Now this will make an interesting court case. The ruling the NRA got in the San Francisco case pertains to the city's housing authority not being able to ban privately owned firearms from city-owned housing. Now we have an instance in which a state attorney general has offered his opinion that a landlord can ban the possession of firearms on private property that the landlord owns, just as the owners/operators of shopping malls can post the malls as gun-free zones since they also are landlords or the landlord's agents.
There is no doubt that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. There is also no doubt in my mind that a gun ban imposed by a landlord infringes on the private citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
However, the landlord has the right to say what can and cannot be done with his private property, but terms of the rental or lease agreement. I am a landlord myself, of one house. I'm easygoing as landlords go; my tenants can keep a cat or a small dog, and if they want to repaint a playroom or plant a garden I allow it. But I could if I chose ban them from keeping pets, repainting or putting in a garden, provided that I state it up front in the lease. If the tenant signs the lease, they accept my terms.
Legally, a ban on guns on rental property may be the same. I'm not a lawyer so I can't state this as a fact. But this is an intersection of two different civil rights, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to personal property. It will be interesting to see what happens if this opinion by the Tennessee Attorney General is challenged in court. A lawyer's opinion is not the law, and it is certainly not adjudicated case law.
and our Men and Women In Uniform. RIP Arkansas Hunter e 
