Marriot Bans guns at NRA Convention... DURING EVENT!

[ericire12]

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d18-Marriott-exposes-NRA-conventioneers-to-criminal-prosecution

Hundreds of conventioneers stayed at the Charlotte Marriott City Center, where Grass Roots North Carolina also held its “Gala for Gun Rights” on Friday night, hosting a number of national gun rights defenders. GRNC selected the hotel because it did not post against firearms. Inspections of the main entrance were made both the day prior and the day of the event. So imagine the surprise of GRNC supporters who found that signs barring guns printed by computer had been scotch-taped into place on Friday evening during the event.

While that might not seem serious, understand that N.C.G.S. 14-415.11(c) bans firearms where the “person in control” of the premises “conspicuously posts” against firearms. The crime is punishable by a Class 2 misdemeanor, including revocation of concealed handgun permits.










Having paid a $9,000 bill to a facility which posted during our event, on Monday I called the hotel and got contact information for hotel General Manager, Jim Diehl. My point was that, whatever Marriott’s internal policy, by posting during the convention the hotel:

1.Exposed gun owners to criminal prosecution under G.S 14-1415.12(c); and
2.Took gun owners’ money and then thumbed its nose at them.
Diehl took exactly the tack one might expect: First, he tried to deny that gun owners would be subject to prosecution, which I quickly dispelled by giving him the statute number. Next, he tried to claim that it had already been posted. (It was not: I inspected the entrance personally.) Then he claimed that previously a side entrance had been posted but not the main entrance, to which I pointed out that such would not be “conspicuously posted” per the statute and would not subject gun owners to prosecution.

But it was Diehl’s final tack which was most interesting: He claimed that his lawyers had advised him that since alcohol is consumed everywhere in the hotel, guns are prohibited by statute, including even the front lobby. Although bearing a grain of truth, Diehl is wrong for three reasons:

1.G.S. 14-269.3 bans firearms where alcohol is sold AND consumed, not just consumed;
2.Nothing in the statute either requires or authorizes a business to enforce it; and
3.Nothing in the statute requires such places to post signs. Doing so actually creates an additional criminal liability under G.S. 14-415.11(c).

Contact the hotel
Jim Diehl at jim.diehl@marriott.com

And

https://www.marriott.com/suggest/suggest.mi

And

Corporate Communications at (301) 380-7770 and leave a message for Kathleen Matthews, Executive Vice President, Global Communications and Public Affairs

[r_w]

Knee Jerk emotional reaction.  It is what happens when we let emotion overtake logic and reason.

If CCWers were as emotionally unrestrained, Brady's predictions may be true.  But we are NOT like them.

[fightingquaker13]

Knee Jerk emotional reaction.  It is what happens when we let emotion overtake logic and reason.

If CCWers were as emotionally unrestrained, Brady's predictions may be true.  But we are NOT like them.

Agreed. But its also what happens when we let the lawyers scare us. Do X and Y, but never Z or you'll get sued (lets assume its good advice). As a result, we don't do Z, even if its legal, we just give up that freedom without a fight, until no one even considers it a freedom, just an absurdity. We oppress ourselves by envisioning a parade of hypothetical horrors. Its damned annoying and way too common. I'm guilty of it myself. I don't use, and reccomend against, handloads in SD for just that reason. Why? Because of what some lawyyer may or may not do. Same shooting, same result, just brand X vs Quaker's whackinator specials. Who cares? Not the dead guy. Still, I don't even consider the whackinators, thus the freedom is lost. Its a sad, sad thing that we have become so litigious its come to this.
FQ13
FQ13

[TAB]

um, we don't kknow if it was a knee jerk reaction or not.  There very well could have been some people doing a bad job of concealing thier weapons. All it really takes is a complaint or two.

[ericire12]

um, we don't kknow if it was a knee jerk reaction or not.  There very well could have been some people doing a bad job of concealing thier weapons. All it really takes is a complaint or two.

The manager of the hotel said this when asked why:

Diehl took exactly the tack one might expect: First, he tried to deny that gun owners would be subject to prosecution, which I quickly dispelled by giving him the statute number. Next, he tried to claim that it had already been posted. (It was not: I inspected the entrance personally.) Then he claimed that previously a side entrance had been posted but not the main entrance, to which I pointed out that such would not be “conspicuously posted” per the statute and would not subject gun owners to prosecution.

But it was Diehl’s final tack which was most interesting: He claimed that his lawyers had advised him that since alcohol is consumed everywhere in the hotel, guns are prohibited by statute, including even the front lobby.

Not to mention that hotels dont really care about complaints from other guests when conventions are in town.... they will pay lip service to those who complain, but they know how to follow the money and never do anything that might keep the convention from coming back.

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

Asuming what he said about booze being survered every where, then there is a pretty big liabilty risk should thier be a ND or the like.  Any time there is a gray area in the law, your liabilty risk goes thru the roof.

[ericire12]

Asuming what he said about booze being survered every where, then there is a pretty big liabilty risk should thier be a ND or the like.  Any time there is a gray area in the law, your liabilty risk goes thru the roof.

Oh, this old song and dance again... "My business trumps all public laws because its my business"


The hotel setup a way for guests to check their firearms if they wanted to consume alchohol. And what about the t-totalers that did not want to drink a drop? The major underlying issue here is taht it was posted after everyone arrived inside the building.

[TAB]

if the sign went up after you entered, it would not apply to you as you were never notified.  You would be hard pressed to find a lawyer anywhere that could not get this kicked out.

[MikeBjerum]

Asuming what he said about booze being survered every where, then there is a pretty big liabilty risk should thier be a ND or the like.  Any time there is a gray area in the law, your liabilty risk goes thru the roof.

Then he had better get out of the hospitality industry!  There is risk anytime you host people and events anywhere.  They accepted NRA's money and endorsement as a convention hotel, and then knowingly went against the stance of their client.  Bad form ... Bad business!

[fightingquaker13]

if the sign went up after you entered, it would not apply to you as you were never notified.  You would be hard pressed to find a lawyer anywhere that could not get this kicked out.

You'd still have to hire one and be out the expense and hassel. Granting for the sake of argument, that they had a right to a no guns or a no guns where alcohol will be served policy, it was their duty to make it known before hand. As in before the booking was made. Gee, there are guns at an NRA convention? I'm shocked, simply shocked. Next thing you know, you might find a conservative middle aged white guy.
FQ13