Hospital carry?

[Kutnupe14]

Why disarmed?

Most likely because they have placed themselves in a situation where a business owner doesn't a person in possession of a firearm on their premises.

 

[MikeDVB]

Most likely because they have placed themselves in a situation where a business owner doesn't a person in possession of a firearm on their premises.

One must be disarmed in order to leave the premises?

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Cuthulu told me it was wise to carry in a hospital

 

[Kutnupe14]

One must be disarmed in order to leave the premises?

Officer descretion.

 

[sig-guy]

This is why you can't even post on here. I was simply passing along incorrect info.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[MikeDVB]

Officer descretion.

Sure... But why?

I'm just as capable of walking armed as I am disarmed...

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I ignore all signs.... They Eldar Gods say they are for weak minded people..... I'd rather explain to Kutnupe why I ignored the sign as opposed to hoping for mercy from Cuthulhu, Dagon or the Flying Spaghetti monster

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Officer descretion.

Another excuse for jackbootedness... I had an IMPD officer forcefully take my XDm from me after I told him I didnt consent.... He told me it was for his safety while he left me standing on the other side of my car with my Mossberg 590 on the passenger seat.....

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sure... But why?

I'm just as capable of walking armed as I am disarmed...

Yeah, but you walked in contrary to the wishes of the owner. So at least while you remain on the property, you will abide by the owner's wishes... ie no firearm, until you are no longer on their property.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Another excuse for jackbootedness... I had an IMPD officer forcefully take my XDm from me after I told him I didnt consent.... He told me it was for his safety while he left me standing on the other side of my car with my Mossberg 590 on the passenger seat.....

Jackbootedness vs hardheadness.... both easily avoided, but one precipitates the other.

 

[MikeDVB]

Yeah, but you walked in contrary to the wishes of the owner. So at least while you remain on the property, you will abide by the owner's wishes... ie no firearm, until you are no longer on their property.

Ok... So let me make sure I understand this fully.

The property owner is having me trespassed because I have a firearm and not simply because they want me off the property and, as such, you would potentially disarm me.

I'm going to make an analogous example...

The property owner is having me trespassed because I have a 'f**k you' shirt on and not simply because they want me off the property and, as such, you would potentially de-shirt me. ?

I do not expect that you would take my shirt only for me to put it back on once I was off-premises so why would you take my firearm [i.e. removing it from it's holster in a public place, handling it - where it can potentially discharge] while I was leaving the premises.

Why would you take my firearm just because some third party wanted me to leave? That makes no sense and I would appreciate if you could elaborate your thought process on this for me.

Understand I'm not judging you - you do what you feel is best - but I would like to understand. I can't follow the logic as presented.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Who is Julius Ceaser? You know I dont follow the NBA

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok... So let me make sure I understand this fully.

The property owner is having me trespassed because I have a firearm and not simply because they want me off the property and, as such, you would potentially disarm me.

I'm going to make an analogous example...

The property owner is having me trespassed because I have a 'f**k you' shirt on and not simply because they want me off the property and, as such, you would potentially de-shirt me. ?

I do not expect that you would take my shirt only for me to put it back on once I was off-premises so why would you take my firearm [i.e. removing it from it's holster in a public place, handling it - where it can potentially discharge] while I was leaving the premises.

Why would you take my firearm just because some third party wanted me to leave? That makes no sense and I would appreciate if you could elaborate your thought process on this for me.

Understand I'm not judging you - you do what you feel is best - but I would like to understand. I can't follow the logic as presented.

This discussion is about signage, and the possible consequences of ignoring said signs. I've never seen a "No F*** You Shirts" sign, have you? The signage makes all the difference. If you walk into a place with your firearm, and there's signage that you are expected to note, there would be no reason to disarm you as the owners wishes were not clear to you when you entered. However, if the sign is obvious, and a person still disregards it and enters, I have no issue if that person is disarmed due to purposefully creating an issue for the owner. People with businesses that have "No firearms" signs don't like it when people don't abide by their wishes, people with guns don't like to be disarmed. So if a person understands that they could be potentially disarmed for disregarding the well posted wished of a property owner, then odds are they will, in the future, either abide by the owner's wishes, or not enter at all.

 

[MikeDVB]

This discussion is about signage, and the possible consequences of ignoring said signs. I've never seen a "No F*** You Shirts" sign, have you?

It was a thread about signage but there has been a lot of discussion about trespassing, the trespassing IC, etc.

The point is - whether the sign is posted or not - you can be trespassed for any reason or no reason at all [other than a few legally protected reasons].

So let's say hypothetically there is both a 'No Firearms - You are trespassing if you have one.' and a 'No 'f**k you' shirts - You are trespassing if you have one.' sign on this building.

You would potentially disarm me if I had a firearm and was being trespassed but would not potentially de-shirt me if I was being trespassed?

The signage makes all the difference.

So what you're saying is that if there *was* a 'no obscene clothing - you will be trespassed' sign you would potentially, at your discretion, remove said obscene clothing until I was off-premises? Why, exactly, does the sign make the difference in your logic?

If you walk into a place with your firearm, and there's signage that you are expected to note, there would be no reason to disarm you as the owners wishes were not clear to you when you entered.

I guess I just can't follow why the signage on the door is so important for you. Regardless of if there is or is not a sign and regardless of whether it's HUGE or teeny tiny - the fact of the matter is the property owner is trespassing me for having a firearm [or for having an obscene shirt].

However, if the sign is obvious, and a person still disregards it and enters, I have no issue if that person is disarmed due to purposefully creating an issue for the owner.

So it's punitive in nature?

People with businesses that have "No firearms" signs don't like it when people don't abide by their wishes

I'm pretty sure they don't have to put up a 'no obscene clothing' sign and I'm pretty sure a reasonable individual would still conclude that wearing such clothing in most establishments would be against the wishes of the owners/operators.

people with guns don't like to be disarmed

If you remove my firearm from my side holster-and-all I would be OK with that so long as I got it back.

It's when you remove it from it's holster in a public place, manipulate it [to unload it] in a public place, and then expect me not to also manipulate it as soon as it's given right back to me to re-load it. You should not handle a firearm in a public place unless it's needed [i.e. to defend your life, etc].

Kirk's said it time and time again - the gun will go off - it will bite you or another when you don't expect it. The less handling of a firearm we can do in a public place - the better.

So if a person understands that they could be potentially disarmed for disregarding the well posted wished of a property owner, then odds are they will, in the future, either abide by the owner's wishes, or not enter at all.

Regardless of whether I was disarmed or not - the sheer fact that I was trespassed for having a firearm would cause me to no longer patronize the establishment. The only thing being disarmed would do is lower my opinion of the officer disarming me for absolutely no reason in a public place and handling an unfamiliar and loaded weapon in a public place.

The owner is having me trespassed because they do not want somebody with a gun on their premises so your response to this is to make a safely carried and holstered firearm dangerous by handling it? That logic is contrary to the wishes of the one trespassing me regardless of whether they realize it or not.

Going a step further - let's say you're disarming me and, in the process, the firearm discharges. Do you suppose the one trespassing me would be happy about that? I know I'm certainly not going to accept responsibility for it - would you?

Hopefully we can discuss this peacefully - I really do wish to understand your side of this.

 

[AJBB87]

To answer the OP's question:

It is not illegal unless the hospital is on the property of the following:

• Penal facility
• Indiana Government Center
• Courts
• Casinos
• State Fair
• Schools (K-12)
• Maritime ports
• Local government
• Federal property (National parks, post offices, federal gov't buildings etc.)

Riley Childrens Hospital: Good to go.

 

[MikeDVB]

To answer the OP's question:

It is not illegal unless the hospital in on the property of the following:

• Penal facility
• Indiana Government Center
• Courts
• Casinos
• State Fair
• Schools (K-12)
• Maritime ports
• Local government
• Federal property (National parks, post offices, federal gov't buildings etc.)

Riley Childrens Hospital: Good to go.

I think you forgot licensed daycare?

 

[AJBB87]

Yes MikeDVB

From INGO FAQ:

A more specific list of where you can NOT carry:

• k-12 schools, property used for school functions
• school buses
• Head Start
• preschools
• private schools
• riverboat casinos
• airport sterile areas
• shipping ports
• State fairgrounds during State Fair
• Post office (questionable, as it may not actually be Federal property)
• Where prohibited by local ordinance, on gov't property

(Of note, as of July 1, 2011, those local ordinances are mostly voided. You can be prohibited from carrying in any building with a courtroom and no residential or business tenants. You cannot be prohibited from carrying in a state, county, or city government building unless it either has a courtroom or is school property, as long as you have your LTCH.
Some of these are not mandated by state statute, but are delegated. For example, there is no actual law prohibiting carry on riverboat casinos. However, there are laws delegating the authority to the Indiana Gaming Commission to define their own administrative rules. The IGC has significant "teeth" to enforce their administrative rules, including providing for criminal prosecution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It was a thread about signage but there has been a lot of discussion about trespassing, the trespassing IC, etc.

The point is - whether the sign is posted or not - you can be trespassed for any reason or no reason at all [other than a few legally protected reasons].

In theory, you can, but most officers I know, arent going to trespass a person, on the whim of the property owner. If someone is asked to leave, sure, we'll see them out, but I not going to identify a person "just because." For me to "officially" trespass someone, they need to be causing a disturbance, or (prior to entrance) aware that they will run afoul of the property owner's wishes.

So let's say hypothetically there is both a 'No Firearms - You are trespassing if you have one.' and a 'No 'f**k you' shirts - You are trespassing if you have one.' sign on this building.

You would potentially disarm me if I had a firearm and was being trespassed but would not potentially de-shirt me if I was being trespassed?

Potentially disarm, yes for the weapon, most likely no for the shirt, unless it was so obscene I had to have the person turn it inside out. That logic is playedout on a case by case basis. Obviously if a place stated no children allowed, I'm not going to take command of a person's child until they are off the property.

So what you're saying is that if there *was* a 'no obscene clothing - you will be trespassed' sign you would potentially, at your discretion, remove said obscene clothing until I was off-premises? Why, exactly, does the sign make the difference in your logic?

I guess I just can't follow why the signage on the door is so important for you. Regardless of if there is or is not a sign and regardless of whether it's HUGE or teeny tiny - the fact of the matter is the property owner is trespassing me for having a firearm [or for having an obscene shirt].

It's not the signage that's important, it's the property owner's wishes and whether or not it's adequately conveyed to the public.

So it's punitive in nature?

Punitive in what way? It's still up for debate whether of not that person could be arrested.

I'm pretty sure they don't have to put up a 'no obscene clothing' sign and I'm pretty sure a reasonable individual would still conclude that wearing such clothing in most establishments would be against the wishes of the owners/operators.

If you remove my firearm from my side holster-and-all I would be OK with that so long as I got it back.

It's when you remove it from it's holster in a public place, manipulate it [to unload it] in a public place, and then expect me not to also manipulate it as soon as it's given right back to me to re-load it. You should not handle a firearm in a public place unless it's needed [i.e. to defend your life, etc].

Kirk's said it time and time again - the gun will go off - it will bite you or another when you don't expect it. The less handling of a firearm we can do in a public place - the better.

Handling of firearms would occur less if people respected the wishes of a property owner. If a person doesn't want their firearm removed and coon-fingered, it would be best to avoid places that you are 100% aware of their policy, and the potential for disarmament.

Regardless of whether I was disarmed or not - the sheer fact that I was trespassed for having a firearm would cause me to no longer patronize the establishment. The only thing being disarmed would do is lower my opinion of the officer disarming me for absolutely no reason in a public place and handling an unfamiliar and loaded weapon in a public place.

If you've been trespassed, obviously you should no long patronize the establishment, as that would lead to an automatic arrest.

The owner is having me trespassed because they do not want somebody with a gun on their premises so your response to this is to make a safely carried and holstered firearm dangerous by handling it? That logic is contrary to the wishes of the one trespassing me regardless of whether they realize it or not.

As stated before, IMO, in order to justify a person being disarmed, it doesn't fall simply on the owner's wishes. The offender must be well-aware of the wishes, as well, and purposefully chosen to disregard them.

Going a step further - let's say you're disarming me and, in the process, the firearm discharges. Do you suppose the one trespassing me would be happy about that? I know I'm certainly not going to accept responsibility for it - would you?

This is quite the remote possibility, as officers handle countless firearms each day. If it did happen, the liability would fall on the officer. I have no issue with them being responsible.

Hopefully we can discuss this peacefully - I really do wish to understand your side of this.

My side of this is simple, don't go into a place where you are unwanted, if you are AWARE, that you are unwanted. If you're caught, what is your excuse? You entered a place of your own free will that you knowingly knew you were unwelcome. It's hard to complain about being disarmed and dismissed when you're the one causing the probelm.

 

[MikeDVB]

In theory, you can, but most officers I know, arent going to trespass a person, on the whim of the property owner. If someone is asked to leave, sure, we'll see them out, but I not going to identify a person "just because." For me to "officially" trespass someone, they need to be causing a disturbance, or (prior to entrance) aware that they will run afoul of the property owner's wishes.

Either way you'd escort them off the property but I still don't see why a sign on the door would cause you to potentially disarm while no sign would cause you to leave them armed. Regardless of whether the person being walked out/trespassed saw a sign - the goal and the end-result is the same.

To make a similar and quick analogy - whether or not I have a sign saying that if you walk through the door you get $10 - if you walk through the door, and I give you $10 - the end result is the same. Why you would act differently based upon the sign is a bit baffling to me. I can understand actually trespassing somebody rather than simply escorting them out but I do not understand why you would be more likely to disarm them in one case and not the other.

At the end of the day - how can you be sure they saw the no-firearms sign? Most laws I've looked up, in other states, regarding signs carrying the weight of law have very specific guidelines as to the size of the sign/font, what it must say, and where it must be placed all so that it is easily visible and understood - this way, at least, 'you should have seen it' would definitely apply.

I think it would be an uphill battle, at best, for the prosecutor to prove the individual saw the sign in most cases but, that said, it has no bearing on whether they were or should be disarmed. I am still not seeing the connection.

Potentially disarm, yes for the weapon, most likely no for the shirt, unless it was so obscene I had to have the person turn it inside out. That logic is playedout on a case by case basis. Obviously if a place stated no children allowed, I'm not going to take command of a person's child until they are off the property.

I suppose you wouldn't take control of the child because that individual having said child on said premises is not illegal, right? The individual being walked out/trespassed for the firearm is also doing nothing illegal so why would you take command of the firearm but not the child?

I see what you're trying to get at but it doesn't really clarify anything for me.

It's not the signage that's important, it's the property owner's wishes and whether or not it's adequately conveyed to the public.

Can you point to the IC that makes clear 'adequately conveyed'? I suppose it doesn't matter since, in this case, by disarming the individual you're not enforcing the law but simply enforcing your opinion, no? Is there an IC that you can state that gives you the authority to disarm an individual whom has not violated any laws? This isn't sarcasm or rhetoric - I really want to know where said authority originates.

Punitive in what way? It's still up for debate whether of not that person could be arrested.

Do you feel the prosecutor would file charges and do you feel the prosecutor could make those charges 'stick'? I'd have to say it's very unlikely unless the entire entrance to the premises [and all entrances] were basically nothing but a huge 'No firearms - You are trespassing by bringing one on these premises.'

You could do a lot of things - but it doesn't necessarily mean you should. That said - it's your job and your discretion. To be completely honest I've no issues with you actually arresting somebody that did violate a 'no trespassing' sign if you know for a fact they saw it - for example if you ask if they saw the sign and they respond in the affirmative.

The reason I asked if disarming them was punitive was because you stated you'd likely only do it if the sign was obvious. It seems to me, in this case, disarming them is your 'punishment' for not abiding by the property owner's wishes. It seems punitive in nature and serves no real purpose - it doesn't, in and of itself, make the carrier, the officer, the property owner, or the property any safer and likely does the opposite.

Handling of firearms would occur less if people respected the wishes of a property owner.

On the other side of the coin handling of firearms would also occur less if police officers didn't disarm individuals and handle their firearms without a legal reason to do so. Just as they could respect the wishes of the property owner you could choose not to disarm them unnecessarily.

Understand if they're creating a scene or you feel they could potentially be dangerous [i.e. your safety, their safety, everybody's safety] and you can articulate that then I have no issue with you disarming them. If I were making a scene and causing trouble and you felt it would be best to disarm me - that's fine. If I'm calm, collected, and following your requests/orders/etc without issue - I would take issue with you disarming me with no legal basis for doing so although it's not a battle I would fight then and there.

If a person doesn't want their firearm removed and coon-fingered, it would be best to avoid places that you are 100% aware of their policy, and the potential for disarmament.

Regardless of the policy it carries no weight of law and you are a law enforcement officer, not a policy enforcement officer. Regardless of whether I'm violating the property owner's policies be it for having a firearm or for hopping on one leg - what, exactly, is accomplished by disarming me?

If you've been trespassed, obviously you should no long patronize the establishment, as that would lead to an automatic arrest.

I should have been a little more clear - I am lumping together 'escorted out' and 'trespassed' when in reality they are separate and distinct. I meant to say if I was 'escorted out' I would no longer patronize the establishment. If I were trespassed it would be an obvious given.

As stated before, IMO, in order to justify a person being disarmed, it doesn't fall simply on the owner's wishes. The offender must be well-aware of the wishes, as well, and purposefully chosen to disregard them.

Since when does the wish of another or the policy of an establishment give a law enforcement officer the authority to disarm me when no law has been violated and, even then, unless you're arresting me under what authority would you disarm such an individual?

This is quite the remote possibility, as officers handle countless firearms each day. If it did happen, the liability would fall on the officer. I have no issue with them being responsible.

Sure - it's not very likely but it is very possible. Let's say the firearm is mechanically defective - you would have no way of knowing this until after it discharged while in your possession. You're assuming if you disarm me that my firearm is in good working order - I appreciate that you give me that much credit but why won't you also give me enough credit to maintain control over my firearm while I'm being walked out?

My side of this is simple, don't go into a place where you are unwanted, if you are AWARE, that you are unwanted. If you're caught, what is your excuse?

If I was well aware I was not wanted there - I would have no excuse - but how does that have any sort of bearing as to whether I should be disarmed or not?

I wouldn't have an excuse if I knew I wasn't wanted there - you would ask/order me to leave and I would do so with nary an excuse.

You entered a place of your own free will that you knowingly knew you were unwelcome.

The firearm's only bearing on the matter is that it is what made me unwelcome. This, in and of itself, is not a good reason to disarm me unless there are other extenuating circumstances. You disagree and this is what I'm trying to figure out.

It's hard to complain about being disarmed and dismissed when you're the one causing the probelm.

No issues with being dismissed - only with being disarmed when it's not necessary.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Either way you'd escort them off the property but I still don't see why a sign on the door would cause you to potentially disarm while no sign would cause you to leave them armed. Regardless of whether the person being walked out/trespassed saw a sign - the goal and the end-result is the same.

To make a similar and quick analogy - whether or not I have a sign saying that if you walk through the door you get $10 - if you walk through the door, and I give you $10 - the end result is the same. Why you would act differently based upon the sign is a bit baffling to me. I can understand actually trespassing somebody rather than simply escorting them out but I do not understand why you would be more likely to disarm them in one case and not the other.

At the end of the day - how can you be sure they saw the no-firearms sign? Most laws I've looked up, in other states, regarding signs carrying the weight of law have very specific guidelines as to the size of the sign/font, what it must say, and where it must be placed all so that it is easily visible and understood - this way, at least, 'you should have seen it' would definitely apply.

I think it would be an uphill battle, at best, for the prosecutor to prove the individual saw the sign in most cases but, that said, it has no bearing on whether they were or should be disarmed. I am still not seeing the connection.
I suppose you wouldn't take control of the child because that individual having said child on said premises is not illegal, right? The individual being walked out/trespassed for the firearm is also doing nothing illegal so why would you take command of the firearm but not the child?

I see what you're trying to get at but it doesn't really clarify anything for me.
Can you point to the IC that makes clear 'adequately conveyed'? I suppose it doesn't matter since, in this case, by disarming the individual you're not enforcing the law but simply enforcing your opinion, no? Is there an IC that you can state that gives you the authority to disarm an individual whom has not violated any laws? This isn't sarcasm or rhetoric - I really want to know where said authority originates.
Do you feel the prosecutor would file charges and do you feel the prosecutor could make those charges 'stick'? I'd have to say it's very unlikely unless the entire entrance to the premises [and all entrances] were basically nothing but a huge 'No firearms - You are trespassing by bringing one on these premises.'

You could do a lot of things - but it doesn't necessarily mean you should. That said - it's your job and your discretion. To be completely honest I've no issues with you actually arresting somebody that did violate a 'no trespassing' sign if you know for a fact they saw it - for example if you ask if they saw the sign and they respond in the affirmative.

The reason I asked if disarming them was punitive was because you stated you'd likely only do it if the sign was obvious. It seems to me, in this case, disarming them is your 'punishment' for not abiding by the property owner's wishes. It seems punitive in nature and serves no real purpose - it doesn't, in and of itself, make the carrier, the officer, the property owner, or the property any safer and likely does the opposite.
On the other side of the coin handling of firearms would also occur less if police officers didn't disarm individuals and handle their firearms without a legal reason to do so. Just as they could respect the wishes of the property owner you could choose not to disarm them unnecessarily.

Understand if they're creating a scene or you feel they could potentially be dangerous [i.e. your safety, their safety, everybody's safety] and you can articulate that then I have no issue with you disarming them. If I were making a scene and causing trouble and you felt it would be best to disarm me - that's fine. If I'm calm, collected, and following your requests/orders/etc without issue - I would take issue with you disarming me with no legal basis for doing so although it's not a battle I would fight then and there.
Regardless of the policy it carries no weight of law and you are a law enforcement officer, not a policy enforcement officer. Regardless of whether I'm violating the property owner's policies be it for having a firearm or for hopping on one leg - what, exactly, is accomplished by disarming me?
I should have been a little more clear - I am lumping together 'escorted out' and 'trespassed' when in reality they are separate and distinct. I meant to say if I was 'escorted out' I would no longer patronize the establishment. If I were trespassed it would be an obvious given.
Since when does the wish of another or the policy of an establishment give a law enforcement officer the authority to disarm me when no law has been violated and, even then, unless you're arresting me under what authority would you disarm such an individual?
Sure - it's not very likely but it is very possible. Let's say the firearm is mechanically defective - you would have no way of knowing this until after it discharged while in your possession. You're assuming if you disarm me that my firearm is in good working order - I appreciate that you give me that much credit but why won't you also give me enough credit to maintain control over my firearm while I'm being walked out?


If I was well aware I was not wanted there - I would have no excuse - but how does that have any sort of bearing as to whether I should be disarmed or not?

I wouldn't have an excuse if I knew I wasn't wanted there - you would ask/order me to leave and I would do so with nary an excuse.
The firearm's only bearing on the matter is that it is what made me unwelcome. This, in and of itself, is not a good reason to disarm me unless there are other extenuating circumstances. You disagree and this is what I'm trying to figure out.
No issues with being dismissed - only with being disarmed when it's not necessary.

I'll have to get back to you with the responses...