Can an association restrict an individual’s right to bear arms? The answer, though nuanced, is likely in the affirmative. An association’s board has wide authority under the governing documents to restrict everything from paint color to holiday decorations, as long as the action is reasonable. See, e.g., Allnutt v High Court of Foresters, 62 Mich 110, 28 NW 802 (1886); see also MCL 559.146. In addition, the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101, et seq. (the “Act”), permits bylaw provisions “[a]s are deemed appropriate for the administration of the condominium project not inconsistent with [the Act] or any other applicable laws.” MCL 559.156(a).
The board’s ability to restrict members’ behavior is grounded in the contractual relationship between an association and its resident members. See Mayo v Great Lakes Greyhound Lines, 333 Mich 205, 214, 52 NW2d 665 (1952) (providing that the members of a voluntary association are bound by the association’s constitution and general laws); Kauffman v Chicago Corp., 187 Mich App. 284, 287, 466 NW2d 726 (1991) (stating that the constitutions, rules, and bylaws of the entity at issue “constitute a contract by all members” of the entity “with each other and with the entity itself”); Allied Supermarkets, Inc. v Grocer’s Dairy Co., 45 Mich App. 310, 315, 206 NW2d 490 (1973) (“The bylaws of a corporation, so long as adopted in conformity with state law, constitute a binding contract between the corporation and its shareholders.”).
Can HOAs and Condo Associations Restrict Firearms?
Interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and whether it ensures an individual’s right to bear arms, is regularly discussed in kitchens, offices, and boardrooms. Two seminal cases, Dist. of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 128 SCt 2783 (2008), and McDonald v City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 SCt 3020 (2010), provided clear guidelines regarding handguns in the home. In Heller, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment precludes the government from imposing any prohibition on handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. In McDonald, the Supreme Court extended the rights of the Second Amendment, as specified in Heller, to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
The Heller and McDonald rulings make clear that the government is unable to restrict an individual’s Second Amendment right to handgun possession in their own home. But how does the Second Amendment apply when an individual resides in a community association and is bound by a private contract? An association may be concerned with the threat of gun violence in its community and may wish to pursue restrictions to limit risks. This article discusses under what circumstances a community association might limit firearm rights.
Michigan Law on Firearm Rights in HOAs and Condos
Firearm Ban Inside Unit
The Second Amendment applies to actions of the federal government and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to state and local governments. As private entities, the Second Amendment would only apply to community associations if a court determined they were state actors. While a handful of jurisdictions have characterized residential associations as quasi-state actors, those rulings do not reflect the consensus. Rather, the prevailing view is that private entities have broad control of their property, including the ability to restrict firearms.
In a constitutional context, there is no case law extending the rights outlined in Heller to areas within a private community, including members’ homes. This understanding was discussed in GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v Georgia, 687 F3d 1244, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012), where the court emphasized the importance of private property rights. The Utah Supreme Court similarly recognized the ability of private entities to restrict firearms on their premises in Hansen v Am. Online, Inc., 2004 UT 62. Since an entity can exercise dominion and control over its privately owned property, a homeowners association may include provisions in its governing documents prohibiting firearms within the community, including inside units, so long as such restrictions are reasonable and properly adopted.
How Governing Documents Can Limit Firearm Use
Firearm Ban in Common Areas and at Meetings
The ability for private actors to control their property is a long-recognized right. Courts have emphasized that private property rights stand alongside other fundamental rights. Accordingly, an HOA board could impose restrictions on firearms in common areas such as clubhouses or pools. It likewise follows that an association likely has the authority to restrict firearms at meetings.
Many state laws require notice to ban firearms, such as signage requirements. Illinois law, for example, requires posting a sign indicating that firearms are prohibited. Michigan does not have an equivalent requirement. Because common areas are private property, an association generally does not need signage if the restriction is properly adopted, though different considerations may apply if areas are open to the public.
State and Local Restrictions on Firearms
Most state laws prohibit discharging a firearm at a dwelling or occupied structure. For example, MCL 750.234b provides that intentionally discharging a firearm at a dwelling is a felony punishable by imprisonment, fines, or both. Many municipalities also regulate the use of firearms in residential areas.
Key Takeaways for HOA and Condo Boards
The American legal system affords significant deference to private property rights. As a result, a homeowners association can likely limit the carrying and use of firearms within the community as a private actor, provided the restriction is reasonable and properly adopted. While Second Amendment rights are frequently discussed, private property rights remain a critical and often controlling consideration for community associations.
