A Tennessee appellate court said a public housing complex in Columbia must uphold the Second Amendment rights of its tenants.
“As a threshold matter, we recognize that Columbia Housing is a government entity acting as a landlord of the Creekside Acres residences,” Appellate Judge Frank Clement Jr. wrote in a Thursday opinion. “For this reason, the actions of Columbia Housing and the policies of Creekside Acres must conform to the [U.S.] Constitution.”
The case was Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden No. M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV, and was taken up in the Tennessee Court of Appeals after a prior decision in the Circuit Court for Maury County, home of the original plaintiff.
Braden initially signed a lease in 2018 to live in Creekside Acres, owned by the Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation, the city’s public housing authority. That lease said he was prohibited from keeping a firearm at his residence.
In 2020, the public housing authority learned that he had a firearm in his residence and evicted him. He sued in response.
Initially, the Maury County Circuit Court ruled against him, saying that he voluntarily waived his right to keep a firearm when he signed the lease.
But the circuit court says the Second Amendment supersedes that leasing agreement.
“The unconstitutional conditions doctrine provides that a government entity may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests,” Clement’s opinion said. “Thus, unless an exception applies, requiring Mr. Braden to surrender the central component of his Second Amendment rights for the benefit of public housing is an unconstitutional condition.”
Braden was not otherwise barred from owning a firearm.
As precedent, the Tennessee Appellate Court used a 2008 Supreme Court decision striking down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. which noted that the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed to all citizens.
It also referenced a June 2022 case from New York City, also struck down by the Supreme Court, after the city attempted to ban concealed weapons in public places.
“Moreover, because broad-reaching prohibitions on possession of handguns in the home for self-defense are historically unprecedented, we hold that Columbia Housing’s overly broad prohibition against handguns in Mr. Braden’s home is an unconstitutional condition,” Clement wrote. “Thus, the prohibition against handguns is an unenforceable provision of Mr. Braden’s lease agreement. Accordingly, Mr. Braden’s possession of a handgun in his home did not constitute a breach of the lease agreement.”
The Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation was ordered to pay court fees as part of the decision. It has the option of appealing the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Gun rights groups in Tennessee rejoiced at the decision.
“We’re delighted with the appeals court ruling,” said the Second Amendment Foundation’s Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This underscores the far-reaching effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen opinion. Mr. Braden was evicted from the public housing complex because he had a firearm. The court properly held that such a prohibition is a non-starter. Rulings like this make it clear the Second Amendment means what it says.”
The Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA) also celebrated the victory but, at the same time, slammed the Tennessee General Assembly for failing to prevent such Second Amendment infringements as the one levied against Braden.
“For years, true Second Amendment advocates have pushed government officials for the removal of these and similar infringements that are imposed by state and local laws and regulations in Tennessee,” said TFA Executive Director John Harris.
“By and large, the Tennessee Legislature and its Governors have turned a deaf ear to even the possibility that these laws and regulations are unconstitutional infringements,” said Harris. “When action has occurred, it has been at a snail’s pace on the theory of incrementalism rather than at the patriot’s cry of its unconstitutional. The determination that a law or regulation is or even may be unconstitutional calls for immediate action – not deferrals and ‘summer studies.'”
– – –
Pete D’Abrosca is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Pete on Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
