TexasCHLforum.com

gljjt

thetexan wrote:
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

Ok, I see your point. But I still think 30.05 doesn't apply. At that point they have almost certainly given oral notice under 30.06 and it is bye-bye.

Thanks for the clarification. I think we are on the same page as well.

gljjt

DWA wrote:The bill below was enacted in 2013 in response to complaints from (then) CHL holders because they wanted a way to know any hotel's gun policy when making reservations, and perhaps avoid hotels with strict gun policies. It is a criminal act if the hotels do not provide their gun policies online - and they are binding.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB333

There is nothing in that Bill that penalizes the CHL holder. The only penalty for the license holder is in the penal code. If is not 30.06 notice, it is not a criminal offense. Regardless of hotel policy. It is the same as a gunbusters sign.

gljjt

#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.

gljjt

thetexan wrote: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

I disagree. That is not effective notice. Telling you their policies are on a website does not meet the statutory requirement to provide written communication (if that is the chosen method). PC 30.06: For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

Assuming electronic documents are valid (I believe they are), if they don't show you the screen, you aren't notified.

Providing notice by telling you their policies are on a website would be the same as a sign on the door at HEB saying "Our gun policies can be found on our website, by entering you agree to follow them.".

Not even close.

gljjt

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.

gljjt

thetexan wrote:.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.

There is a statutory requirement for some entities to post the sign described in .204, but there is no statutory requirement for the LTC holder to honor the sign. Therefore, only 30.06 / 07 apply.

gljjt

Skiprr 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

I think you are saying the following, which is my understanding of the law:

411.204 puts a signage requirement on retail alcohol sales points and hospitals. It does not put any limitation on a LTC holder.

411.2031 addresses college campuses but references back to 30.06.

So...these two statutes in and of them selves don't prescribe any kind of notice that affects LTC holders.

gljjt

winters wrote:I always stay in marriots and never see guns signs. I know someone is going to have a problem but i won't stay at a hotel without my gun with me. Even "nice" hotels have all sorts of undesirable people hanging around.

Marriott has a great selection of brands for various room needs and budgets and I've never seen any kind of gun sign on any Marriott property.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 8 matches

Re: Hotel question

Re: Hotel question

Re: Hotel question

Re: Hotel question

Re: Hotel question

Re: Hotel question

Re: Hotel question

Re: Hotel question