By: Mitchell Perez*
Abstract
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that people in the United States have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms in their homes. After Heller, the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the right to keep firearms in the home applies to both the federal government and the states. Most recently, the Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms also applies to public spaces in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. Nevertheless, the Court has not yet addressed whether Second Amendment rights apply to renters and homeowners equally.
In fact, most states are silent on the issue. In these states, landlords receive wide discretion to prohibit tenants from keeping and storing firearms anywhere on their rental properties. In the residential leasing context, this practice raises significant constitutional concerns. For most renters, who increasingly represent a larger percentage of the adult population in this country, their rental property is their home. Thus, a landlord’s ability to unilaterally deny renters the same right to keep and bear arms that homeowners enjoy appears blatantly unconstitutional.
Governments typically argue that private agreements between individuals are not subject to constitutional analysis. But courts have repeatedly found ways to apply constitutional protections to private actions. Furthermore, given the unique nature of residential renting, the relatively weaker economic position of renters, and the cost of homeownership, the states and the federal government have a responsibility to treat residential leases banning firearms with the utmost constitutional scrutiny at their disposal.
* J.D. Candidate, The Pennsylvania State University School of Law, 2025. I would like to thank my loving wife and best friend for putting up with all my grievances throughout this process.