TexasCHLforum.com

gljjt wrote:#2 above is incorrect. You may agree to follow their policies but there is no criminal act committed with your handgun if you don't. If they don't give you notice via 30.06, you are NOT violating the law. PERIOD. 30.05 specifically precludes a LTC holder from criminal tresspass for a concealed handgun. 30.06 is the ONLY way a hotel can legally prevent you from having a handgun under LTC laws. Yes they can kick people out under 30.05 for almost any reason, but for handguns under LTC. Once they orally tell you to leave it isn't 30.05, it becomes effective notice under 30.06. You in effect, have hotels creating notification law via hotel policy just because you agree to a policy you haven't seen (or have seen but not in 30.06 format). No can do.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. As I stated At the end of my last post in the .06/.07 case the very act of carrying past the sign constitutes a criminal violation which is one of criminal trespass. In the contractual violation you have a civil violation which would give them the right to require you to leave, and if you didn't THEN you also have a trespass violation which would be criminal. That's why I said indirectly. I haven't studied the hotel regs and will be interested in them.

tex

I think you may have missed the earlier discussion regarding notification. Remember notification works with the idea of trespass. In order for an owner to use the legal accusation of trespass he has to use proper .06/.07 notification when it comes to guns. But that is not the only way one can trespass. One could trespass for violating hotel policies such as a requirement to use swimming trunks at the pool, or not drinking at the pool, or making too much noise in your room, or carrying a gun in their hotel...(and here is the clincher...)

...or when one has agreed contractually to follow rules which include refraining from the carriage of guns. You have a right to own a dog. And you have a right to bring that dog to a hotel, unless you agree to rent their room in exchange for you not bringing the dog into the room as a part of the hotel policies.

30.06/.07 allows an owner to "force" you to not carry. You can arrive at a hotel with no sign so you conceal carry in. Then, at the desk, at sign-in (assuming in this hypothetical there is such a no gun policy) you agree to follow all hotel policies which include on a sign at the desk..."HOTEL POLICIES...1. No dogs 2. No loud noise 3. No guns in the hotel.", or "Hotel policies can be found at http://www.thishotel.com. Remember, you agree to abide by the policies. If you don't see the policies you had better ask. One of them could be that they can charge you for the phone. How many times have you assumed the phone is free? It's your signature on the contract. Better know what you are signing. Of course there are rules I'm sure that state what they can get away with in hotel regulations.

So you can enter the building and walk to the desk because there is no 30.06/.07 sign preventing you from doing so, and at that point you have no contractual relationship with the hotel. But the instant you contract with the hotel to rent their room and abide by their policies your relationship with the hotel changes...you then have a contractual relationship. In that case you enter into a legally binding contractual agreement to voluntarily refrain from carrying as your part of the rental contract between you and the hotel if that term is indeed a part of the sign-in agreement.

Maybe the sign-in agreement has it or maybe it doesn't. To be valid,

1. the sign-in process would have to include some written agreement that requires you to follow hotel policies
2. some way for you to know the policies (written on the contract, on a web site, on a poster at the registration desk, and those policies would not have to be written in the .06/.07 format because this is a voluntary contractual surrendering of your rights)
3. and an contractual agreement by you to educate yourself on and obedience to those policies in consideration and return for a night's room

So that was the discussion earlier. A violation of the policies would enable the hotel to require you to leave for no more reason than that you violated any policy. Then if you don't leave they can force the issue under the trespass rules. Guns, swimsuits, dogs, noise or whatever.

I don't know if this is all true, but that is the argument and it seems correct. The whole point is that 30.06/.07 is not the only way which achieves the result of you not carrying a gun on a private property. It's the only way to FORCE you. But you can agree to refrain and enter into a contract which includes that as a condition. Either case can result in a trespassing charge. Directly In the case of a .06/.07 violation. Indirectly in the case of policy violation which allows the owner to throw you off the property under threat of trespass. Either effectively controls you and your gun.

Simple solution...know the policies...know the fine print...know the conditions of any contract you sign.

tex

Unless that is part of the checkin process where you sign on the dotted line on a piece of paper that requires, as a part of the contract, that you obey hotel policies, and shows you where those policies can be found...IF YOU SHOULD DECIDE YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY OR IMPORTANT TO DO SO. That is entirely your choice...you're the one who signed the contract and are responsible for complying with its terms.

tex

cyphertext wrote:

cyphertext wrote:
You are correct that a sign is not a "requirement", but it is one method of "effective notice"... and not just any sign, it must meet the requirements per statute. That is what is meant by "effective notice". If they post the sign but in German and French, it is not effective notice. If they post the sign on the ceiling in the hotel lobby, it is not effective notice.

thetexan wrote:Always be careful what you claim is absolutely factual.

A sign with English French Chinese and Spanish meets the stated requirements.

You changed the scenario to meet the statute to make it "effective notice". The law says it must be in English and Spanish... In my example, I said the sign was in French and German, which doesn't meet the requirement and is not "effective notice"... But you made it where the sign was in English and Spanish, plus other languages, making it effective notice. Do you see the difference here?

thetexan wrote:A sign on the ceiling might very well be conspicuous and clearly visible to the public.

Sticking to the ABSOLUTE common usage and meaning of any statute free from trying to interpret what an appellate court will determine will always produce the best result.

tex

Please show me an example of a sign posted on the ceiling of a hotel lobby that is both conspicuous and clearly visible to the public...

Can't and don't have to. All YOU have to do is to know how court the appellate courts will disassemble arguments for you to make absolute statements about what conspicuous and the like means. That's all.

Yes. Anything, including excluding English and Spanish, creates a non compliant sign. Where that sign is located is not prescribed beyond it being conspicuous and clearly visible.

tex

gljjt wrote:

thetexan wrote:Better read 46.035 b1 again...closely. You can't enter a business that sells...blah blab blah...

It is incumbent upon you to determine where those places are. Indirectly .204 requires them to post.

It's not the sign that prohibits you...it's the knowingly entering a place that sells...blah blah blah...as directed in 46.035b1 that directs you.

In other words you had better know where you are going.

BUT WAIT there's more! If the business does not properly give notice as prescribed in .204 you have a defense to prosecution. So how can you know if they don't notify you?

tex

I wasn't clear. There are places that are off limits by statute. The signs in .204 have no authority. The statute makes them off limits. There are other places that are off limits because the owners have chosen tho post 30.06/07 signs. You are making this too complex. It's really simple. Don't pass a valid 30.06/07 sign or leave if given oral notice, don't go into the listed places that are off limits by statute. The only one of these that should have any level of doubt might be a 51% alcohol revenue location. When in doubt, look it up on the TABC website. This isn't rocket science.

Oh yes. It's hyper simple. Much simpler then it made to be by many of the interpretations in some post in various threads.

cyphertext wrote:

thetexan wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

thetexan wrote:There is no "effective notice". You're referring to effective consent. Notice is not "effective". It either is or isn't given.

See PC §46.035. The phrase "effective notice" is used five times.

Not only there but 411.2031. In all cases the language states "effective notice under Section 30.06" except .2031 which states "effective notice under Section 411.204". So, yes, the statutes refer to the condition of having received effective notice. But what does that mean?

In all cases the language points back to 30.06/.07 which has a very specific black and white meaning. Likewise with .2031 pointing back to .204. 30.06 says precisely what notice is. There is no guesswork.

You are right that they use the phrase. My point was that 30.06 drives the train as to notice and that signs are not a requirement. Use of the word effective does not somehow muddy the preciseness of 30.06.

That may not have been his intent and if not I apologize

tex

You are correct that a sign is not a "requirement", but it is one method of "effective notice"... and not just any sign, it must meet the requirements per statute. That is what is meant by "effective notice". If they post the sign but in German and French, it is not effective notice. If they post the sign on the ceiling in the hotel lobby, it is not effective notice.

Always be careful what you claim is absolutely factual.

A sign with English French Chinese and Spanish meets the stated requirements.

A sign on the ceiling might very well be conspicuous and clearly visible to the public.

Sticking to the ABSOLUTE common usage and meaning of any statute free from trying to interpret what an appellate court will determine will always produce the best result.

tex

Better read 46.035 b1 again...closely. You can't enter a business that sells...blah blab blah...

It is incumbent upon you to determine where those places are. Indirectly .204 requires them to post.

It's not the sign that prohibits you...it's the knowingly entering a place that sells...blah blah blah...as directed in 46.035b1 that directs you.

In other words you had better know where you are going.

BUT WAIT there's more! If the business does not properly give notice as prescribed in .204 you have a defense to prosecution. So how can you know if they don't notify you?

tex

.204 is specific. The others are references that point back to .06/.07 which is specific. So in all cases we have specific and precisely prescribed descriptions of what constitutes notification.

If signs are up what effect does a web notification have in the analysis?

Is that firearm in your luggage on or about your person?

I don't believe ANY non-.06/.07 compliant gun policy, particularly one of prohibition, has any effect on an LTC whatsoever regardless of how that policy is communicated to the patron UNLESS he is verbally told at ANY time...ANY TIME...that OC or CC is prohibited...last week...last year...whenever...as long as THEY can prove they orally notified you.

Any written method of communicating their policy is meaningless UNLESS

1. It is "provided" to you and is 30.06/.07 compliant. At the point of "providing" that notification it becomes effective.

and / or

2. following policy is made a compulsory as part of the contract to lease whether the notification is compliant or not. .

Non .06/.07 Policy signs on the door, in your rooms, on web sites, etc. mean nothing to me. Here's the catch, UNLESS I AGREED TO FOLlOW POLICY when I signed on the dotted line.

tex

On second thought I'm not so sure.

This is very similar to Costco. Do you as a signatory to a hotel lease contract have to be notified by .06/.07 language in the contract to be legally compelled under contract law to follow the policies you, by signing the contract, agree volunterily to follow in acceptance of the contract.

If I have a private restaurant and you want to come in with a gun. I require you to enter into a contract that states that in consideration of entering into my private property you must agree to wear a tuxedo and carry no gun. You agree. And we enter into the contract. We have an offer and an acceptance. Entrance, the offer, is gained and you do not carry a gun, the consideration. Both parties are diminished, both parties have gained. Does .06 language have to be used?

This is just for discussion. I don't think there would be a requirement for .06/.07 because this goes outside the scope of 30.06 into contracts. This is similar to private memberships and voluntary agreements to those contracts. I this we are getting beyond the scope of .06/.07.

The statute is very clear what the authority of .06/.07. But it doesn't list any of the other ways under the sun by which one may be prohibited from carrying guns.

But like you said there would be no crime unless as a result of violating their policy you are asked to leave and fail to then you have trespassing trespassing.

UNLESS the contract DOES use .06/.07 language then you have both a contractual obligation as well as 30.06/.07 fulfilling language. Then if you violate the contract you have breach of contract AND a violation of the statute.

See how interesting all of this is!!!???

tex

I absolutely agree. I think there are several ways many of us have not yet encountered (such as hotels with gun Policies) which reveal new ways to implement the notification procedures we may not have thought about or discussed before.

One example. How does a diner prohibit guns without a sign? Simple, the hostess simply announces to everyone as they come thru the door that no guns are allowed.


So there are some yet undiscovered details we may run into as we proceed with this adventure.


tex

Solaris wrote:Tex

I understand your point. The original intent of the law had nothing to do with CHL, and was to protect hunters and shooters from being evicted for carrying Longguns to/from there room. So it is a far stretch to think it was legislature intent to make web postings valid 06/07 notice. It is fun to theorize on the Internet about it, but can find nobody in the real legal world who practices it.

I'm not sure you do. You signed three electronic afadavit legally binding "documents" on line to get your LTC if you recall

tex

It's binding if you have legally bound yourself to a contract that has a contractual requirement to abide by the hotel policies. YOU agreed to this.

Example, you sign in and on the small print of the sign in sheet that no one ever reads it tells requires that you abide by all of the policies of the hotel. As you arrive in the room there is a 30.06/.07 notification and other policies on hotel letterhead siting on the desk.

Do you think you have a contractual obligation to abide by those policies? YOU are the one who signed a legally binding contract, small print and all, where you agreed, sight unseen (foolishly I might add) to abide by their policies. Whether a letterhead or website is a different topic for a different thread.

Everyone should be careful, of course, of how they throw their signature around.

tex

Solaris wrote:

JP171 wrote:

Solaris wrote:

JP171 wrote:yes it is legal notice, the law for hotels was changed and requires that if they don't want weapons then it has to be done at the time of the online reservation. so yep its legal notice

No it is not legal notice as in 30.06. HB333 only requires they tell you up front their gun policy on their website. Gun policy could have nothing to do with lawful carry, could be as simple as saying no big game rifles allowed in rooms.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... 00333F.htm

keep on thinkin that and be a guest of the gray bar hotel, good luck with that

Lets see how many ways you are wrong.

1) Class C Misdemeanor - nobody is going to the "gray bar hotel".

2) 30.06 only applies if you are carrying under LTC. Transporting a firearm to/from your car does not require a LTC.

3) If websites counted, nobody would post signs. Everyone would put notice on their website.

Again read the law, they are only required to post their policy, nowhere in the law does it say the web posted policy is effective notice. Sign, Card, or written document is required. Websites are electronic documents. No court in Texas has ever upheld a website as valid 30.06 notice.

I don't know if a website is considered an electronic document or not. I believe it now is accepted as such by definition. I'm not sure. But for the sake of this discussion let's assume it is. What makes that document suffice as effective notice...or not...is whether its delivery to you was a compulsory prerequisite to finalizing your contractual agreement to rent the room from the hotel.
If it was then you have been notified as part of your agreement with the hotel. If not, and they just casually tell you to check the site for information on their policies then I don't believe you have been notified because there is nothing to compel you to read the site.

If there is a requirement as part of the contract that you abide by all hotel policies and you do not do that as you agreed to do, AND that notice is on the policy site then you have been notified.

Again, assuming that an electronic page is considered a document according to the state of Texas and therefore fulfills .06/.07.

If it is not then I agree there has been no notification.

By the way, before we go down a protracted argument about web pages being a legal document....that won't be defined anywhere in the LTC rules...it will be a parts of civil procedure or rules of evidence or some other definition in state statutes.

tex