Hotel question

[thetexan]

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

[cyphertext]

My wife and I will be staying in a hotel this weekend. She made the reservation through Priceline.com. I have no clue what hotel it even is... never did the paperwork, never signed a thing. So, my point is, they will have to have signage, or otherwise I will not have been given effective notice.

If they post the hotel, and it was on their website, you've been given effective notice.

If they post the hotel, yes... but on a website, no. There were no signs, so I carried.

[cyphertext]

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.

[gljjt]

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.

[thetexan]

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

[thetexan]

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]

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.

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?

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...

[thetexan]

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.

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?

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

[WildBill]

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

Sometimes it seems to me that you are arguing with yourself.

[RossA]

I checked back through this thread and I don't think Charles has weighed in yet. Love to hear his take on it, especially as to the issue of whether MPA, "Castle Doctrine" or other laws outside the LTC statutes might provide rights which go around the 30.06/30.07 signage for hotels. As others have noted, those signs (whether on doors or on a website) only prohibit carry under the LTC laws, not under more general law.

[txyaloo]

I checked back through this thread and I don't think Charles has weighed in yet. Love to hear his take on it, especially as to the issue of whether MPA, "Castle Doctrine" or other laws outside the LTC statutes might provide rights which go around the 30.06/30.07 signage for hotels. As others have noted, those signs (whether on doors or on a website) only prohibit carry under the LTC laws, not under more general law.

Seems like if the property has a "no guns policy" or a gun buster sign, you'd likely be ok under MPA, but you'd be violating 30.05.

[RedRaiderCHL]

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

guests are expected to read on the hotel's website to get effective notice? I don't recall seeing that in chl16.

It would ONLY be effective notice if before online payment and clicking that SUBMIT button it stated it before you and made you check the box that you "agree with the terms and conditions". Otherwise if its just on the site it is not effective notice.

In this case, honestly it seems like one of those things where the corporate head honchos want to ban guns so they put it on the website, but the people that actually work in the actual hotel don't really care so they haven't put up the signs.

This is the case at the Casual XL store in Lubbock. I walked in there CCing and was talking to the lady that was working there. She told me that Corporate wanted her to put up 30.07 and 30.06 signs but because she was a CHL holder herself that she hadn't.. Instead she posted them on the back of the office door where only her and staff member saw them (because corporate never specified what door haha!) I told her I was glad she did that because honestly if I would have saw those signs they would have lost my business.

Its becoming more and more common that the liberal "politically correct" corporate structures who try to please everyone are trying to ban guns by putting up 30.06 and 30.07 signs (mostly in non-compliant ways) but the people that actually work in the store locations are don't care (or carry themselves) so don't comply with the corporate demands.

[MJR]

Just stayed at the Marriott Plaza and no gun problems. BUT, they told me the River Walk did not allow guns so I did check mine into the lobby safe at the hotel.

[RossA]

How can the River Walk not allow guns? Isn't that city property?

[viking1000]

Stay at the Omni on the river walk they cater to CHL holders.