Encounter at Community Hospitial Anderson, Again.

[HoughMade]

If he is the agent of the property owner, yes, he is legally in the right. There is no law that says the rules can't change.

Exactly.

The sign sets one rule. A representative of the property owner sets a broader rule.

There is no issue, pardon, there should be no issue. It's private property. Their rules, written or verbal. Don't like their stance? Find a hospital more to your liking.

Personally, it seems like a silly thing to start an argument about.

 

[T2D4]

Being a smart ass to security about the signage and in general won't help you.

no, it never will. thus why i'm so confused at all the cowboys here who do it incessantly.

 

[ModernGunner]

Just another example of a confrontation created where none need be created.

At some point one has to wonder the 'true' motivation of such individuals carrying firearms. Are they carrying to protect themself, possibly those around them (often, no.) OR are they carrying just to create a confrontation to 'make a point', like Mark Kelly did in March, 2013?

If it's the latter, then they're NOT 'pro-gun', even if they DO have a carry license. They're libtards repeatedly creating problems out in public (not necessarily public places) to 'prove' how 'easily' they can carry a gun into 'questionable' areas, thus rallying up 'the anti-gun war cry'.

As these incidents are repeatedly brought up to attract attention, more and more it appears to be the same libtard garbage that f*****g moron Mark Kelly pulled. Created an intentional controversy where NONE existed in order to demand more strict gun control because it was 'too easy' to get a gun, or get a gun passed security into somewhere that 'should be prohibited'.

People doing this, while they may HAVE a LTCH, are NO 'friends' of law-abiding pro-gun owners, and actually do the cause much more harm than good.

Because of such an incident, now TWICE with the same person, it wouldn't be surprising at all that Community Hospital Anderson will simply prohibit guns anywhere on the property.

THEN, of course, they'll come back to INGO and complain about THAT!

 

[Bung]

I see some of you are against open carry, your problem, not mine. Some think that since the current political climate is anti-gun that we should just shut ourselves in and pretend we don't exist. I'm glad MLK jr didn't take that stance. What will removing ourselves from the public eye accomplish? Do you honestly think seeing fewer good armed citizens will do anything positive for 2A rights?

As I explained here and to Paul, if Community has a no gun policy, I'll gladly not carry there or lock it up at security if I can't leave it at home. But, if Community's printed policy states carry is allowed, then I'm free to carry there and someone's personal opinions on the subject don't matter. There are no smoking signs up all over the property, if a guard doesn't care, that doesn't make it okay. They probably have designated places on site for smokers (if not, let's say they do for a hypothetical), if a guard came out and told people they couldn't smoke there (even though it is clearly marked otherwise and policy states it is fine) should everyone just leave?

The encounter I had last year didn't end with me being ejected. In fact, they didn't tell me I had to conceal it or that I couldn't bring it with me or even elude that I wasn't allowed to carry there at all. Basically, what I'm saying is they didn't tell me I couldn't have the gun there.

If you want to lay down and just do what you are told, then go for it. But, I don't intend to quietly lose my rights or just 'go with' the opinion of who just happens to be on duty that day. Official policy will dictate my actions on that property. If someone is a representative of that property then they are supposed to work within the bounds of policy, not personal feelings. I have been carrying on that property for nearly a year and according to Paul, they have gotten a call nearly every time. Since they didn't confront me every time, I can only assume there is no policy against it. I talked to the head of security last year and emailed customer service and neither of them supplied me with an answer (not even a hint) about official policy there. Customer service never returned my email and the security guy blew me off. That doesn't leave me with the distinct feeling that carry isn't allowed there.

 

[Grizhicks]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, this isn't about OC vs CC, because I don't care how you carry. BUT, I am tried of all the crying. It seems to me, that about 1/2 of OC's here are just looking for a confrontation and then to come back online and cry about it. IF you want to OC, the 'man up' and take you licks that you know are going to come and quit being a 'cry baby'.

 

[HoughMade]

What makes the sign more valid than the security guard's statement? Legally, not a thing.

Do you really think that the intention of the sign is to encourage open carry? You're playing semantic games.

 

[Echelon]

What makes the sign more valid than the security guard's statement? Legally, not a thing.

Do you really think that the intention of the sign is to encourage open carry? You're playing semantic games.

Sounds like he went in expecting issues if he OC'd, as expected he was approached, and now wants to place blame on Community Hospital.

Honestly, it sounds like they have gone OUT OF THEIR WAY to accommodate you, even though you make it sound like you are being difficult.

The person who ordered the placement of the NO CC sign probably had no idea OC was even legal, since most folks don't. Should they have just used the standard No Firearms sticker, yeah probably, but they aren't yet... I'm sure you're making them rethink that though.

I 100% support OC, but I ALSO 100% support private property owner's rights. Their house, their rules! If I show up somewhere that says No CC / No firearms, I'll either cover it up and properly CC, leave it in the car, or take my business elsewhere.

 

[HoughMade]

...I 100% support OC, but I ALSO 100% support private property owner's rights. Their house, their rules! If I show up somewhere that says No CC / No firearms, I'll either cover it up and properly CC, leave it in the car, or take my business elsewhere.

That makes perfect sense- +1

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, this isn't about OC vs CC, because I don't care how you carry. BUT, I am tried of all the crying. It seems to me, that about 1/2 of OC's here are just looking for a confrontation and then to come back online and cry about it. IF you want to OC, the 'man up' and take you licks that you know are going to come and quit being a 'cry baby'.

Think of it more as a support group type of thing where like minded people come to vent or share their experiences.

but I ALSO 100% support private property owner's rights. Their house, their rules! If I show up somewhere that says No CC / No firearms, I'll either cover it up and properly CC, leave it in the car, or take my business elsewhere.

Did you really just say that? You 100% support their rights by blatently breaking their rules?

 

[churchmouse]

I/we are not against OC. My son prefers it. I do not. Personal preferences.
My point is if you have already experienced this with these people then why stir up that mess a second time. Just does not seem like a good approach.
Glad it came out OK and all but really, pushing this again seems, well, silly. JMHO and nothing more.
I get the "It's our right" thing I really do.

 

[Burnsy]

I 100% support OC, but I ALSO 100% support private property owner's rights. Their house, their rules! If I show up somewhere that says No CC / No firearms, I'll either cover it up and properly CC, leave it in the car, or take my business elsewhere.

What? So you are saying you are for private property owner's rights but if you don't agree with them, you will just break them? This is illogical.

Edit: crap TF beat me to it.

 

[Echelon]

Did you really just say that? You 100% support their rights by blatantly breaking their rules?

I'm sure we are all guilty of "sneaking" and CCing where no firearms signs are posted, but I still support the property owner's rights to do as they please. My point was I'm not going to show up and make a scene when I know whats up. I'll just CC, mind my own business, and go on my way. If I get asked to leave, while I never have, I would without making an issue of it.

You've never CC'd somewhere with a no firearms sign?

 

[Burnsy]

You've never CC'd somewhere with a no firearms sign?

No. I do not CC.

 

[Echelon]

No. I do not CC.

I typically don't either, I'm just saying if I feel like I MUST carry somewhere, for whatever reason, and I think it would be an issue, I would choose to CC over picking a fight that I know will happen. Seems logical to me

 

[Burnsy]

If I MUST go somewhere that carrying would get me asked to leave, this means I CANNOT be asked to leave. There are very serious consequences if I am forced to leave because I MUST be there. CCing there means I might be "made" and asked to leave which would result in said serious consequences. CC is not invisible. So I either choose to accept the consequences or accept the risk of not carrying a firearm.

These MUST situations are very rare. In the OP's situation I would have asked that my wife be brought down, if not possible/paper's signed and I need to go in, my wife is more important than the risk that my life would have been in while I went in to get her. I would have locked it in a box on my car and rearmed after she was back in the car instead of risk being banned from the property and having her wait while someone else was arranged.

This is all situational though, if my wife was not in pain and another 1/2 hour would not cause her grief she would be fine with waiting for an unarmed family member to show up. Me being banned from the hospital though might later result in my own death

 

[Echelon]

If I MUST go somewhere that carrying would get me asked to leave, this means I CANNOT be asked to leave. There are very serious consequences if I am forced to leave because I MUST be there. CCing there means I might be "made" and asked to leave which would result in said serious consequences. CC is not invisible. So I either choose to accept the consequences or accept the risk of not carrying a firearm.

These MUST situations are very rare. In the OP's situation I would have asked that my wife be brought down, if not possible/paper's signed and I need to go in, my wife is more important than the risk that my life would have been in while I went in to get her. I would have locked it in a box on my car and rearmed after she was back in the car instead of risk being banned from the property and having her wait while someone else was arranged.

This is all situational though, if my wife was not in pain and another 1/2 hour would not cause her grief she would be fine with waiting for an unarmed family member to show up. Me being banned from the hospital though might later result in my own death

Everyone's definition of a 'must carry' situation will be different.

 

[churchmouse]

Everyone's definition of a 'must carry' situation will be different.

I leave my property....I must carry. That simple.

 

[Burnsy]

Everyone's definition of a 'must carry' situation will be different.

It's not about MUST carry, in this situation it's about MUST be present at location, private property law and the clarity of MUST.

I get what you are saying but if you must be somewhere but are able to risk being removed, it wasn't must, it was optional. In this case it was clearly optional to the OP. I don't agree with it, I subscribe to an armed polite society but this doesn't currently exist .

Example, jury duty, you are required to be there even if not picked but required not to carry, CC is not a good idea here, only option is unarmed . No felony involved in the OPs position, but result of not picking up your wife is the same.

 

[88GT]

What? So you are saying you are for private property owner's rights but if you don't agree with them, you will just break them? This is illogical.

Edit: crap TF beat me to it.

From a strictly logic point of view, there's nothing illogical about it. There are two issues here. One is a support for the RIGHT of the property owner to make his own rules and enforce them as he sees fit. The other is a respect for his specific wishes (rules) and choosing to be in compliance with them out of that respect.

It's only illogical if you think support for his rights is synonymous with respect for his wishes. Since it is not, there's no incongruity.

I think every property owner should have carte blanche to make up whatever rules he wants for anybody and anything concerning his property. And I think I should be able to violate them if I so choose. I also think said property owner should have almost carte blanche to enforce those rules, and I am willing to suffer the consequences of violating them.

I can support his rights without respecting his rules. And I have.

 

[Burnsy]

From a strictly logic point of view, there's nothing illogical about it. There are two issues here. One is a support for the RIGHT of the property owner to make his own rules and enforce them as he sees fit. The other is a respect for his specific wishes (rules) and choosing to be in compliance with them out of that respect.

It's only illogical if you think support for his rights is synonymous with respect for his wishes. Since it is not, there's no incongruity.

I think every property owner should have carte blanche to make up whatever rules he wants for anybody and anything concerning his property. And I think I should be able to violate them if I so choose. I also think said property owner should have almost carte blanche to enforce those rules, and I am willing to suffer the consequences of violating them.

I can support his rights without respecting his rules. And I have.

So, you are on my private property, and carry a firearm in whatever holstered manner. I ask you to leave (this is a devils advocate argument). You choose to violate my carte blanche and remain. As a result I contact my local PD who will likely arrest and charge you with trespassing under the IC. What results?