search
top

GRE Boycott of Marriott is Premature

I’m not going to join in the Gun Rights Examiner boycott of Marriott, because I think Marriott’s interpretation of North Carolina law is plausible, and I think the Examiners are missing the important issues. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on North Carolina law, and hold out the possibility that there might be case law that validates the Examiners’ position. But people need to understand case law before jumping to conclusions, and calling for boycotts, because it’s not individuals or corporation who determine the law, it’s judges. It is not my purpose here to assert that the Examiners are definitely wrong, but to take folks through the process of understanding how law works. I will leave it to the readers to comment as to who’s right or wrong.

The Examiners are taking one interpretation of North Carolina law, Marriott is taking another. I am not a lawyer, but I know something about Firearms Law, and if I were advising a friend on this matter I would say a Hotel with a license to serve alcohol is a prohibited place under North Carolina law. That’s not the only interpretation, but it’s the safe interpretation. Why it’s safe has to do with how law is made. First, let’s begin with the statute:

§ 14‑269.3.  Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.  Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(b) This section shall not apply to the following:

(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269;

(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;

(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and

(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event. 

What does “sold and consumed” mean? What areas does that encompass? You can say that’s common sense, but common sense won’t save you from a prosecutor and a judge who hate defensive carry looking to make an example and set some anti-gun case law.

I’ve tried to look for what case law there exists on the meaning of this, but I’ve been unable to find any. There have been prosecutions under § 14‑269.3, but none of them involve anything ambiguous. The fact of the matter is that you can purchase alcohol at the hotel bar, and probably from room service, and consume it anywhere in the hotel. If I were advising a friend on this, I’d be very uncomfortable telling him that the only place off limits from carry is the bar area. The law says “sold and consumed” without specifying a scope for that. Mr. Valone relayed a story about asking the hotel desk whether he could buy a drink from them. It’s a novel argument. Maybe it would hold up in court. But would you be comfortable making that argument in court before a judge and jury? Because that’s the only way you can settle things like scope and meaning.

Marriott may not have been entirely correct in how they are framing the issue, because I doubt their PR flack is familiar with firearms law. And the Examiners are quite correct that North Carolina law does not require posting on the premises, but Marriott’s assertion that it is unlawful to carry anywhere in their hotel is not an unreasonable interpretation of North Carolina law. If they don’t wish to have their customers arrested and prosecuted, then posting the legal requirement is not an unreasonable action on their part. If the Examiners can show me some case law that shows that the scope of the prohibition is as narrow as what they say, then I’ll relent. But until then I’m going to suggest that a boycott is premature, and their energies would be best sent in the direction of Raleigh, where pressure could be put on the people who actually have the power to change this bad law.

UPDATE: I should probably also address the issues created by § 14‑415.11. I do not believe anyone who was carrying a firearm in the building, unaware that they had posted signs, is going to be liable for a crime. The statute itself requires “conspicuous notice” and when conventioneers entered the hotel, no notice was present. Their adding notice after folks were already in the building doesn’t amount to notice per this law. Generally speaking, you need to be aware you’re committing a crime in order to be charged under it (with some exceptions). You’re on much much firmer ground here than you would be if charged under § 14‑269.3. If GRNC had wanted to, could it have bought alcohol from the Hotel for their GRNC event and had it delivered to that room? Drank it there? I’ll bet the answer is yes.

UPDATE: Howard Nemerov notes that his local Marriott hotels seem to follow state law. The question is what corporate policy is. If they banned concealed carry, I would jump on board with not doing business with them, but following local law is reasonable, and after doing a bit more research on North Carolina’s ABC statutes, it’s illegal to carry in a hotel in North Carolina that has a liquor license for on-premises consumption, which is most halfway decent hotels. Interestingly, if it was a hotel with an attached restaurant, you’d probably be fine, because you can’t legally take alcohol out of the restaurant and drink it (except at home or in your hotel room). But if the hotel has a bar, you can’t really carry.

UPDATE: They may be required to post, if you look at this section of North Carolina’s liquor laws.

It shall be unlawful for a permittee or his agent or employee to knowingly allow any of the following kinds of conduct to occur on his licensed premises: […]

(3) Any violation of the controlled substances, gambling, or prostitution statutes, or any other unlawful acts.

This is not an explicit demand to post signage about concealed weapons being prohibited, but I could see a lawyer believing that posting was the safe route. If they allow unlawful activity to occur in their hotel, they could jeopardize their liquor license. I’m going to admit this is a stretch, but corporate lawyers are notoriously cautious about exposing their employers or clients to risk.

35 Responses to “GRE Boycott of Marriott is Premature”

  1. ParatrooperJJ says:

    I would argue that b(2) and b(3) would have exempted the attendees.

  2. Sebastian says:

    How clear is that though? What constitutes permission? What constitutes an attendee? Those questions should be pretty clear, and I think you could make a good case. You wouldn’t likely be prosecuted.

    But GRNC presumably rented a room in the Marriott. OK, so you leased the room. You can carry there, no problem because GRNC gave everyone permission.

    But can they give permission to walk through the hotel lobby to get to the room?

  3. Sebastian says:

    Another thing is you could also argue that those sections only apply to events where admission is charged, and is not an exemption to the general prohibition against carrying in a place where alcohol is served.

    In other words, a bar couldn’t post a “gun allowed” sign and grant permission, but maybe a lessee who rented a bar for an event could.

    If I were a prosecutor, and wanted to nail someone, I would argue that the word “event” in the exception limits its scope.

  4. What constitutes an attendee?

    More, the statute doesn’t talk about attendees, it talks about participants. That may very well have been intended (and could certainly be interpreted) to refer to event staff, not the ticketholders. Isn’t that why the NRA wasn’t comfortable saying “don’t worry; we give all these people permission to carry”?

  5. ParatrooperJJ says:

    Agreed it is not very clear. That’s the way NC law enforcement likes it though.

  6. moose says:

    As a resident of NC I will give you the scoop.

    The way the law is interpreted, alcohol must be sold AND consumed in the location. In the case of the hotel bar, you may not carry IN the bar, but the hotel lobby and other areas are OK because the alcohol was not SOLD in the lobby, even if someone took a beer out into the lobby to drink it.

    As for carrying somewhere else, like in a convenient store. Alcohol is sold but not consumed there, so carrying is OK.

  7. Sebastian says:

    I agree with your interpretation, in that it’s how I would like to read the statute, but North Carolina law doesn’t make a whole lot of distinction here about what the boundaries need to be between sold and consumed.

    Interesting is that North Carolina law prohibits sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. It’s only legal through exception.

    Convenience stores would have a license for “off premises” consumption, so you’re safe there. It’s not even legal to drink a beer you bought in a convenience store while in the convenience store. Hotels have a bunch of different permits they can get, including “Guest Room Cabinet Permit.” Convention Centers can get a special permit ABC permit too.

    It’s hard reading their liquor laws to see how a hotel that has a liquor license doesn’t fall under this statute. I know it sucks, but that’s what the law says, or seems to say.

  8. Sebastian says:

    Yeah, taking a closer look at North Carolina liquor laws, hotels with liquor licenses I would say are pretty unambiguously off limits. I hadn’t spent much time looking at that part of their law before I wrote this post.

    Interestingly, I think if the bar were just an attached restaurant, you’d be OK, but it would be unlawful to take your drink into the hotel lobby because the hotel has no license for consumption. You could consume it in your room, because there’s an exception in the law for that. Here’s the funny thing, if your room had a liquor cabinet in it, you can’t carry because then the hotel has a license for on-premises consumption (just a specific kind). If it doesn’t, you can, because the hotel is not the license holder, and you can’t, therefore, buy booze in your room.

    Any hotel that says it’s OK to drink in the lobby has a license for the whole establishment. It’s off limits. This is all very complicated, and I probably got some things wrong, but this is why we need to change the law. Marriott would probably rather not deal with this crap either.

  9. Ian Argent says:

    To corn a phrase “Is law, is unsafe”…

  10. Michael says:

    I attended the GRNC event last Friday. I don’t need to drill down into the specifics of all the laws to justify my personal boycott against Marriott. They taped homemade signs on the doors, DURING the event, when doing so was completely unnecessary.

    It is not their responsibility to interpret or enforce the statutes, nor do they have the authority to do so. If you want to try to suggest that the signs are merely a courteous way to help their guests avoid doing something unlawful, then the doors should be papered top-to-bottom with helpful hints, since NC has many laws, only a percentage of which apply to firearms.

    Why not have a sign that reminds guests “Women must have their bodies covered by at least 16 yards of cloth at all times, in Charlotte, NC.” ? Or, of more interest to hotel guests in NC, another helpful sign could read “All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart. Making love in the space between the beds is strictly forbidden.”

    Of course those are absurd examples of laws that are unlikely to be enforced. The point remains: why pick on CCW permit holders? We know the laws. We took a class, remember? We’ve proven to be stable, sane, free of addiction, etc. We’ve been fingerprinted. We’ve demonstrated that we are safe. We, as a group, are better educated and have higher incomes than the average customer. You’d think that would make us attractive as clients. Yet it’s this group who gets this treatment?

    This is a case of some anti-gun employees at Marriott Center City insulting hundreds of their own guests. To me, it’s not a legal issue at all. It’s simply a consequence of a free market: You insult your clients, they don’t come back.

  11. Sebastian says:

    It’s your right to be angry about it if you want to be, and to boycott Marriott as a result. But the thing is, you can get in serious trouble for carrying a gun in a prohibited place. Most other things you could get in trouble for in a hotel are summary offenses, or well known to people to be illegal.

    I don’t know about the Marriott, but the Westin had law enforcement presence the entire time. I think Marriott are boneheads for not thinking ahead, but I don’t blame them for posting, when the law prohibits carry in the establishment.

    You may have taken a class, but a Hotel with a liquor license is pretty clearly off limits. If they aren’t covering that in class they should be. If you knew that, and want to carry anyway, I might understand, but why blame Marriott?

  12. Ray Burton says:

    The issue is not whether Marriott posts their hotels, it is that they waited until Friday evening, after the NRA convention and the grassroots NC event were in full swing to post signs.

    Then add the conflicting versions of what occured – the GM on monday said that the postings were new. Marriott corporate is publically stating that the postings were NOT new, but replacing signs that had been taken down during a recent renovation.

    If this was their policy, fine, I don’t go where I, as a law-abiding, permit holding citizen are not welcome.

    To post signs late friday, then lie about why they were put up is a totally different matter.

  13. Sebastian says:

    It sounds to me like an oversight. A stupid oversight, I’ll give you. But didn’t they mention the prohibition on places alcohol is sold for on premises consumption? Didn’t GRNC realize that? It seems to me they are getting pissed at Marriott because they didn’t know what the law was.

  14. Michael says:

    I’m not angry. If I got angry at uninformed anti-gun businesses who post such signs, I would stay angry, and I don’t have the energy for that.

    Also, I’m not convinced (yet) that, without the signs, it would be unlawful for me to walk from the front door, to the elevator, to a private meeting space on the third floor, carrying a concealed firearm. At no point did I ever enter a space where alcohol is both sold and consumed. You can cite info about their liquor license, but that has no bearing to me. The law that applies to me, as it was explained to me, clearly states “any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.” If you are going to consider the entire building to be the “establishment,” then any mall, shopping center, airport, etc., with a Chili’s would also be off limits. In my view, Chili’s, The Gap, Sears, and Starbucks are individual “establishments” that share a common access area. I see the hotel and its restaurant/lounge in a similar way.

    Our D.A. has declined to prosecute cases where people have been beaten to the point where bones were broken. Cases with solid evidence. Would they really choose to prosecute me for straying into such a gray area? (It would not surprise me, actually. This IS Mecklenburg County.) Until it’s made more clear, I’m willing to take the risk with my own interpretation of the law.

    As far as what they teach in the CCW classes here: they spend a large portion of the day discussing legal issues, and the laws that apply to CCW. The biggest take-away from the day is “you’ll know it’s legal or not when a jury decides,” because the laws have not been tested in court or otherwise interpreted with clarity by any authority. So, no… they did not explain the intricate legal issues of carrying in a lobby of a hotel that also has a restaurant that sells alcohol, and I would not expect them to cover the myriad complicated scenarios one might encounter.

    I’m happy to engage with you on the issue, but again the bottom line is: it was unnecessary for the hotel to post those signs, especially at that hour. The timing was, at the very least, disrespectful. There are plenty of hotels to choose from. It’s easy enough to avoid them.

  15. Sebastian says:

    If you are going to consider the entire building to be the “establishment,” then any mall, shopping center, airport, etc., with a Chili’s would also be off limits. In my view, Chili’s, The Gap, Sears, and Starbucks are individual “establishments” that share a common access area. I see the hotel and its restaurant/lounge in a similar way.

    There’s a distinction there. Chilis is the establishment where alcohol is sold and consumed. If you take your drink into the mall, you’re breaking the law. The issue is not that there is an establishment in the building that’s license, the issue is that for a hotel like the Marriott, the hotel is the licensed establishment for the purposes of sale and consumption.

    Would they really choose to prosecute me for straying into such a gray area? (It would not surprise me, actually. This IS Mecklenburg County.) Until it’s made more clear, I’m willing to take the risk with my own interpretation of the law.

    I wouldn’t if I were a prosecutor, but I like the idea of people carrying guns for self-protection. I don’t blame you personally for risking it, but I can understand why Marriott wouldn’t want their customers carted off by the police because they broke a law they weren’t aware of.

    So, no… they did not explain the intricate legal issues of carrying in a lobby of a hotel that also has a restaurant that sells alcohol, and I would not expect them to cover the myriad complicated scenarios one might encounter.

    Ah, but there’s a difference. If it’s a restaurant attached to the hotel, and the restaurant has a liquor license, you have a pretty good case you can carry in the hotel. It’s if the hotel itself has one that you’re screwed for carry. There is one area where we might not agree. I think it’s important for a CCW course to cover the legal risks… maybe not get into each individual scenario, but at least point out the risks involved with carrying places that are licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on premises, including hotels. It’s true that the law isn’t decided until a case is taken to trial, and then appealed, but that costs a shitload of money. It’s one thing if someone ends up in a situation like that when they were informed of the risks, but they should understand it’s a risk.

  16. Michael says:

    Sheesh. I deal with enough idiocy trying to remain lawful, and now you’d have me investigate to determine the type of liquor license a business has before going there?

    I’m reminded of complaints from CCW holders in some other states that are even more hazy on the alcohol issue. (It’s legal to carry into a restaurant that sells alcohol, but it’s unlawful to carry into a bar that sells food. How can you tell which is which? If they earn more than 50% of their income with alcohol, it’s a bar. If more than 50% from food, it’s a restaurant. Gimme a break. Who let Sarah Brady write the CCW law?)

    You seem to support the hotel on the basis of their efforts to protect their clients. Do you not see how the posting of those signs could be considered an insult to the hundreds of guests who were there to represent their firearm related business, or to attend the NRA convention? Especially when combined with the hotels OTHER signs explaining to guests how and where they could secure their firearms ON THE PREMISES? What purpose did those door signs serve, other than as an insult, especially at that hour? If no firearms are allowed in the building, how is it possible that they have secure places to store firearms for their guests? The door signs are an insult, nothing more.

  17. Sebastian says:

    I’m not saying you have to research everything. It’s not like I looked it up before I went to Charlotte either. But I’ve consciously accepted the risks of being ignorant when it comes to firearms issues, and it sounds like you have too. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

    But the question is, is Marriott wrong for informing their customers up front what risks they are incurring by entering the establishment with a gun? Putting the posting up during the convention, I’ll give you, was a fuck-up on their part. A fuck up that certainly warrants a call to the manager, which it looks like he apologized for.

    I don’t consider Marriotts position to be insulting. What’s insulting are the politicians in North Carolina who are allowing this status quo to continue. They are the ones to take to taks over this. The solution to this problem is found at the State Capitol in Raleigh, not at Marriott Corporate Headquarters in Bethesda.

  18. harp1034 says:

    Out of sight, out of mind. If you are carrying properly concealed no will know. No one should be able to make you. Nevertheless why spend hard earned money with companies that pull dirty tricks.

  19. Sebastian says:

    A fuck-up, I’ll give you. But what’s the dirty trick here?

  20. Michael says:

    If you want to patronize a company that did what they did, that’s your business. I think I’ve pretty clearly outlined how the door signs are contrary to their own procedures of storing firearms for guests, which kills the concept of “informing their guests of the risks.”

    If you are going to openly offer to store my firearm for me, how can you also tell me I can’t bring a firearm on your property (you know, just a friendly public service announcement for your protection)? It doesn’t add up.

    Step 1: Take tons of money from all the gun rights folks.
    Step 2: Offer to store their firearms securely (since only a few rooms have safes)
    Step 3: Post a “no firearms” sign on all the doors.

    I’d say “Dirty Trick” is a fair description.

    Also, I’ve seen no apology from the GM, and no correction or even a clarification of their policy.

  21. Sebastian says:

    You can take a firearm into a hotel, you just can’t carry one concealed.

  22. Michael says:

    Not if there are “No Firearms Allowed” signs on all the doors.

    Do you own a ton of Marriott stock or something?

  23. Sebastian says:

    What exactly did the sigh say? No firearms or no carry?

  24. Michael says:

    I don’t know how the signs were worded. The message was such that no firearms are to be brought onto the property.

  25. J Richardson says:

    I, like Michael, attended GRNC’s Gala for Gun Rights. We parked in their underground parking garage and took the elevator up to the lobby. We did not come in through the front door. Nowhere did we see any signs indicating a no weapons policy upon entering. And, to be honest, since we didn’t exit through the front door, I didn’t see the taped-up signs.

    If you know anything about GRNC, you know that they don’t compromise on their principles and one of their biggest is not patronizing businesses that are anti-gun or gun-restrictive. You have a better chance at winning the Powerball lottery than to see GRNC hold a fundraising event in a place that they know is gun-restrictive.

    I agree with Michael that the actions of Marriott were a slap in the face and an insult. We can argue all we want about the finer points of North Carolina general statutes and their application to the Marriott’s lobby and hotel rooms. It doesn’t change the fact that the Marriott Charlotte City Center’s GM acted in a manner that was insulting and gratuitous. Why should I want to do business with a company that indulges in such behavior?

  26. If you are going to consider the entire building to be the “establishment,” then any mall, shopping center, airport, etc., with a Chili’s would also be off limits. In my view, Chili’s, The Gap, Sears, and Starbucks are individual “establishments” that share a common access area.

    We’re talking law, so “that defies common sense” isn’t a valid argument. According to one of our friendly neighborhood gunbloggers, forbidding carry in the same shopping mall as a restricted area is exactly how it’s done in Ohio.

    Whether or not it’s sensible to a reasonable person, the NC law is vague and could be applied to a hotel with a bar by a prosecutor and judge who wanted to. You can say that makes no sense. You can say the vagueness of the law makes it unconstitutional. And I’d agree with you. But it’s a gun law; almost none of them make sense. And the men with clubs and pistols may still lock you in a cage for violating it, stupid and unconstitutional or not.

    We can take a narrow view of the law all we want, but businesses will generally read the law conservatively. It was perfectly reasonable for Marriott to assume their hotel was a prohibited place because the law is written very, very broadly.

  27. Michael says:

    elmo iscariot said:
    “It was perfectly reasonable for Marriott to assume their hotel was a prohibited place because the law is written very, very broadly.”

    The point that I’ve made repeatedly is that it is not Marriott’s responsibility to post such signs, no matter how they interpret the law, nor do they have the authority to enforce it. It was their CHOICE to do so.

    Was it “perfectly reasonable” for Marriott to choose that exact hour to post homemade signs? Why not do it five weeks earlier? Hell, five HOURS earlier would have made more sense. It’s not like they didn’t know the NRA convention was coming to town.

    Also, please explain how there is any reason, perfect or not, in posting such signs while offering secure storage for firearms to guests staying at the hotel.

    You are right on target with your distrust of vague CCW laws, however. One that I struggle with here in NC has to do with banks. I can’t carry into any building that has a bank in it. Some walmarts have banks in them, but you don’t know unless you go inside. Some malls have banks. There’s a grocery store around here somewhere with a bank in it. And for all I know, some “ambitious” prosecutor might even consider an ATM to be a “bank” for purposes of this law.

    I guess we will all just live on the edge until one of us ends up in court over some of these gray areas.

  28. Michael, you and I are gun rights advocates involved enough in gun politics to be having a disagreement on a gun blog over the timing of a hotel’s posting of signs relating to North Carolina’s concealed carry restrictions as applied to establishments with specific types of liquor licenses, and the amount of additional liability taken on by carriers as a result of that timing. Understand that this makes us easily more invested in this issue than 99% of NRA members, to say nothing of all gun owners, let alone the general population. When assessing other people’s decisions, we have to remember that our perspective on what’s important is very, very different from the average person’s.

    Some Marriott employee or employees, operating in a state that prohibits concealed carry in a place that serves alcohol, found themselves hosting a huge number of gun enthusiasts and posted signs about the carry prohibition. Either they made a calculated decision to alienate and criminalize a large number of customers to indulge some exec’s anti-gun bigotry; or somebody was just reminded of the law when it suddenly became relevant and said “hey, maybe we should put up some signs”, not knowing how serious a political statement it was to those of us who’re extremely involved in gun issues. Hang out with _any_ hardcore social activists for a while, and you’ll see how easy it is to seem like you’re taking a side in a seriously acrimonious issue without realizing it.

    I’m not saying this definitely wasn’t some jerk anti’s way of making a statement, but it just seems like there’s at least as good a chance of ignorance as malice here.

  29. Michael says:

    You make an excellent point, and I can’t disagree with you on your overall comparison between “us” and “them.” We are the rare minority to pick at nits on this issue, when it never enters the minds of most people.

    That point does not address, however, the obvious contrast between the door signs barring firearms and the signs offering to store firearms for guests.

    I don’t expect the Management at Marriott to be intimately familiar with CCW laws, but I do expect them to have the common sense and common courtesy of an average 8 year old. Either firearms can be brought into the building, or they cannot. Marriott could have picked a side and made things clear. Instead, it seems as though they were just toying with us; trying to have it both ways.

    One of the many reasons to be a member of GRNC, is that they take the time to educate companies on these things that they either misunderstand, or are unaware of the weight that this issue carries with a segment of consumers.

    There have been occasions when employees of a company mistakenly think that they are required to post signs on their doors banning firearms. When a representative of GRNC speaks with them and politely explains to them how the law actually works and explains that there is a good sized group of people who will avoid patronizing their business if those signs are in place, they usually remove the signs. These are simple misunderstandings and once they are cleared up, everyone is happy.

    The situation with Marriott, so far at least, does not appear to be anything like that. As skeptical as I am, you may be correct about the whole thing being due to ignorance or incompetence. The result is the same: I’ll shop elsewhere for my lodging and event needs.

  30. That point does not address, however, the obvious contrast between the door signs barring firearms and the signs offering to store firearms for guests.

    I don’t expect the Management at Marriott to be intimately familiar with CCW laws, but I do expect them to have the common sense and common courtesy of an average 8 year old.

    See, I’d expect somebody with the sense of an 8 year old to think “well, if they check their guns at the desk, that’s _obviously_ not what the law means by carrying a gun in here”. It’s the laws that are definitely stupid; Marriott is only maybe stupid. ;)

    For my money, I don’t have a problem with the hotel if it wasn’t acting maliciously. A business in a pro-carry jurisdiction that posts no-guns signs because the owner doesn’t like ’em? Assholes. A business that reasonably believes state law prohibits carry on their premises and doesn’t go hunting for exceptions? Doesn’t really bother me. If GRNC can get clarification on the law, verify that it doesn’t cover Marriott, and the hotel still posts no-guns signs, then I’d be mightily pissed off at them.

  31. Xrlq says:

    If they banned concealed carry, I would jump on board with not doing business with them…

    They do, so jump on board. Their smarmy spam response to everyone who complains states explicitly that “It has been the hotel’s long-standing policy to not allow firearms by the public on the premises.” If they thought they even had a colorable argument that NC law *required* this policy, they’d hide behind that law. The only question in my mind is whether “the hotel” means this particular Marriott or the entire chain.

  32. BullMoose says:

    Let me address several of the posts here in one post of my own.

    moose Said,
    May 20th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
    The way the law is interpreted, alcohol must be sold AND consumed in the location. In the case of the hotel bar, you may not carry IN the bar, but the hotel lobby and other areas are OK because the alcohol was not SOLD in the lobby, even if someone took a beer out into the lobby to drink it.

    THIS IS CORRECT UNDER STATE LAW

    Sebastian Said,
    May 20th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
    I agree with your interpretation, in that it’s how I would like to read the statute, but North Carolina law doesn’t make a whole lot of distinction here about what the boundaries need to be between sold and consumed.

    I CALL THE NC ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE ON FRIDAY AND SPOKE WITH DOREEN MCVEIGH. SHE STATED THE SAME THING MOOSE STATED REGARDING A HOTEL. BUT ALSO STATED UNLESS THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS POSTED AS NO FIREARMS.

    Sebastian Said,
    May 20th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
    I don’t know about the Marriott, but the Westin had law enforcement presence the entire time. I think Marriott are boneheads for not thinking ahead, but I don’t blame them for posting, when the law prohibits carry in the establishment.

    THERE WAS ONLY A POLICE PRESENCE AT THE MARRIOTT ON SUNDAY, DURING A WEDDING THAT WAS HOSTED THERE. THERE WERE 6 TO 8 POLICE CARS PARKED ON THE SIDEWALKS AROUND THE HOTEL ENTRANCES. I BELIEVE THIS WAS DUE TO A TRADTIONAL INDIAN WEDDING BEING HELD THERE. WHICH MEANS THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A LOT OF THE TRADITIONAL INDIAN WEDDING PRESENT THERE, GOLD, AND LOTS OF IT.

    Sebastian Said,
    May 21st, 2010 at 12:58 am
    What exactly did the sigh say? No firearms or no carry?

    THE SIGN HAD A PICTURE OF A REVOLVER. NOT REALISTIC EITHER BUT A CARTOONISH CLIP ART ONE, WITH A RED CIRCLE WITH A LINE THROUGH IT AND STATED EITHER “NO WEAPONS” OR “NO FIREARMS”. THESE INKED PRINTED POSTINGS WERE AROUND THE SIZE OF AN 3×5 INDEX CARD AND LOOKED AS IF MULTIPLE WERE PRINTED ON THE SAME PIECE OF PAPER AND CUT APART WITH SCISSORS SINCE THE EDGES WERE NOT CUT STRAIGHT.

  33. Check out Marriott’s email to me, in which they explicitly state, “It has been the hotel’s long-standing policy to not allow firearms by the public on the premises.”

    Irrespective of any state law, they have their stated policy.

  34. Paul Valone says:

    I am the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner who began the economic action against Marriott International pursuant to its posting of the Charlotte hotel during the NRA convention. I am also one of the author’s of NC’s 1995 concealed handgun law, as well as numerous bills to clean up weakening amendments suffered by the bill during passage, so I think I can speak with authority on what is required per NC statutes.

    There are some misconceptions circulating here. As noted in my article, and as confirmed by Doreen McVeigh of the compliance division of the NC Attorney General’s office, the fact that a hotel has within it restaurants serving alcohol does NOT

  35. Paul Valone says:

    [sorry: sent prematurely-
    … does NOT mean the hotel has to post against firearms. In fact, GS 14-269.3 neither requires nor creates any means for posting of facilities serving alcohol. She also confirms that the areas of the hotel beyond the restaurants are not “places where alcohol is sold and consumed.”

    Posting of Marriott hotels is under a separate statute, GS 14-415.11(c) and creates a separate criminal liability which can be prosecuted as a Class 2 misdemeanor.

    Signs placed at all entrances to the Marriott after the NRA convention and my organization’s “Gala for Gun Rights” were indeed “conspicuously posted” as stated in the statute, subjecting hundreds if not thousands of gun owners to prosecution at events already underway when the signs were posted.

    Moreover, my later articles have not only elucidated Marriott’s “no guns” policy in *all* of its hotels, whether posted or not, and a link between CEO JW Marriott, Jr. and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. (See http://bit.ly/MarriottLies).

    Although a post here maintains Marriott was merely “complying with state law,” what it did was well in excess of such requirements and was, in fact the result of its election to bar guns.

    For more information on the spreading action against Marriott, you can check my articles and/or my interview on Sunday with Tom Gresham on “Gun Talk” which can be found at:

    http://traffic.libsyn.com/guntalk/100530guntalkA.mp3

    F. Paul Valone
    President, Grass Roots North Carolina
    http://www.GRNC.org

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. damnum absque injuria » Marriott to Gun Owners: Drop Dead (But Pay Us First) - [...] Sebastian thinks the boycott is premature. I say it’s long overdue. [...]
  2. damnum absque injuria » GRNC Gets Results – in Charlotte and Beyond? - [...] like the long overdue “premature” boycott against corporate gun-grabbing Marriott has paid off in a matter of days. It’s…
top