Hotel question

[dac1842]

Well here is my two cents. A notice on the website could NOT serve as effective notice. Here is why.
The hotel would have to be able to prove that you, the LTC holder, were in fact the person that made the reservation and read the notice, they cannot do that.
Example: When I was with a previous employer I traveled extensively. At any one time I would could have had any one of 3 assistants making hotel reservations for me. I rarely made my own reservations. The same if you were using a travel agent to make your reservations. The Hotel would have to the burden of proof to show you, the license holder, were given the notice.

I am not a lawyer, but I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express..

[thetexan]

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

[gljjt]

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.

[thetexan]

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

[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.

[DWA]

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

[rotor]

Nobody bothers to read prior posts
Look it up yourself
Texas Occupations Code § 2155.103

This topic has been beaten to death.

[thetexan]

#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

[gljjt]

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.

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.