Marriott exposes NRA conventioneers to criminal prosecution

[shadowrider]

Charlotte, NC hotel full of NRA conventioneers posts against firearms while conventioneers are staying there.

Roughly 70,000 gun rights supporters converged on Charlotte, North Carolina last weekend for the NRA's "Celebration of American Values" convention.

Attending one of the world’s largest gun shows and hearing from Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and others, however, some conventioneers didn’t realize they were being rendered inadvertent criminals.

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.

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

There is now a nationwide boycott against Marriott taking place.

Info on this boycott can be seen here: http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d20-Gun-rights-Marriott-boycott-spreads-nationwide

[Dogmudgeon]

1. The Examiner is a teabagger paper

Check out some of the non-gun stories.

Aren't there any pro-gun sources you could use that are to the left of, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Welch,_Jr.">Robert Welch?

--d!

[shadowrider]

2. Tell you what, I'll make a deal

You find a left leaning site that is pro-2A and I'll use it. See, they don't exist, or if they do, they're very difficult to find and I've tried.

It seems most pro-2A sites are right leaning simply because the left, for the most part, is hugely anti-gun.

Once again, ignore the message because of the messenger. The info is true regardless the source used.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. "The info is true ..." ?

First, all sources impart spin to their stories; the more intensely ideological, the worse it is. I read the story, and the hostility was so thick I had a difficult time figuring out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. That's the usual way it is with any high-intensity crusade -- even the saints come out looking like sinners to those who are not "in the know", no less with RKBA than with more traditional anti-fascists.

Second, I live in the Examiner's reporting area; this isn't new to them. Their slant toward Democrats is strictly a recruitment effort, since most Democrats in PA favor firearms rights. RKBA isn't so much Constitutional for The Examiner as it is Conservative. If they can't get an anti-Liberal screed out of an article, it doesn't get printed. It's a propaganda outlet with no more connection to the truth than those little Stalinist tabloids that are given away near colleges. I may agree with the anti-racist message of The Workers' Herald, but not too much else, and relying on them for truthful reporting would be a mistake.

Not only is the truthfulness of the Examiner piece in doubt, posting it is not an effective way to promote the second amendment on a progressive website. Most of the people who are at DU already connect firearms rights with wingnuttery, and this only reinforces the idea. The effort to pry the second amendment from the jaws of the ideologues is still new and (probably) won't be won quickly.

--d!

[shadowrider]

11. You provided no info on a left leaning site willing to put this article up

I tried cnn and msnbc. Nothing there I could find. Are you aware of one? (2nd request)

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Let me guess - you are OUTRAGED first, THEN your read the article.

The author is an asshole, and he is WRONG in his assertions.

The HOTEL has liability for the alcohol served in the hotel restaurants and bars. If you buy a drink in the bar and carry it into the lobby that does not absolve the hotel from its responsibility. The simple fact is, if anything went wrong the hotel would be in a lot of trouble. The hotel's lawyer was correct.

Next, so far as I can tell, posting that a site is off limits to guns is NOT meant to keep guns out. It is a vehicle for prosecution if there is a violation. I don't know how many times I've heard it asserted that 'there could be a dozen people with CC within ten feet, and you would never know it'. Obviously, if someone wants to carry a concealed weapon, no sign is going to stop him. However, if that person is careless, or is an angry drunk, and his weapon 'happens' to discharge on the premises, the posting allows for coming down with the full force of the law, potentially ensuring the moron never carries a gun again.

Again, it is about liability. Posting puts the liability on the gun user, and keeps the hotel from being sued by the schmuck who wound up getting shot.

In this case, the messenger IS the message - and he's an idiot.

[shadowrider]

19. You have completely missed the point.

The rules were changed in the middle of the game.

[Euromutt]

6. And the Marriott chain is Mormon-owned

So where does that leave us?

[X_Digger]

7. In a genetic fallacy endless loop? :) n/t

[Euromutt]

9. Good answer to what was meant to be a rhetorical question

So either we can discount both sides of the argument on the basis that we don't like the people making them (and hey, even if Marriott weren't Mormon-owned, it would still be a large corporation, and we all know how evil they are, by definition), or we could actually discuss the issue on the basis of whatever facts can gleaned.

[msongs]

3. behavioral choices by NRA conference attendees is what exposed them to prosecution - nt

[shadowrider]

4. You don't change rules in the middle of the game n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

13. Yes, they most certainly do!

The whole anti-gun movement has been based on shifting goalposts and changing rules. Time and time again they redefine what they claim are "reasonable" or "common sense" prohibitions while in all cases every one of the organizations' charters calls for the complete elimination of civilian gun ownership.

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

They even outlined a few of the intentional deceptions they planned on using to achieve their eventual goal.

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed." - Elliot Corbett, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy, 1969, Washington Evening Star.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Their apologists piously bleat about gun crime, yet their leaders boldly proclaim:

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, 1996, Washington Post

Leaders of the gun control movement have unashamedly and publicly proclaimed how they intend to reach their goals. They have shown themselves to be complete, total and absolute liars, except for ONE TRUTH:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

[Buenaventura]

5. damn - i've been boycotting marriott for years

'cause of their union-busting.

[X_Digger]

8. +1 n/t

[X_Digger]

12. I wonder about notification in NC

In Texas, if you are given verbal notification that a location is posted, you are not immediately in violation. If you remain in the location, though, you can be charged with trespass by a permit holder.

Just like you can't call the cops on someone for being in your business and have them charged with trespass, without first asking them to leave and having them refuse, I wonder if NC's law has a similar interpretation.

[Endangered Specie]

24. In NC, pretty much any sign banning guns legally bans them...

verbal notification I believe you have to leave immediately... not necessarily over guns, just one of those "this is my place, you aren't welcome here, leave or you commit trespassing"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. I will never stay at a Marriott again.

And once I share this with my wife's and my side of the family (all gun owners)... I'm sure they will not either.

Heck, people in my department/office travel on business ALL THE TIME.
I'll have our secretary admin reccomend other points of lodging when scheduling people's business trips.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. And I'm sure they will miss your one tenth of one percent business. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. If it's kosher to do this to Starbucks, it's kosher to do it to Marriott.

I do believe that this will hurt Marriott far more than the Brady Campaign's hurt Starbucks.

[rrneck]

15. I didn't see anywhere in the article

where the organizers of the event contacted the venue to verify the policy for those attending.

Anyone traveling from state to state is required to be aware of and comply with state laws regarding firearms, and any organization that fails to do so for an event they are organizing is making the same mistake. Marriott dropped the ball by not making their individual policy clear, but the organizers of the event failed as well by not informing those attending of the requirements of state law and by not properly vetting the venue or giving them adequate information regarding the people who would be be there.

All they had to do is make a phone call to verify where, if anywhere, firearms were permitted in the venue and transmit that information back to those attending. This ain't somebody wandering into a Starbucks for a latte. The organizers of the event bear responsibility for the screw up as well.

This boycott is intended to inoculate the organizers of the event from criticism as much as anything else. It looks like they're trying to turn lemons into lemonade by making a little political hay out of it.

[benEzra]

17. It was perfectly legal for a traveler with a gun to enter Marriott and go up to their room

with a firearm, up to the moment that Marriott posted the no-guns signs.

Here's the problem. You check into a hotel that allows firearms (like they practically all do), you leave the hotel with a lawfully carried firearm, you come back and there is a newly posted no-guns sign. What do you do? It's technically a crime to walk back up to your room, although once in your room you are legal again. You can't leave the gun on the sidewalk outside. The only options are to ignore the sign and go to your room anyway, since no one would know and it's legal once you're there, or else wander around the city until you can find a locking gun case to lock the unloaded gun in to legally take it into the elevator.

Marriott's actions were stupid and petty. I have never been in a hotel that disallowed firearms, and I've traveled a fair amount, so the sudden appearance of gun-ban signs is not something you'd expect, particularly from a national chain. And if they're going to suddenly institute a weird policy change, doing it right in the middle of a gun owners' convention with hundreds of those people already checked in was pretty ridiculous.

[shadowrider]

20. Here ya go, from the OP above

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.

The rules were changed, in mid-stream, that evening.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Check the second link in the OP. Marriott lied to the conventioneers, and continues to lie.

They lied about NC state gun laws, and they are lying to the people who write to them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. The controllers will now support union-busting Marriott *and* Richard Daley

Explain to me again how gun control is an 'integral element of progressivism'...