Reciprocity with WA?

[twomillenium]

I believe a license holder would be covered going directly to and from their vehicle to their room, if the hotel is posted, then he could not do business in the common areas (vending machines or checking in and out, etc.). The best behavior would be to transport firearm in luggage when checking in and locked in room when visiting common areas. BTW, Hotels are required by law to list on their websites if they are posted.

[G26ster]

If you can get Chas to reply he's probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the forum lol.

You have that wrong. Charles is THE most knowledgeable person on the forum when it comes to firearms laws in Texas.

[Grundy1133]

If you can get Chas to reply he's probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the forum lol.

You have that wrong. Charles is THE most knowledgeable person on the forum when it comes to firearms laws in Texas.

I didn't want anyone to feel left out but yea i agree 100%

[G26ster]

Now a new twist. Found this online by Googling (name of hotel) firearms policy.

"Thank you for contacting _______________ regarding our firearm policy.

While we understand your right to carry your firearm as a concealed carry permit holder, all of our locations prohibit
any guest from possessing a firearm in our rooms or on our property. Our policy specifically states, “firearms, other weapons, or hazardous chemicals are strictly prohibited.”

Please let us know if you have any additional questions. We appreciate your inquiry and hope to host you in the near future.

Raises new questions

[Grundy1133]

Now a new twist. Found this online by Googling (name of hotel) firearms policy.

"Thank you for contacting _______________ regarding our firearm policy.

While we understand your right to carry your firearm as a concealed carry permit holder, all of our locations prohibit
any guest from possessing a firearm in our rooms or on our property. Our policy specifically states, “firearms, other weapons, or hazardous chemicals are strictly prohibited.”

Please let us know if you have any additional questions. We appreciate your inquiry and hope to host you in the near future.

Raises new questions

Legally I don't think they can prohibit you from carrying in a what is defined as a "temporary residence" in the MPA... but IANAL. and a side note.. if it were me I'd find a different hotel to stay at. there are plenty that are gun friendly. especially here in Texas.

[G26ster]

Now a new twist. Found this online by Googling (name of hotel) firearms policy.

"Thank you for contacting _______________ regarding our firearm policy.

While we understand your right to carry your firearm as a concealed carry permit holder, all of our locations prohibit
any guest from possessing a firearm in our rooms or on our property. Our policy specifically states, “firearms, other weapons, or hazardous chemicals are strictly prohibited.”

Please let us know if you have any additional questions. We appreciate your inquiry and hope to host you in the near future.

Raises new questions

Legally I don't think they can prohibit you from carrying in a what is defined as a "temporary residence" in the MPA... but IANAL. and a side note.. if it were me I'd find a different hotel to stay at. there are plenty that are gun friendly. especially here in Texas.

I believe the policy is the equivalent of a typical "gunbuster" sign, which has no weight of law. But, where he stays is up to him, not me. He will be fully informed of Texas law before he arrives. I still would like an answer to my original question though - "Does a 30.06 sign "prevent" a licensee from carrying the firearm from his car directly to his room, without passing thru common areas, as the MPA is written for "non-licensees?"

[Mike S]

I believe a license holder would be covered going directly to and from their vehicle to their room, if the hotel is posted, then he could not do business in the common areas (vending machines or checking in and out, etc.). The best behavior would be to transport firearm in luggage when checking in and locked in room when visiting common areas. BTW, Hotels are required by law to list on their websites if they are posted.

This is my understanding of the MPA as well, however I'm not a lawyer (and the article I linked to earlier was written by lawyers, who may or may not have been erring on the side of caution).

[G26ster]

Personally, I don't think a licensee can randomly "switch" to MPA at their own discretion. Here's an example"

Two persons are driving their cars to a destination. One has a Texas LTC, and the other does not. The LTC is CC-ing, and the other has a handgun concealed somewhere in the car. The covered parking lot for that destination is posted with a 30.06 sign. This sign has the force of law for the licensed person, but no force of law for the unlicensed person. Legally, the licensed person could not enter that parking lot with their handgun, and would be in violation if they did. The unlicensed person could enter the parking lot with a handgun in their car, concealed from sight, and leave their car and handgun there. I don't think the licensed person could enter and say, "oh, I'm parking here under the MPA." The above is just my opinion, as I am not a lawyer. Perhaps it's a different story for temporary domiciles, but I don't know.

[Mike S]

Now a new twist. Found this online by Googling (name of hotel) firearms policy.

"Thank you for contacting _______________ regarding our firearm policy.

While we understand your right to carry your firearm as a concealed carry permit holder, all of our locations prohibit
any guest from possessing a firearm in our rooms or on our property. Our policy specifically states, “firearms, other weapons, or hazardous chemicals are strictly prohibited.”

Please let us know if you have any additional questions. We appreciate your inquiry and hope to host you in the near future.

Raises new questions

Legally I don't think they can prohibit you from carrying in a what is defined as a "temporary residence" in the MPA... but IANAL. and a side note.. if it were me I'd find a different hotel to stay at. there are plenty that are gun friendly. especially here in Texas.

I believe the policy is the equivalent of a typical "gunbuster" sign, which has no weight of law. But, where he stays is up to him, not me. He will be fully informed of Texas law before he arrives. I still would like an answer to my original question though - "Does a 30.06 sign "prevent" a licensee from carrying the firearm from his car directly to his room, without passing thru common areas, as the MPA is written for "non-licensees?"

Not the direct answer your looking for regarding hotels, but in general "No", the 30.06/30.07 statutes do not negate a license holders MPA.

I describe it with this analogy:

"As a license holder, you're covered under two blankets. The first blanket is called the "MPA", & gives you the ability under TPC 46.02 to have a handgun on your own premises, premises under your control, & inside or directly enroute to your vehicle. Everyone who meets the exceptions listed are covered under this blanket, even if they don't have an LTC.

The other blanket is called the "LTC", & gives you the ability to carry your handgun pretty much anywhere you have a lawful right to be, and that's not otherwise prohibited by law or posted.

If a place is posted with 30.06/30.07, then you've temporarily lost the coverage with your top blanket, but you're still nice & snuggled under the MPA."

Unless, of course, it's a Federal parking lot, Post Office, or GFSZ. But that's covered on a different slide...

[Mike S]

Personally, I don't think a licensee can randomly "switch" to MPA at their own discretion. Here's an example"

Two persons are driving their cars to a destination. One has a Texas LTC, and the other does not. The LTC is CC-ing, and the other has a handgun concealed somewhere in the car. The covered parking lot for that destination is posted with a 30.06 sign. This sign has the force of law for the licensed person, but no force of law for the unlicensed person. Legally, the licensed person could not enter that parking lot with their handgun, and would be in violation if they did. The unlicensed person could enter the parking lot with a handgun in their car, concealed from sight, and leave their car and handgun there. I don't think the licensed person could enter and say, "oh, I'm parking here under the MPA." The above is just my opinion, as I am not a lawyer. Perhaps it's a different story for temporary domiciles, but I don't know.

You posted this as I was typing the above, so might be some overlap here. I believe the situation your describing in this example has been hashed through on another thread, but in essence the LTC holder wouldn't be in violation unless they exited the vehicle in the posted parking lot. The TPC 46.02 still applies to the license holder; they just can't carry under the authority of their LTC in a 30.06/30.07 posted location.

ETA: For clarity, TPC 46.02 is where the clauses typically referenced as "MPA" is actually located in the Penal Code.

[G26ster]

Not the direct answer your looking for regarding hotels, but in general "No", the 30.06/30.07 statutes do not negate a license holders MPA.

Mike, yes, we're overlapping. The 30.06 statute and sign say "may not enter this property with a concealed handgun." I assume you mean as long as the LTC has not exited their car after they drove in, they have not "entered" the property?

[Mike S]

Not the direct answer your looking for regarding hotels, but in general "No", the 30.06/30.07 statutes do not negate a license holders MPA.

Mike, yes, we're overlapping. The 30.06 statute and sign say "may not enter this property with a concealed handgun." I assume you mean as long as the LTC has not exited their car after they drove in, they have not "entered" the property?

I would say 'yes', they have entered the property.

However, the language of TPC 30.06 says "A license holder commits an offense if they carry a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code... without effective consent... and received notice...". What I'm saying is that in your example there are two potential sources of "authority"; the MPA & the LTC. When the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 (LTC) isn't available, the authority of TPC 46.02 still applies. You don't lose that by nature of having an LTC.

[G26ster]

Not the direct answer your looking for regarding hotels, but in general "No", the 30.06/30.07 statutes do not negate a license holders MPA.

Mike, yes, we're overlapping. The 30.06 statute and sign say "may not enter this property with a concealed handgun." I assume you mean as long as the LTC has not exited their car after they drove in, they have not "entered" the property?

I would say 'yes', they have entered the property.

However, the language of TPC 30.06 says "A license holder commits an offense if they carry a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code... without effective consent... and received notice...". What I'm saying is that in your example there are two potential sources of "authority"; the MPA & the LTC. When the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 (LTC) isn't available, the authority of TPC 46.02 still applies. You don't lose that by nature of having an LTC.

If you say the LTC "entered" the property once they drove in, and the sign gave "notice," how could they not be in violation of 30.06?

[Soccerdad1995]

Not the direct answer your looking for regarding hotels, but in general "No", the 30.06/30.07 statutes do not negate a license holders MPA.

Mike, yes, we're overlapping. The 30.06 statute and sign say "may not enter this property with a concealed handgun." I assume you mean as long as the LTC has not exited their car after they drove in, they have not "entered" the property?

I would say 'yes', they have entered the property.

However, the language of TPC 30.06 says "A license holder commits an offense if they carry a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code... without effective consent... and received notice...". What I'm saying is that in your example there are two potential sources of "authority"; the MPA & the LTC. When the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 (LTC) isn't available, the authority of TPC 46.02 still applies. You don't lose that by nature of having an LTC.

If you say the LTC "entered" the property once they drove in, and the sign gave "notice," how could they not be in violation of 30.06?

I think the key here is the wording "under the authority of". The LTC holder was not carrying "under the authority of" their LTC, so this section does not apply to them. They were carrying under the authority of the MPA, which also covers them. You do not need to pick one or the other. You are carrying under the authority of whichever grants you the right to carry in a specific situation. It could be both, it could be only one, or it could be none (in which case you better not be carrying).

If a license holder was always carrying under the authority of their LTC, then that phrase would not be needed in the statute. It would also make a criminal out of any cop who has an LTC and goes into a 30.07 posted location on a duty call.....

[ninjabread]

Some people make it more complicated than it needs to be. Tell your friend to take a CPR class and then he's immune from 30.06 without counting angels dancing on pinheads.