View Single Post
Old June 1, 2012, 10:27 AM   #79
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,701
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
...yes I said in an earlier post that little or no recourse would include eviction if the clause was enforceable...
The clause is enforceable. Your view that eviction is "little recourse" is your personal, subjective evaluation. For some people, eviction could have more serious consequences.

An eviction can be reported on a credit report and might make it harder for one to get a new place to live or a loan. It may also have negative consequence in connection with one's employment. And for people with families, it can be a significant expense and cause serious disruption to their lives.

Originally Posted by jason_iowa
...I believe it unethical to deny someone the right to protect themselves and loved ones....
Yes, it is entirely reasonable to believe that it's unethical for a landlord to require a "no guns" clause in a residential lease.

But you have been asserting that a "no guns" clause in a private, residential lease is illegal and unenforceable. And, at least in the vast majority of States, that is not true.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; June 1, 2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason: correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.03195 seconds with 7 queries