Warning-Problem with guns and Marriott Hotels

[socalblue]

A hotel is not like a normal business, when you rent the room that room becomes your dwelling and you have every right to have a gun in there.

Depending upon the state, a hotel may in fact exclude specific behavior or items. Once one has control of the room (legally rented) virtually all other protections apply.

[todd2968]

I just sent a link to WWW.consumerist.com see if they pick this up.
I'm waiting til monday to see if this gets press or not.

[warbird]

I think the bigger issue here is that we might have to be more careful where we stay in the future and do more research than we have done in the past. Some managers have a don't tell and we don't ask policy even with a prohibited item sign posted right behind them. They need the revenue to keep their jobs but you are still breaking the law and I perfer not to. I think we need to support those who support us under the concept of innocent until proven guilty and we don't need to put money in the pockets of those who would stand by as we are denied our rights or help deny us our rights. I never asked about a gun policy before and just carried mine into my room and now I ask before I reserve a room. If I am allowed to carry into my room in my luggage and not in plain sight I can accept that. But if they say the gun has to stay ourside or be locked in their vault I will change hotels/reservations. I have no issue with any prohibitions that are intended to preserve hotel property from theft or damage but in most instances the only person who would declare a gun or obey a no gun posting is the law biding citizen, not the criminal. The person who declares is not a threat but the one does not surely can be.

[STAGE 2]

A hotel is not like a normal business, when you rent the room that room becomes your dwelling and you have every right to have a gun in there.

Wrong. The hotel can contractually restrict all sorts of items and usually does i.e. pets, cigarettes, etc. They are fully within their rights to restrict firearms as well. You have agreed to this when you sign the contract and pay for the room.

In otherwords, you cant blame the hotel for something you agreed to (or were too lazy to bother to read).

[Turbinator]

Well, if there is no sign posted, then I'm not aware they are banning certain items, and if I'm not aware, they won't be aware either.

Turby

[Untamed1972]

I recently attended a conference in Omaha. I was staying at an Embassy Suites, there was also a marriott on the other side of the conference center. The Conference center was connected to both hotels. Every entrance had "no firearms" stickers on the doors.

The next weekend I was in AZ and pulled into the parking lot of an outlet mall to get something to eat since I saw the Subway sign from the freeway. Entering the parking lot there was a sign that firearms were not even permitted on the property.

So I guess even "free states" have their BS to deal with too.

[POLICESTATE]

So if no firearms are permitted on the property of a business then I guess if you have a gun in the trunk (legally transported etc) then you can't use their parking lot?

[Untamed1972]

Wrong. The hotel can contractually restrict all sorts of items and usually does i.e. pets, cigarettes, etc. They are fully within their rights to restrict firearms as well. You have agreed to this when you sign the contract and pay for the room.

In otherwords, you can blame the hotel for something you agreed to (or were too lazy to bother to read).

But once gun ownership and the carry thereof becomes more recognized as a constitutional right then it should be looked at the same as a hotel having a policies that prohibit people of certain religions or their bringing in of a certain religious matierials, or banning people of a certain race.

[STAGE 2]

But once gun ownership and the carry thereof becomes more recognized as a constitutional right then it should be looked at the same as a hotel having a policies that prohibit people of certain religions or their bringing in of a certain religious matierials, or banning people of a certain race.

No it wont. Ignoring the fact that the constitution doesn't prohibit private entities from discriminating against religion or ethnicity, a firearm is a tangible object and will always be subject to the restrictions of a property owner.

[Turbinator]

a firearm is a tangible object and will always be subject to the restrictions of a property owner.

Yes, but the most they can do is have you removed from the premises, right?

Turby

[xibunkrlilkidsx]

I stay at Hilton brands if possible because they allow "double dipping" (getting Hilton points AND air miles).

I haven't stayed at a Marriott in a looooooonnnnnngggggg time! This is just more reason not to.




.

whew....i thought that 1st sentence was going south there.



Did anyone setting up the gala/meeting ASk the hotel if they allowed guns in the hotel? Its their property they can do what they want. should they of mentioned it knowing that it was a pro gun party probably. but things slip through.

[Gryff]

Did anyone setting up the gala/meeting ASk the hotel if they allowed guns in the hotel? Its their property they can do what they want. should they of mentioned it knowing that it was a pro gun party probably. but things slip through.

They probably read the contract, saw no mention of a guns prohibition, and went forward with it.

On the other hand, did anyone in the hotel ask the National Rifle Association, "Will anyone be bringing firearms?" Any hotel event manager with half a brain should have pieced that one together.

[Untamed1972]

No it wont. Ignoring the fact that the constitution doesn't prohibit private entities from discriminating against religion or ethnicity, a firearm is a tangible object and will always be subject to the restrictions of a property owner.

I think some civil rights acts would disagree with you. If what you say is true why are there no "whites only" diners or drinking fountains in the south anymore?

I would like to see a hotel try and have a "no muslims or korans allowed on the property" policy and see how long that lasts?

[STAGE 2]

Yes, but the most they can do is have you removed from the premises, right?

Turby

Probably not even you, just your hog leg.

I think some civil rights acts would disagree with you. If what you say is true why are there no "whites only" diners or drinking fountains in the south anymore?

I would like to see a hotel try and have a "no muslims or korans allowed on the property" policy and see how long that lasts?

You are changing horses mid-stream. You said that once the 2nd becomes "more constitutional" then people won't be able to discriminate against people who carry firearms. There isn't anything in the constitution that prohibits private entities from discriminating against anyone.

As far as the civil rights act goes, I'm throwing my lot in with Rand Paul and in that its an unconstitutional exercise of federal power where private entites are concerned.

However, even if it wasn't, the comparisons are still not applicable. Ethnicity, gender, and religion are protected because they are unchangable personal characteristics (and don't start in with sex changes or michael jacksons or people who convert). A firearm is an object. Its no different than a pencil or an apple. It is separate and distinct from the person where these other characteristics are not.

My 2nd amendment right prohibits the government from infringing on my right to keep an bear arms. ANYONE who states that this is somehow applicable to private entities is reading something into the constitution that is not there, and is no different from people that wish to read it out.

[Untamed1972]

You are changing horses mid-stream. You said that once the 2nd becomes "more constitutional" then people won't be able to discriminate against people who carry firearms. There isn't anything in the constitution that prohibits private entities from discriminating against anyone.

As far as the civil rights act goes, I'm throwing my lot in with Rand Paul and in that its an unconstitutional exercise of federal power where private entites are concerned.

However, even if it wasn't, the comparisons are still not applicable. Ethnicity, gender, and religion are protected because they are unchangable personal characteristics (and don't start in with sex changes or michael jacksons or people who convert). A firearm is an object. Its no different than a pencil or an apple. It is separate and distinct from the person where these other characteristics are not.

My 2nd amendment right prohibits the government from infringing on my right to keep an bear arms. ANYONE who states that this is somehow applicable to private entities is reading something into the constitution that is not there, and is no different from people that wish to read it out.

Down boy.....Im not gonnas get into the whole "is the civil rights act legal" debate. That is a whole other debate, one that I'd prolly agree with for the most part. I'm looking at things based on the current state of law as it exists today. So it will be interesting that once incorporation comes about to see if any of those kinds of restrictions get challenged.