If Tennessee statutes are like Florida's, then the answer is yes, the landlord can refuse to rent to someone who wanted to keep a firearm. You can discriminate against pet owners, smokers, people with credit problems, and even criminal records. You just can't violate the rights of those protected under federal law. Last time I checked, people with a gun permit, or no permit even, are a protected group under federal law. I don't agree with it, but that is just the way it is. If you violate the lease agreement and have a gun anyway, you would be legally responsible for that violation if anything happened.

Jesco White, the point about the property owner being held responsible for the action of their tenant is just not true.

If I were to rent to a tenant and that person committed a crime in the residence, they, not me would be legally responsible for their actions.

As an example, most grow houses are rented property, and while the person renting the property is legally responsible, unless the owner was involved in the criminal act they are not legally responsible.

I lived in an apartment once with people over my head and on both sides. I swore I would never live like that again.
It takes people with a lot more patience that I have to live in that enviorment.

The bill of rights does not protect tenants from civilian landlords. It protects the rights of citizens against government tyrants. If a landlord prohibits weapons don't move in there. It is his property and he can do this. However, it is reasonable to expect him to provide full protection of the disarmed sheep in his stable. If he does not then he should be pecuniarily liable for injuries by criminals. The legislature should put this in the TN Code.l

My general welfare (in the preamble of the Constitution) is dependent upon my having my animals, thus I will not rent a home that does not allow pets. If I was allergic to pet hair or just simply did not like them, I would like to have the option of renting a home/apartment that is completely free of pets.

A couple things to think about on this issue. if you rent to someone with a gun, and they wind up shooting someone else, can you be found liable? I do not mean in defending themselves, i mean domestic incidences, drunk, etc. a case was just settled in knoxville today where a woman was murdered and the apt. complex where she lived was sued by her parents. now i'm not sure how that could possibly be the fault of the complex, but in our litigious society you're only an eager laywer away from being sued for anything. if your renter shoots me, my odds of collecting damages from them are low. but if i can somehow blame you for it, my chances of a big payday increase exponentially. I also think that at the end of the day, the property owner IS the property owner. while a renter has certain rights, i don't think they trumped those of the owner. Would you consider a noise curfew at a duplex an infringement of your first amendment rights? you get into the dispute of my rights as an individual vs. my rights as a property owner. To me the rights of the property owner trump those of the non owning person, because the owner has responsibility for what happens on the property. the owner has a duty to make reasonable provisions to prevent harm to someone on their property, but ultimately it seems the owner has the final say so in what is allowed and what isn't. If those provisions are made clear in the lease agreement, i can't see how it's a problem. the renter has the choice of living there or not. if a place bans guns or is restrictive on noise, they can choose to live somewhere else.

Answer: I don't tell my landlord about my weapons.

why is the govt. always sticking their noses in our business?this is absolutely without a doubt what is wrong with the american govt!!WE the people better take control of our country again before something bad happens.they're gonna take everything we have sooner or later , unless 30 or 40,000 of us do something to make a difference. no matter who we vote for its all the same in the end. more taxes and less rights, they tryn to turn us into robots!!! i once read "if they want my gun, they'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands"..

I'll play the devil's advocate:

If I, as a landlord, rented a property to someone- I can/do retain certain property rights over the tenant.

For example, the tenants can't overdose on HGTV and decide that several walls within the home needs removed and rebuilt. Nail holes and minor alterations such as that are easily tolerated and are commonly understood to be ok. Ripping up carpet and general renovation (without prior consent of the landlord) is frowned upon and may lead to legal action.

My view is this: If the landlord chooses a pet/no pet policy, an occupant limit, smoking/no smoking, or gun/no gun policy; it is within their rights to do so as long as they state that up-front. The potential tenants can then make an informed decision to rent that particular place or not. There is NO reason that the Gubbmint needs to poke their nose into yet another private business transaction between two consenting adults.

Once the contract is signed- it becomes a legal issue then.

One additional point to consider... if a landlord DOES ban guns from his rental property, and a tenant no longer has that option as a means of self-defense; is the landlord culpable if a "home invasion" occurs and their renter is incapable of defending themselves?

Oh, and Rep. Shipley: "A contract that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void." It doesn't seem to faze anyone inside the Beltway one iota.

"On the other hand, it’s certainly true that landlords have private property rights that allow them to restrict tenants’ behavior in all sorts of ways, from the ownership of pets to occupancy levels."

Interesting, I didn't realize either of those were in the constitution?

IMHO, once a person rents a residence it becomes their castle and all castle doctrine applies.

Although a landlord may restrict a renters ability to keep pets, they have no authority to require the renter to surrender any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Ha! I've had a gun at apartment complexes and establishments of employment many times. I don't go lookin' for trouble but I'm not prepared to tolerate any thugs, either.

"A contract that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void." Likewise, it is true for all states that demand any paperwork before letting their citizens carry firearms. The Constitution doesn't say you have to have a permit. They can do whatever they want, of course. The gun-carry laws of Vermont need to be nationalized.