TexasCHLforum.com

Ok, so I went to a go to Dallas, and have to stay overnite, of course i dont call and make reservations. Fairly much every hotel in the area i want to stay is booked up. I walk in to the Super 8, no sign nothing. I walk up to the counter and there are two gentlemen there. I ask so how much for the room...he quotes me a price, which I was willing to pay! However when I looked behind them there was a 30.06 sign. I put my billfold away, and started to walk out. The clerk started to tell me wait I will give you the room for....then said no thanks, and then again came at me with a cheaper offer. I turned around, so much wanting to tell him why I wouldn't stay in his motel, but I didn't. Walked back to the car, told the person I was with, well they had rooms, but they don't like "chlers", so we settled for motel 6 down the road. Now the sign's verbiage was correct, and it was in a conspicuous location, when you entered the building. It was not on the door, or on the entrance, but behind the counter, where you could only see it when you were in the building, at the front desk. You think this type of sign would hold up? Of course once I since it I walked out, just b/c I dont support businesses that are not "CHLER" friendly.

In my opinion that is pretty conspicuous. Good Choice to not patronize the establishment. I think I would have pointed to the sign and said something to the effect "You prohibit law abiding citizens from the right to protect themselves, what have to done to prevent those who care nothing about laws from attacking me? I'll take my business somewhere that isn't an UNARMED VICTIM ZONE!"

Note: The all caps is strictly because I was already using quotation marks.\

Bryan

Edit: Yes I believe it would hold up in court, it has met the requirements outlined in TPC 30.06

AFCop wrote:In my opinion that is pretty conspicuous. Good Choice to not patronize the establishment. I think I would have pointed to the sign and said something to the effect "You prohibit law abiding citizens from the right to protect themselves, what have to done to prevent those who care nothing about laws from attacking me? I'll take my business somewhere that isn't an UNARMED VICTIM ZONE!"

Note: The all caps is strictly because I was already using quotation marks.\

Bryan

Edit: Yes I believe it would hold up in court, it has met the requirements outlined in TPC 30.06

How has it met the requirements? If you can not see it until after you are already inside of the door, and I am guessing that the desk is not just inside the door, but a little ways from the door.

Everyone who wants to rent a room has to go to that desk, Now I think up until you saw the sign you would be good to go. Once you see the sign and it meets the requirements (i.e. Letters correct size, appropriate verbiage, in both languages and in conspicuous place). Nothing requires it be on the door or on every door. Granite, you would have to "know about the sign" in order to be given effective notice. At the point he was at, he was given effective written notice.

Whether or not I agree, since I believe if it a place you will be sleeping (renting) then you should be able to anyway, that is the law.

Bryan

Proper sign or not, you should have let them know what caused you to leave. What were you avoiding by not doing so?

Make sure you add the business and location to http://www.texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; so others do not make the mistake of going there.

In para45's situation, he did not violate TPC §30.06 when he walked into the building and he wasn't in violation when he saw the sign at the desk because he left. That's a poor location for a sign as there are many people who may never see it. Family members who don't come to the registration desk, visitors, etc. cannot be held to the knowledge of the person who registered. I've attended a lot of meetings at hotels without ever going to the registration desk.

Chas.

chewy555 wrote: How has it met the requirements? If you can not see it until after you are already inside of the door, and I am guessing that the desk is not just inside the door, but a little ways from the door.

Remember, you don't have to have a sign at the entrance, or any other specific location. You must be given effective notice to be in violation. Effective notice occurs when you see (or should see) the sign. If the sign had been on the door next to your individual room, that is the point effective notice would occur and you would be in violation if you didn't leave. Likewise for the registration desk or the pool. You are in violation at whatever point effective notice is given and you do not leave.

I agree that behind the desk is a poor location, but no violation occured as he left once he was given notice....

I thought I read another post on here that said that 30.06 was unenforceable at a hotel because of basically that hotel room becomes your domicile on a temporary basis?

For clarification, I never said he was wrong or that he violated TPC 30.06 nor did I say the sign was in a "good" place. I merely stated "in a nutshell" if he ignored the sign he would be wrong (per law) and that the sign (from description) appeared to be legally binding - Even with the placement. Personally I detest 30.06 signs and commend him for leaving (that is the reason I make my own potato and egg burritos - Thanks Taco Cabana).

I guess I wasn't as specific as I could have been, but I agree 100% with all posts after mine!!!!!

And Mr Cotton, You are right, I was merely taking into account the "renter"

Bryan

Thanks all for that. I had did not think about that. I understand now. I am just so used to it being on or next to the door, thats now the only place that I look for them. I will have to keep my eyes open more when I go inside of the building. But, I guess that if I dont keep them open and I never see the sign, then I have not been given notice.

Mike from Texas wrote:I thought I read another post on here that said that 30.06 was unenforceable at a hotel because of basically that hotel room becomes your domicile on a temporary basis?

I'm still not convinced this is true. By this reasoning you could smoke in a non-smoking room, you could bring your pets into your room, you could bring in 10 people to sleep in your room, etc. I believe that being caught in a hotel, including your room, that is 30.06 posted will likely result in a trip downtown.

Even if it didn't apply to the room itself, I believe it would apply to the common areas and I don't think HB1815 can give you rights to traverse anothers property, the hotel hallways/lobby, to your vehicle with a gun. Of course IANAL and my opinion has no influence with LEOs or Courts.

para45 wrote:Ok, so I went to a go to Dallas, and have to stay overnite, of course i dont call and make reservations. Fairly much every hotel in the area i want to stay is booked up. I walk in to the Super 8, no sign nothing. I walk up to the counter and there are two gentlemen there. I ask so how much for the room...he quotes me a price, which I was willing to pay! However when I looked behind them there was a 30.06 sign. I put my billfold away, and started to walk out. The clerk started to tell me wait I will give you the room for....then said no thanks, and then again came at me with a cheaper offer. I turned around, so much wanting to tell him why I wouldn't stay in his motel, but I didn't. Walked back to the car, told the person I was with, well they had rooms, but they don't like "chlers", so we settled for motel 6 down the road. Now the sign's verbiage was correct, and it was in a conspicuous location, when you entered the building. It was not on the door, or on the entrance, but behind the counter, where you could only see it when you were in the building, at the front desk. You think this type of sign would hold up? Of course once I since it I walked out, just b/c I dont support businesses that are not "CHLER" friendly.

Good for you. The only thing I wish you would have done is to tell them why you were not doing business there. It might have given them reason to rethink the sign. Maybe not, but at least they would have known why they lost the business. I won't eat at a Taco Cabana anywhere because of the anti-gun policy they have. Someone posted here the other day that they found one without the sign but I still wouldn't do business with them as the corporate policy is anti-CHL.

What bothered me about this is the decision to put it behind the counter. Was this done for an ulterior reason?

If a CHL'er can see the sign from the drive, they would likely drive on.

By the time you walk to the desk, wife giving you heck for not stopping sooner, kids grouchy or asleep in the car, many would be inclined to go ahead and accept the room regardless.

Just a thought.