On May 21, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier notified the Tradition Community Association, Inc., a Port St. Lucie homeowners’ association, that its recently adopted rule banning “any firearm or other weapon, whether open or concealed,” in all common areas violated Florida law. The rule applied to all owners, tenants, guests, invitees, and contractors, and covered nearly every shared amenity. Faced with the threat of enforcement action, the Association agreed to stop enforcing the ban.
The Attorney General grounded his notice in section 790.251(4)(e), Florida Statutes, which prohibits any public or private employer from discriminating against or expelling an employee or invitee for exercising the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Because the Association is a not-for-profit corporation with employees, Uthmeier characterized it as a “private employer” under the statute, with residents, guests, and prospective purchasers qualifying as protected “invitees.”
The letter did not arise in a vacuum. In McDaniels v. State, 419 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025), the First District Court of Appeal declared Florida’s statutory open carry ban, Section 790.053, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Applying the “text, history, and tradition” framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the First District Court of Appeal held that open carry in public is presumptively protected conduct and that the State failed to identify any historical analogue supporting a categorical prohibition. Taken together, McDaniels and the AG’s letter to Tradition reflect a notable shift in Florida: firearm regulation, whether by the Legislature or by private associations, now faces significantly heightened scrutiny.
What This Means for Florida Associations
For community associations, these developments do not necessarily eliminate an association’s authority to regulate firearms on common elements, but they meaningfully narrow it. Blanket prohibitions on both open and concealed carry, particularly those reaching employees, contractors, and lawful concealed carry permit holders, are now increasingly vulnerable to challenge and may draw direct scrutiny from the Attorney General’s office. A properly tailored rule addressing only the open display of firearms on common elements, however, arguably remains defensible.
Importantly, McDaniels addressed a criminal statute enacted by the State and did not speak to the authority of private property owners, including associations, to regulate conduct on their own property. Associations are also arguably not “state actors” subject to constitutional limitations. See Quail Creek Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Hunter, 538 So. 2d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Additionally, Chapter 718, together with typical governing documents, expressly authorize associations to adopt reasonable rules governing the use of common elements. That authority is not unlimited, of course. The Attorney General emphasized in his notice to Tradition that an association is “not at liberty to adopt arbitrary or capricious rules bearing no relationship to the health, happiness and enjoyment of life of the various unit owners.” Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, 309 So. 2d 180, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Putting aside whether one thinks firearms in the common areas of community associations have no relationship to health, happiness and enjoyment of life, the State of Florida has now indicated its position concerning rules attempting to ban firearms in the common area. Therefore, any firearm-related rule should be carefully drafted and considered with legal counsel to reflect a legitimate association interest, such as the safety and quiet enjoyment of the common elements. For example, associations seeking to attempt to regulate firearms may explore prohibitions on “brandishment” or any type of threat involving a firearm, or that prohibit open but not concealed carry of firearms.
Associations in Florida find themselves in an evolving new frontier that warrants consideration of the implications of these recent developments in firearm jurisprudence and State interpretation and enforcement. An association motivated to keep firearms out of their common areas, and whose membership and board are passionately opposed to the attorney general’s interpretation, may even attempt to test these positions in court head on, or adopt rules that test the boundaries of these prohibitions on private firearm regulation. Unfortunately, the next tragic shooting in the common elements of an association will remind us that these are not simply abstract legal developments but choices by flesh and blood people concerning their collective safety and property interests.
How Haber Law Can Help
Because this area continues to evolve, boards should obtain association-specific legal guidance before adopting or enforcing any rule that restricts the possession, carrying, or display of firearms within the community. Associations can also survey their restrictions and rules in the governing documents to see if any existing rule or restriction could invite scrutiny. Haber Law regularly advises condominium and homeowners’ associations on the full range of issues that arise in governing shared communities. Our team is available to review your association’s governing documents, rules, and policies and to help boards develop practical and tailored solutions that serve their communities.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. YOU SHOULD NOT ACT UPON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT OBTAINING SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL ADVICE.
