden, M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV.<\/p>\n

The litigation arouse in Maury County, Tennessee, when the landlord, Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation, filed a civil action to evict Kinsley Braden, a tenant, \u201cfor possessing a firearm in his apartment in contravention of the lease agreement.\u201d Columbia Housing is a corporation that provides subsidized housing for the City of Columbia pursuant to Tennessee\u2019s Housing Authorities Law. It operated a multi-family, low-income public housing complex in Columbia, Tennessee.<\/p>\n

The tenant voluntarily signed a lease that contained a provision prohibiting firearms on the property. When Columbia Housing learned that he had a firearm in his apartment, it moved forward to evict him. The tenant opposed the eviction by claiming that the lease agreement, which was with a government agent, violated his rights under the Second Amendment. The trial court rejected the defense and ruled in favor of the landlord.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals found it significant and undisputed that the landlord was a governmental entity. As such, the Court concluded that it was bound to act subject to the restrictions on government action imposed by the constitution. It also found that \u201cthe unconstitutional conditions doctrine \u2018prevent[s] the government from coercing people into giving up\u2019 their constitutional rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

Columbia Housing had argued that low-income housing was not protected because it was a \u201csensitive place\u201d under the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Heller and New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument based in part on the analysis set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen regarding the issue of \u201csensitive places\u201d and the national tradition dating to the time of the Second Amendment, which defines what those places are. The Court of Appeals also noted that unlike some categories of sensitive places that the Supreme Court has referenced, this case involved an individual\u2019s private home, not a public venue.<\/p>\n

This may be the first reported decision by an appellate court in Tennessee that examines the decision in Bruen, and that also looks at the evolving and unsettled sensitive places doctrine. The discussion of the doctrine by the Court of Appeals is only enough to resolve the case before it, but it is significant because it clearly shows adherence by the Court of Appeals to what the U.S. Supreme Court has held.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

One such exception is the concept of \u201csensitive places,\u201d a concept Columbia Housing relies upon to justify its prohibition. In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the government could constitutionally prohibit possession of firearms in \u201csensitive places.\u201d 554 U.S. at 626. Under this exception, numerous courts have held that laws \u201cforbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings\u201d do not violate the Second Amendment. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 626; see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133. Moreover, and significantly, some scholars believe that the \u201csensitive places\u201d concept may apply to public housing. See Jamie L. Wershbale, The Second Amendment Under a Government Landlord: Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Legal Firearms in Public Housing?, 84 St. John\u2019s L. Rev. 995, 1018\u201320 (2010).<\/p>\n

More recently, however, the Court in Bruen clarified that, when determining whether a place is a \u201csensitive place,\u201d courts should look to those places where weapons were historical \u201caltogether prohibited\u201d and determine whether it is \u201csettled that [certain] locations were \u2018sensitive places,\u2019\u201d then \u201cuse analogies to those historical regulations of \u2018sensitive places\u2019 to determine [whether] modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.\u201d 142 S. Ct. at 2133. Thus, we must determine whether handguns have been historically prohibited in public housing.<\/p>\n

Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden,\u00a0M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV<\/a><\/h3>\n

Of course, neither Heller nor Bruen were specifically addressing laws that banned firearms in places like \u201cschools and government buildings\u201d \u2013 such statements were examples offered by the Court in its discussion, which may well have to await a factual case on point in the future. However, it is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court is open to the idea that there may be one or more exceptions to the \u201cshall not be infringed\u201d prohibition of the Second Amendment, but if so, those would only apply in such \u201csensitive places\u201d. The Supreme Court has also made clear that the concept of a \u201csensitive place\u201d is not based on what a modern legislature may declare. Instead, the sensitive places doctrine, at least for now, is focused on the national tradition of regulation that existed in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted by the People and against the government.<\/p>\n

The Bruen decision and the evolving clarity that the prohibitions on infringements mandated by the Second Amendment suggest that several Tennessee laws and regulations are at present likely unconstitutional and should be repealed by the Legislature voluntarily before being forced to do so by a state or federal court. What are some of these? Consider these non-exclusive examples:<\/p>\n