Marriott Hotels guns for the NRA

The Marriott hotel chain has decided to forget that it is in the service industry and attack the National Rifle Association.

For those wondering what these two completely different industries have to do with each other, the answer was sadly found when the NRA recently held its annual convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

The right to own a gun is different from state to state. Liberal states favor more gun control restrictions, while conservative states favor the rights of individuals to own guns. The standard Second Amendment debates have been offered ad nauseum, ad until the Supreme Court settles the issue, further rehashing is not necessary.

(I favor individual gun rights, and support the NRA position on the Second Amendment.)

The NRA held their convention in North Carolina, which makes sense. It is a fairly conservative state, especially on gun issues.

The law in North Carolina gives people the right to carry concealed weapons on their person. However, individual businesses can put up signs that say “no guns allowed.” Those signs overrule the right to conceal and carry.

NRA members booked reservations at the Marriott closest to the convention. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that they would pick a hotel that allowed guns.

A manager at the hotel decided in the middle of the convention…let me say this again, in the middle of the convention…to put up the signs banning guns from the premises.

All of a sudden, law abiding citizens were turned into criminals.

What the heck were these people supposed to do, find a new hotel in the middle of the convention?

Stunts like this are exactly why gun rights supporters don’t trust liberals. They truly believe, not unreasonably, that the goal of the left is to ban all guns.

Calls to the corporate headquarters resulted in a ridiculous response. Marriott claimed that they always had a policy banning guns at their hotels, but that when this particular hotel was being repainted, the signs were taken down. Not putting them back up was the mistake.

The convention attendees acted in good faith. They relied on an implied promise. Had police officers walked in to that hotel, the attendees carrying guns could have been arrested once the signs were up.

Apparently the Marriott company was flooded with about 10,000 calls and emails. One attendee called up the rival Hilton chain and asked if Marriott points could be converted to Hilton points in exchange for becoming a Hilton customer. Hilton quickly said yes.

I would not be surprised if Marriott begins to “reevaluate” their policy.

Some will say that since economic pressure was applied and Hilton stepped up, that this is no big deal.

It is a very big deal.

Either the people running Marriott are malevolent or stupid. How could somebody running that hotel branch in Charlotte not expect that guns would be brought into a hotel from people attending…what a shock…a gun convention!

Did none of these people know the policy?

I have no problem with Marriott deciding not to have guns in their hotels. Just don’t decide this in the middle of the d@mn NRA convention!

At some point…some way, somehow…intelligence has to rear its head.

Customer service has to matter.

The 2 to 4 million NRA members will most likely not do business with Marriott in the future if they can help it. If anybody was harassed, they should sue the hotel. Liberals have been filing lawsuits for decades. Conservatives need to fight back using the same tactics.

(Provided that individuals had their weapons confiscated or were harassed.)

Nice job Marriott. Supporting the Constitution can be good business sense, and you did neither.

eric

6 Responses to “Marriott Hotels guns for the NRA”

  1. Well, the hotel sold alcohol and permitted consumption throughout the establishment, so it was illegal to have guns in there anyway. At least the locals should have known that. Just the same, Marriott should have had the sign posted conspicuously from the get-go, so theoretically the armed patrons should be immune from any prosecution. But again, remember, the SC LAW says you can not have guns and alcohol in the same establishment. This isn’t Marriott policy, it’s the LAW.

    JMJ

  2. Micky 2 says:

    That might apply to Saloons or bars but you’d be hard pressed to find any hotel that can enforce that in their rooms.

  3. Dav Lev says:

    Im in favor of people owning hand guns, I own one, and have an ample
    supply of shotgun shells nearby, should I have to defend myself, and
    my country from local violent criminals, or an invastion of the Jihadists,
    the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or a rogue Ukrainian militia.

    I have been told that a shotgun doesn’t need a sharpshooter to
    use and be effective. My friends have many, many guns. at the ready
    (they claim to be collectors šŸ™

    I am not in favor of anyone owing a Galil or Uzi, or an Amercan
    machine gun..or the greatest weapon, the Ak-47.

    Owing a single shot rifle (30-30, 22) is okay, especially to
    kill the hapless deer, bear and rabbits during hunting season
    mainly. The only good deer is a dead one, as the saying goes.
    Of course the baby deer might not agree.

    As far as permission to have a concealed weapon, whether
    in North or South Carolina, Texas, or any other state. Im for it.,
    except in Los Angeles or Brooklyn, where it might lead to
    a massacre.

    Anyone taking the NYCity D train at night, alone on a platform
    knows the feeling of a stranger approaching.

    But then again, I once saw 20 thugs picking on a helpless
    elderly person on the Q train..if only I had my 12 gauge, I
    would have showed these guys something about we
    Californians.

    I admire the NRA but not to a fault. The 2nd amendment
    does not permit private militias…but it does allow
    individual ownership.

    I can envision however, every other minority group and subminority
    groups, having access to machine guns, and RPGs. Iraq and
    Afghanistan right here at home guys.

    Is this what we want?

  4. Micky 2 says:

    “The 2nd amendment
    does not permit private militiasā€¦but it does allow
    individual ownership.”

    The 2nd says nothing about “private” or “public” militias.
    Just “well regulated”
    Which is still the corner of much controversy as when you get a few guys supportive of the same cause who own fire arms , bingo, you’ve got a militia.
    Also, lets not forget all the private security firms for hire that can be considered “private militias”…Blackwater etc…

  5. I heard about this incident. Apparently that is the law.

    Now, for you you sunny day constructionists, the “militia” was simply understood by our Founders to be the armed citizenry. The relationship between those citizens, their arms, and the state is what the Founders were talking about when they wrote “well-regulated.” The congress may determine what types of arms are legal, how they are used, etc. For example, it’s not legal to shoot someone. Or, you can not have an audience with the President of the United States with a howitizer pointed at his head from 5 inches away. Or, you may not own a howitzer.

    You most certainly do not have to be anti-gun or anti-second amendment to want a pretty broad set of regulations on arms. Only ridiculous idiots think otherwise.

    JMJ

  6. Micky 2 says:

    When liberals say “broad” you’re lucky if you’re allowed to have the bullets

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.