hospital carry?

[darinb]

Can we carry in a hospital? It seems that a hospital that does not have a mental ward is ok. I was wanting to know from anyone who has studied this.

 

[eldirector]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...l-legal-illegal.html?highlight=hospital+legal

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-hospital-carry.html?highlight=hospital+legal

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-hospital-carry.html?highlight=hospital+legal

County/city hospitals are preempted by State law. Hospitals with secure facilities (staffed by LE - eg: Escanazi) can be off-limits. Private hospitals can have whatever policy they want.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The private hospitals may try to pull a Donnie Baker and tell you that it's "State Law" that you cannot lawfully carry there. They will point to the sign at their door that you had to pass coming in, because it's on EVERY outside door.

They are wrong. There is no law to that effect in Indiana. At most, they might be able to pursue "trespassing", provided they can show that you've been made aware that your gun is not welcome.

From what I've seen and heard, the police officer is more likely to give you the opportunity to leave.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Expat]

Our local hospitals don't have metal detectors and concealed is concealed.

 

[KittySlayer]

They will point to the sign at their door that you had to pass coming in, because it's on EVERY outside door.

Well they try but they always miss getting the signage on a few doors. I always look for those none standard entries that didn't get signed and conceal carry. The last hospital I visited had a patient drop off/pick up area that took you in a side door rather than the main entrance. They got the all important No Smoking signs up but forgot the GFZ stickers.

Just like the mall in town, enter through JC Penny and there is no GFZ signage.

 

[Joniki]

Doesn't Lutheran hospital here in the Fort have a preschool?

 

[eldirector]

Doesn't Lutheran hospital here in the Fort have a preschool?

There does appear to be a Bright Horizons daycare inside the main hospital building at 7910 W Jefferson Blvd, Fort Wayne, IN 46804. That would make the entire building a school, and the associated parking would need to follow the school parking lot law. Really nothing to do with being a hospital. More the fact they stuck a daycare inside.

 

[KittySlayer]

There does appear to be a Bright Horizons daycare inside the main hospital building at 7910 W Jefferson Blvd, Fort Wayne, IN 46804. That would make the entire building a school, and the associated parking would need to follow the school parking lot law. Really nothing to do with being a hospital. More the fact they stuck a daycare inside.

So the Lutheran campus has multiple buildings on the property. Does the daycare/preschool taint every building or just the one that contains the daycare?

 

[bwframe]

These little silly GFZ's are something we need to get our legislators to work on fixing.

 

[Expat]

These little silly GFZ's are something we need to get our legislators to work on fixing.

By legislating away private property rights?

 

[bwframe]

By legislating away private property rights?

No no, I meant the pre-school/daycare involvement that actually make it illegal to be there vs just trespassing.

 

[Expat]

No no, I meant the pre-school/daycare involvement that actually make it illegal to be there vs just trespassing.

Okay, I will agree on that one. Silly that just because there is a day care in a building that you can't carry in it.

 

[Viper1973]

By legislating away private property rights?

Once you're open to the general public you should be subject to preemption. Your property rights should not override my Constitutional rights. You're the one who chose to go into business.

Employers that don't have on-site armed security should be subject to the same guideline.

 

[Thegeek]

I've always been a fan of having federal GFZ marked with signs. #1 make it not a crime if there is no sign posted, #2 make it a crime to misuse the sign. They always say ignorance is no excuse, but when it comes to hospitals and churches I think it's pretty unreasonable to be forced to do a bunch of research before going somewhere. Same would go for ACOE property (which is BS anyway) and other GFZs that aren't obvious.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Once you're open to the general public you should be subject to preemption. Your property rights should not override my Constitutional rights. You're the one who chose to go into business.

Employers that don't have on-site armed security should be subject to the same guideline.

Wait... unless you're the patient in the hospital, and usually even then, you're the one who chose to go to that business. Why should your rights override the business owner's? The trick is crafting laws that respect EVERYONE's rights. How? Remove the law that makes exercising your rights a criminal act, and allow the business to set their local rules of what they will and will not allow there. Business owner says no ______ on my property, and you cause one to be there, they can tell you to leave and refusal is a criminal act, much as we have here in Indiana now re: guns.

Fill in that blank with: Bibles, guns, White people, Black people, apples, water bottles, protest groups, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, cameras.... whatever. Remove the government from the equation and you solve LOTS of problems. And yes, I'm including the "discrimination" laws, because again, that interferes with the individual right to choose with whom one associates. Let the market and the public decide. "What? Chick-Fil-A doesn't allow Muslims on their property? I'm not Muslim, but I don't agree with that, so I won't go there either." It's kinda like the "no gun, no $$" cards. If _____ is not welcome, my money isn't either.

If you can choose to go there, they should be able to choose how they run their business. Including their right to run it right into the ground and go broke.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Viper1973]

Wait... unless you're the patient in the hospital, and usually even then, you're the one who chose to go to that business. Why should your rights override the business owner's? The trick is crafting laws that respect EVERYONE's rights. How? Remove the law that makes exercising your rights a criminal act, and allow the business to set their local rules of what they will and will not allow there. Business owner says no ______ on my property, and you cause one to be there, they can tell you to leave and refusal is a criminal act, much as we have here in Indiana now re: guns.

Fill in that blank with: Bibles, guns, White people, Black people, apples, water bottles, protest groups, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, cameras.... whatever. Remove the government from the equation and you solve LOTS of problems. And yes, I'm including the "discrimination" laws, because again, that interferes with the individual right to choose with whom one associates. Let the market and the public decide. "What? Chick-Fil-A doesn't allow Muslims on their property? I'm not Muslim, but I don't agree with that, so I won't go there either." It's kinda like the "no gun, no $$" cards. If _____ is not welcome, my money isn't either.

If you can choose to go there, they should be able to choose how they run their business. Including their right to run it right into the ground and go broke.

Blessings,
Bill

I respectfully have to disagree... especially with organizations (hospitals, colleges, malls, etc.) that get public tax funds or abatements.

As a legally licensed gun owner, I'm sick and tired of my rights being discriminated against by property owners hiding behind the 'private property' statutes and employers hiding behind the same to leave their employees defenseless. All because of the unproven fear that some goofball will cause an incident.

Once you're open to the public, private property protections shouldn't apply.

All that would need to happen is a law holding property owners responsible for any accident or injury denying self-defense. The same law could also hold property owners not responsible for same if they permit it.

 

[bwframe]

Private property is private property, it should be without govt intervention.

If it takes public funds it is not private any longer, in my mind. There should be NO publicly funded GFZ's.

 

[Viper1973]

If it takes public funds it is not private any longer in my mind. There should be NO publicly funded GFZ's.

EXACTLY!

Every hospital that takes Medicare or Medicaid is getting our tax dollars. Almost every mall in the country - especially Simon's - get special tax abatements which are also our tax dollars. Same with colleges. Many large employers also get special tax concessions on our dime.

These folks should get ZERO protections and be prohibited from restricting carry.

 

[Joniki]

The problem is at times you have no idea you are breaking the law. My daughter went to "day care" at Lutheran many, many years ago. I had no idea there was a "preschool" on the property until I ventured into the basement and saw a sign.

I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I respectfully have to disagree... especially with organizations (hospitals, colleges, malls, etc.) that get public tax funds or abatements.

As a legally licensed gun owner, I'm sick and tired of my rights being discriminated against by property owners hiding behind the 'private property' statutes and employers hiding behind the same to leave their employees defenseless. All because of the unproven fear that some goofball will cause an incident.

Once you're open to the public, private property protections shouldn't apply.

All that would need to happen is a law holding property owners responsible for any accident or injury denying self-defense. The same law could also hold property owners not responsible for same if they permit it.

Private property is private property, it should be without govt intervention.

If it takes public funds it is not private any longer, in my mind. There should be NO publicly funded GFZ's.

EXACTLY!

Every hospital that takes Medicare or Medicaid is getting our tax dollars. Almost every mall in the country - especially Simon's - get special tax abatements which are also our tax dollars. Same with colleges. Many large employers also get special tax concessions on our dime.

These folks should get ZERO protections and be prohibited from restricting carry.

Understand, I don't like having restrictions on carry where I work, nor the possibility of being fired if I choose to carry there. (Also note I've not said whether I disregard that rule and take that chance or not)

However, saying that funding is the line... You're saying that private property rights go away with any tax-sourced funds. The example I've used before is Burger King and McDonald's: If I own one of these two and have gotten an abatement or suchlike, you're saying that someone can enter my property, start loudly proclaiming the virtues of my competitor in my dining room, and I can't remove him on the grounds of his right of free speech, even when he's offering coupons to draw away my customers to the competition on my property?

You were speaking of the 2A, while I speak of the 1A, but the logic is identical. You're saying that by accepting any monies or the promise of not having to pay certain monies, I surrender my property rights. Granted, a fast food place probably isn't going to get an abatement, but carry the thoughts over to any business you like.

I can't accept that logic.

Blessings,
Bill