In Part I of my blog post on guns in community associations, we discussed the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) categorized gun ownership inside a home as a fundamental right which likely means that a mandatory community association, despite being a private actor, would not have the authority (either by rule or amendment to the documents) to prohibit guns inside the units or homes.
In Part I of this blog post, we also discussed the three ways that the actions of private actors like community associations can be subject to constitutional challenge under the doctrines of state action through judicial enforcement, the public function test or the state involvement test.
Since there is no equivalent to the Heller ruling which confirms that carrying a gun outside the home is a "fundamental right", then a private residential community could attempt to regulate or prohibit guns on the common areas. Moreover, the Court noted in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment right is not without limits when it stated: "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding...laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings".
Communal living compels that some individual rights be abrogated in deference to and in support of the greater good. If a community association's prohibition of guns in common areas is ever tested in court, the question may ultimately be whether or not the common areas of a private residential community qualify as a "sensitive area". There have already been far too many instances of gun violence in shared ownership communities across the country including crimes against directors, residents and association managers/employees. The highly publicized death of teenager Trayvon Martin further highlighted how quickly a community can be swept up in all of the issues related to gun violence.
The Florida Second District Court of Appeals in the case of Hidden Harbor Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So. 2d 637 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App. 1981) held that a community's restrictions cannot "abrogate some fundamental constitutional right". The right to carry or discharge a gun on an association's common areas has not been held to be a "fundamental" constitutional right. Moreover, the Basso court did acknowledge that a community association could pass restrictions which were designed to promote "the health, happiness and peace of mind of the unit owners". An argument could very well be made that a prohibition against guns in the Clubhouse, pool area, meeting rooms, etc. would give peace of mind to (and safeguard the health of) residents already troubled by the volatile discourse in their community.
However, any Association rule regarding guns would be scrutinized on a reasonableness standard while an amendment to the governing documents regarding guns would be cloaked with a presumption of reasonableness. Communities who are interested in restricting or prohibiting guns in and on their common areas should speak with association counsel prior to attempting to do so. There are other state and federal gun laws which may impact the manner in which a board of directors may draft such restrictions and, naturally, given the highly charged nature of the gun debate, taking the community's pulse on the topic ahead of time would be advisable.
Footnote: The Heller decision was one of the most significant decisions authored by Justice Scalia who passed away suddenly over the weekend. Justice Scalia was appointed in 1986 by President Reagan and, with 30 years' service, was the longest-serving Justice on the current Bench. Love him or hate him, the decision Justice Scalia penned in the Heller case has and will continue to have long-standing effects for years to come.