On September 10, 2025, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals entered a major ruling regarding a person’s right to open carry a firearm in Florida. What does this mean for landlords? This article will address several legal issues and practical considerations.
On July 4, 2022, Stanley Victor McDaniels stood at a busy Pensacola intersection waving at passing vehicles while holding a copy of the U.S. Constitution. McDaniels wore a holstered handgun inside his waistband, visible to the public, though he was not threatening anyone. He even set up a video camera to record the encounter, intending to create a test case to challenge Florida’s law against open carry.
When officers arrived hours later, McDaniels was cooperative. He showed them his concealed weapons permit, which allowed concealed carry but not open display. Officers advised him of the law, checked his background, and returned his holster. Later, however, police obtained a warrant for his arrest under F.S. § 790.053, which made it a second-degree misdemeanor to openly carry a firearm in public. McDaniels voluntarily turned himself in.
At trial, McDaniels argued the law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The county court rejected this argument, convicted him, and sentenced him to probation and community service, though the sentence was stayed pending appeal.
The McDaniels Case: Why Florida’s Open Carry Law Was Struck Down
The appellate court was asked to decide:
Does Florida’s Open Carry Ban (§ 790.053, Fla. Stat.) violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public, considering the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?
This question was critical because the Florida Supreme Court had previously upheld the ban in Norman v. State (2017) using a two-step balancing test that gave deference to public-safety concerns. But in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen rejected interest-balancing tests and required courts to evaluate firearm restrictions solely through text, history, and tradition. The First DCA therefore had to decide whether Norman still controlled or whether Bruen required a fresh analysis.
The Bruen Test: How Courts Now Judge Gun Laws
The First DCA examined U.S. Supreme Court precedent, including:
- Heller (2008): Recognized an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense.
- McDonald (2010): Applied that right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Bruen (2022): Clarified that public carry for self-defense is protected, and regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation—not justified by modern policy arguments.
The court held that Florida’s Open Carry Ban squarely restricted conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment: the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to “bear” arms in public. The burden then shifted to the State to prove a historical tradition of similar firearm restrictions.
The State failed to meet its burden of proof. The court’s reasoning emphasized:
- The Second Amendment protects both open and concealed carry as forms of “bearing arms.”
- No historical tradition supports banning open carry outright.
- The Florida Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Norman no longer controlled, because it relied on a test (means-end scrutiny) explicitly rejected in Bruen.
- The Supremacy Clause required Florida courts to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Until and unless the Florida Supreme Court rules differently, Florida now recognizes the right of open carry.
Can a Landlord Restrict Firearms on Rental Property?
The McDaniel decision changes what landlords may face in practice. Tenants in Florida can now openly carry firearms in public. “Public” may arguably include common areas in an apartment complex or rental community.
This decision does not automatically answer whether landlords, as private property owners, may impose restrictions on tenants, such as, prohibitions on open carry or from possessing firearms at all. The issue balances at least three concepts: private property rights, tenant rights under the lease, and constitutional protections.
Landlord Property Rights vs. Tenant Gun Rights
As owners of real estate, landlords generally have the right to set conditions for the use of their property. For example, a landlord can prohibit smoking, pets, or loud music in common areas. A landlord may also attempt to regulate firearms, but that kind of restriction is not related to a person’s constitutional right to bear arms.
Under usual circumstances, a property written into the lease agreement enables a landlord to enforce those rules as a matter of contract law, but the landlord’s right may not be as clear regarding a “right to bear arms” situation.
Tenant’s Rights to Possess Firearms
Tenants gain significant rights once they sign a lease. The rental unit becomes their home, protected by both Florida’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Act and constitutional doctrines recognizing the privacy of the home and right of self-defense. Other civil rights, codified in both federal and state statutes, are at play.
In a firearm restriction or prohibition situation, tenants may argue that an outright ban on possessing firearms inside their own unit infringes upon their core right of self-defense and violates civil rights statutes and public policy. While the Second Amendment constrains government action, not private contracts, courts may expand the recognition that residential lease provisions cannot strip tenants of fundamental rights grounded in the Constitution.
Drafting a Legally Sound Firearms Clause for Your Lease
When it comes to firearms, lease agreements are the landlord’s primary tool for establishing clear expectations. A well-drafted firearms clause should specify:
- Scope of the restriction – does it apply only to common areas only, or also to inside the unit?
- Type of restriction – does the lease prohibit all firearms, or only certain conduct (e.g., brandishing, unsafe storage, or unlawful discharge)?
- Consequences – what remedies will the landlord pursue if the clause is violated (e.g., curable, non-curable, eviction, monetary penalties)?
Ambiguous clauses create confusion and risk. A tenant may argue that a vague “no weapons” clause does not cover lawfully owned handguns or may claim they were unaware of the policy. To be enforceable, firearm restrictions must be explicit, disclosed before move-in, and acknowledged by the tenant’s signature.
Regulating Firearms in Common Areas: A Landlord’s Guide
Landlords are on better legal footing when regulating firearms in common spaces. Hallways, gyms, clubhouses, pools, laundry rooms, lobbies, and parking areas are under the landlord’s control. There are several legitimate concerns that landlords face in common areas. Courts may consider the landlord’s interest to regulate these spaces in the interest of:
- Safety – preventing intimidation, brandishing, or accidental discharges in crowded or shared spaces.
- Liability – reducing exposure to claims that the landlord failed to provide a reasonably safe environment.
- Community harmony – addressing tenant complaints when firearms are openly displayed in family or recreational areas.
For example, a landlord may adopt rules requiring firearms to remain concealed or holstered in these areas or prohibiting them altogether. Because tenants do not have the same level of possessory interest in common areas as they do in their private residences, such restrictions are more defensible in court.
The Challenge of Banning Guns Inside a Tenant’s Home
Regulating firearms inside a tenant’s private apartment is more complex and less certain under the McDaniel case. Again, once leased, the unit becomes the tenant’s home, and tenants gain rights of possession, privacy, and quiet enjoyment. Courts, thus, may recognize that banning lawful firearm possession inside a home raises serious public policy questions, particularly considering modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.
- Public policy concerns: An outright ban on possession inside private units could be attacked as contrary to the fundamental right of self-defense in one’s home. Even if the Second Amendment constrains government action, not private contracts, courts may view such bans as overreaching or void against public policy.
- Legal vulnerability: A clause that denies tenants the ability to keep firearms in their own residence could be unenforceable or challenged in eviction proceedings. Judges may be reluctant to evict a tenant solely for owning a firearm lawfully stored inside their apartment.
- Alternative approaches: Instead of banning possession, landlords may regulate conduct and storage (e.g., requiring firearms to be kept secured in a safe, prohibiting discharge, forbidding brandishing or negligent handling). These conduct-based restrictions are more defensible and more enforceable.
7-Step Action Plan for Florida Landlords After This Ruling
Even if a lease excludes possession of firearms altogether, enforcement could be both a legal and practical problem. Unlike tenant smoking or keeping a pet, firearm possession may not be obvious without intruding into a tenant’s private space.
- Privacy barriers: A landlord cannot enter a tenant’s unit without proper notice or consent under F.S. § 83.53. Attempting to “check” for firearms would violate a tenant’s statutory right to privacy.
- Proof problems: Without direct evidence, it is nearly impossible to prove a tenant is violating a firearms clause. A landlord may end up in a “he said/she said” dispute, which is risky in court.
- Eviction disputes: Attempting to evict a tenant solely for firearm possession invites legal battles, including claims of retaliatory eviction, breach of quiet enjoyment, or violation of public policy.
- Tenant relations: Heavy-handed enforcement could sour relationships with otherwise law-abiding tenants and create reputational harm in the landlord’s community.
Therefore, landlords should weigh carefully whether an outright ban is legal and practical. Of course, landlords should absolutely adopt rules that address misuse (brandishing, threatening, discharge) rather as opposed to mere possession itself.
The following are practical considerations for landlords.
- Review lease templates – decide if you want a firearms clause, and update leases accordingly.
- Communicate with current tenants – create and publish a policy memo if restrictions apply.
- Train staff – teach property managers how to respond calmly and lawfully when firearms are visible.
- Confer with the Sheriff Office – ask your local sheriff if they provide guidance regarding open carry firearm situations in the apartment context.
- Check insurance – confirm whether your insurance policy addresses firearm-related incidents.
- Document consistently – if enforcing rules, use proper written notices to cure or terminate (for non-curable violation) and incident reports.
- Call 911 – when emergency, criminal, or dangerous situations arise or may be suspected, call 911 immediately.
- Enforce Strictly – given the potential for serious injury or death, in addition to other concerns involving firearms, landlords should enforce applicable lease provisions strictly and timely.
- Consult counsel – get legal review of your lease language to avoid drafting an unenforceable or discriminatory provision
Key Takeaway: Clarity and Consistency Are Your Best Tools
The McDaniels ruling striking down Florida’s Open Carry Ban marks a possible turning point in how firearm rights may intersect with rental housing. Since tenants and visitors may now legally open carry in public, this may potentially include common areas of rental communities, unless lease terms provide otherwise.
For landlords, this means that firearm restrictions must be handled privately through carefully drafted lease provisions and consistently enforced policies. While landlords maintain property rights and can regulate conduct in common areas, outright bans on lawful possession inside a tenant’s home may present legal and practical challenges, but to some landlords, this risk of losing the argument may be worth it on the balance. The most effective approach is to focus on safety, liability, and community harmony by addressing use and behavior and ensuring that rules are clear, reasonable, and enforceable.