Hospital carry?

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not saying it does. But if you pay for a service, you can't be trespassing until you are asked to leave. Is this incorrect?

Paying for a service is irrelevant in the determination if someone is trespassing or not.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

This may or may not be the official weapons policy of the facility in question:

PURPOSE
It is the policy of ****** to provide an environment free of weapons and firearms. Any staff found in violation of this policy shall be subject to immediate disciplinary action and possible termination. Visitors who refuse to abide by this policy shall be escorted from the premises by Security.
This policy applies to all patients, visitors, staff, physicians, students, and volunteers in ****** Hospital.

III. EXCEPTIONS
A. Any exceptions to this policy must be approved by the Director of Security.
B. Offsite locations should contact appropriate security or law enforcement agencies as indicated for problems.

IV. DEFINITIONS
FIREARMS: Any device or weapon from which a projectile is discharged by gunpowder.
WEAPONS: For the purposes of this policy, weapons are broadly defined to include, but not limited to firearms, B.B. guns, dart guns, pellet guns, stun guns, stilettos, switchblades, and other knives with a blade of 3 inches or longer, blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, razor blades embedded in wood, straight razors, ice picks, chains, clubs, explosives, and any other object that can reasonably be considered a weapon. Security shall make the final determination that a particular object is a weapon in any case where there is a question of its possession or use posing a threat to patients, staff, or property

V. POLICY STATEMENT(S)
A. It is the policy of ****** that no one, other than on-duty Law Enforcement Officers, shall carry or have in their possession any type of firearm or weapon on ****** property at any time.
B. Any staff found in violation of this policy shall be subject to immediate disciplinary action and possible termination.
C. Patients and visitors who possess a firearm or weapon shall secure it with the Security Department. Visitors who refuse to relinquish firearms or weapons shall be reported to the ****** Police Department in order to be escorted from the premises by Security.
D. An employee shall not bring a firearm or weapon onto any ****** facility or property, except that this does not prohibit an employee who possesses a firearm legally from possessing a firearm that is at all times locked in the individual’s vehicle.
E. Anyone that suspects another individual is in possession of a weapon or firearm shall immediately notify Security.

VI. PROCEDURE
A. Patients and visitors who possess a firearm or weapon shall secure it with the Security Department.
B. The person turning in the firearm or weapon shall verify the information is captured electronically via the Security reporting system. The firearm or weapon will then be secured in a weapons locker.
C. The weapons locker will be located at the ED Security Office. Current identification and a valid Indiana Handgun Permit shall be required to obtain a secured firearm. No individual can claim a firearm or weapon for another.
D. Anyone that suspects another individual is in possession of a weapon or firearm shall immediately notify ******.
E. If a Law Enforcement Officer is a patient at ******, then Security shall be called to secure any weapons or articles necessary.
F. Off duty Law Enforcement Officers will be responsible for his/her own weapons.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]​

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Bill B]

If you cannot debate the argument, question the bona fides.

The second amendment includes an adjective "well-regulated", which means in today's language "trained". I don't think the designers of the 2nd Amendment ever assumed that we would be giving carte blanche to a bunch of folks who didn't know how to use their firearms properly. Hence, well-regulated.

With rights come responsibilities. This site has a number of people here who believe that their right is inviolate, yet they aren't willing to acknowledge their responsibility to handle said weapons safely and be trained in the use they intend to put them to…which is primarily defensive in nature.

A lot of people have been taught by their parents or other family members just how important that responsibility is. But that's not true of gun owners in general or even some significant contributors to this site. Heck, our legislature doesn't require a lick of training to get an LTCH.

I'm saying that for every accidental injury, my right and your right becomes more impaired, because the people who want to take away your guns are waiting for that accident. Every homicide affects you and me and it doesn't really matter if it's a psychotic individual or a banger.

So, personally, I try to emphasize safety on this site. And to cause people to think about what it means besides just a right to carry.

As to the childrens hospital issue, I see no upside. If there is limited likelihood someone will actually need to utilize a weapon in the hospital, why is it necessary? AND If it is used, what is the likelihood that the person utilizing it will do so in the proper circumstance where no one else is in jeopardy and no alternative means exists to resolve the situation without a bullet?

I know I hold a minority view here, but it is a rational view from a person who has utilized firearms for 5 decades and weapons during wartime.

And don't question my bona fides. You don't have the gravitas.

1. "Well regulated" as used by the writers of the Constitution meant "well supplied" or "well equipped." What it means today is totally irrelevant. Any discussion of the 2A imposing today's meaning on the language used is a total fallacy at best.

2. Most people on this site do have the "gravitas" to discuss the issue. The closed-mindedness runs deep throughout this thread. Why can't people just answer the question and then leave it alone? The fact that the OP asked the question is an indicator that he has a basic understanding of his responsibilities, no need for everyone to interject their opinion of his exercising his rights as he sees fit.

My bona fides? I am a 45 year old army veteran who is a history major with an intense interest in philology. An interesting read on the subject is Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding

 

[Roscoe38]

1. "Well regulated" as used by the writers of the Constitution meant "well supplied" or "well equipped." What it means today is totally irrelevant. Any discussion of the 2A imposing today's meaning on the language used is a total fallacy at best.

2. Most people on this site do have the "gravitas" to discuss the issue. The closed-mindedness runs deep throughout this thread. Why can't people just answer the question and then leave it alone? The fact that the OP asked the question is an indicator that he has a basic understanding of his responsibilities, no need for everyone to interject their opinion of his exercising his rights as he sees fit.

My bona fides? I am a 45 year old army veteran who is a history major with an intense interest in philology. An interesting read on the subject is Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding

You have the gravitas and philology to mis-understand everything this blog, post emporium is about. My Grandson is a History Master working for the Government, and he would not even think of posting what you post..Me-thinks you are way too full of your self. Go Hide

 

[SteveM4A1]

Paying for a service is irrelevant in the determination if someone is trespassing or not.

You are correct, and I don't think I am doing a good job of using my words Fail at English today for me. In using the OP's topic (this is a hospital thread afterall), you have a contractual interest to be at a hospital if you are paying for their services. Now I don't think the OP stated anything to this effect, and simply stated he was going to a hospital to visit. I'm just trying to sort this out in a general sense. If you, as a gun carrier, enter a business with whom you already have a contractual interest with, and that business has a correctly worded GUNS=TRESPASSING sign, and they see you have a handgun, are you in violation of a law?

 

[Kutnupe14]

1. "Well regulated" as used by the writers of the Constitution meant "well supplied" or "well equipped." What it means today is totally irrelevant. Any discussion of the 2A imposing today's meaning on the language used is a total fallacy

How in the world does "well supplied," or "well equipped" make any sense in the way you're describing? That's a serious question. I'm having issue seeing how you came up with that notion. Personally, I too subscribe, per Hamilton and others, that well regulated refers to training at arms. However, one cannot exactly be "trained at arms," without a weapon, hence why there should be no infringement.

 

[Birds Away]

So only Manatee and LEO should ever carry in Indiana? All guns should be locked in your safe at all times because percentages say you won't need them unless you are in the "hood" (wherever that is) and then you can't carry because you aren't qualified. Ok, got it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you cannot debate the argument, question the bona fides.

Oh, you'll find I can debate the argument quite well. I did not question your bona fides, I simply said that how you put food on your table (or one way you do so) does not, in itself, establish them. In EMS, my profession, there is a saying that just because someone has a lower number on his certification does not make him better at the job. I can say I've done this job for da*n near 30 years, and that, in and of itself, means nothing other than that I'm old for this field. (It so happens I am fairly competent at what I do, but it would take someone seeing me work to determine that. The comparison to a FFL and/or gunsmith would be just as it would be for anyone else, including a paramedic: how they defend the right for everyone, not just that they sell guns or do one hell of a trigger job.)

The second amendment includes an adjective "well-regulated", which means in today's language "trained". I don't think the designers of the 2nd Amendment ever assumed that we would be giving carte blanche to a bunch of folks who didn't know how to use their firearms properly. Hence, well-regulated.

All right, I can see that argument. However, don't forget the manner of "regulation" (training) that the well-regulated militia practiced: They chose their own officers, they required no "permits" or "licenses", and everyone who chose to have a gun had one, not to mention that they didn't have to visit a federally licensed shopkeeper to obtain that gun; the very idea would have been anathema to them, and attempts to put it into practice would probably have caused another revolution in their day. They also established their own training regimen.

With rights come responsibilities. This site has a number of people here who believe that their right is inviolate, yet they aren't willing to acknowledge their responsibility to handle said weapons safely and be trained in the use they intend to put them to…which is primarily defensive in nature.

The problem as I see it is that you seem to be arguing not only for training, but for some governmentally-imposed standard. I may not have explained this well before, but I'm a big proponent of training. I am, in fact, an instructor with Appleseed, though I've not taught in far too long. (as to the quality of instruction, you may speak with any of the people who've come to a 'seed at which I taught.) I take issue only with the idea of training becoming mandatory, by law, as a condition imposed that must be met prior to being allowed to exercise a natural right. That circumstance is where the right ends and the privilege is allowed... for now.

A lot of people have been taught by their parents or other family members just how important that responsibility is. But that's not true of gun owners in general or even some significant contributors to this site. Heck, our legislature doesn't require a lick of training to get an LTCH.

And the LTCH is itself an unConstitutional infringement. What other natural rights would you, in your vision of a perfect world, restrict only to those who have received some specified level of training? What tasks and metrics would that training entail? For that matter, what tasks and metrics would you envision as adequate for those who carry?

I'm saying that for every accidental injury, my right and your right becomes more impaired, because the people who want to take away your guns are waiting for that accident. Every homicide affects you and me and it doesn't really matter if it's a psychotic individual or a banger.

With respect, no. Your and my rights are never impaired. Anti-gunners do make their attempts to restrict those rights in contravention to our Constitutional protections and in contravention to Natural Law, but the rights are inviolate. The attempt to blame the innocent for the acts of the guilty runs afoul of the very nature of our legal system of presumed innocence pending guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Go ahead. Try to prove me guilty of ever harming someone with a firearm. (That's not a personal challenge to you, but a general one, and I know it's a safe one because I've never done that.)

So, personally, I try to emphasize safety on this site. And to cause people to think about what it means besides just a right to carry.

We have more in common than either of us thought. Our methods may differ, but if the above is your goal, and I have no reason to believe it is not, we're working toward the same end. And to me, that's what it's really about. If I want someone to do something, I have two methods at my disposal. I can force them or I can persuade them. If a man is armed, I can only persuade him, if that. If I've misread your intent, I apologize; it's just that it seems you would, in your perfect world, use the larger amount of force possible only for government to wield to force those who did not otherwise agree.

As to the childrens hospital issue, I see no upside. If there is limited likelihood someone will actually need to utilize a weapon in the hospital, why is it necessary? AND If it is used, what is the likelihood that the person utilizing it will do so in the proper circumstance where no one else is in jeopardy and no alternative means exists to resolve the situation without a bullet?

Inside the hospital, you're probably right, the chance is slim that a gun will be needed. That chance is not zero, however, and it increases exponentially when someone leaves the hospital either for a walk or to travel to a vehicle, not to mention the increased chance of a break-in to a locked vehicle.

I know I hold a minority view here, but it is a rational view from a person who has utilized firearms for 5 decades and weapons during wartime.

Thank you for your service. Question: If, while you were still in uniform, you'd been ordered to confiscate lawfully-owned firearms from American citizens, would you have done so?

And don't question my bona fides. You don't have the gravitas.

If, by that, you mean I've not the dedication to the cause of expanding the ability to lawfully exercise 2A rights to question you, you have no clue from whence you speak. Point one, I've already said I wasn't questioning your bona fides (though at this writing, you've not yet seen it) and point two, like you, I'll question any da*n thing I see fit to question. A question is not throwing down a gauntlet and meeting on the field of honor at 20 paces... it's just a discussion, perhaps even a debate. When someone consistently advocates for restrictions imposed based on his own personal standard, when his arguments mirror those of our shared opponents, and when the only action I see from someone in this arena is that he's willing to earn his living by selling and repairing things he advocates restricting and even tells people in short, "Don't carry. You're a paranoid lunatic.", that someone is going to be questioned at the least, even if, like you, his goal is only that those he feels poor representatives of our cause not be seen as representing it, because quite simply, that's neither your choice nor mine to make.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[KLB]

How in the world does "well supplied," or "well equipped" make any sense in the way you're describing? That's a serious question. I'm having issue seeing how you came up with that notion. Personally, I too subscribe, per Hamilton and others, that well regulated refers to training at arms. However, one cannot exactly be "trained at arms," without a weapon, hence why there should be no infringement.

I can't believe this is the first time you've heard this.

Here is one reference
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
​

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
​

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
​

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
​

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
​

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
​

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[actaeon277]

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold literature.pdf
Well regulated pdf

 

[actaeon277]

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[Manatee]

Are you sure you know what "gravitas" is? Who is it that you don't think is serious in their questioning?

Gravitas was one of the Roman virtues, along with pietas, dignitas and virtus. It may be translated variously as weight

If you've got something to say on the subject, please do. Otherwise we've got more than enough Hitler Youth watching for grammar.

 

[Manatee]

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Read what Scalia said in the Heller case. That's the operative law at this point.

[h=3]Meaning of "well regulated militia"[/h]The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[SUP][152][/SUP] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[SUP][153][/SUP]

 

[Dirtebiker]

If you've got something to say on the subject, please do. Otherwise we've got more than enough Hitler Youth watching for grammar.

Can you not answer a simple question?

If you choose to answer, then one more... Who are the "Hitler Youth" you refer to?

 

[Manatee]

I did A88hole. Read the second quote.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I did A88hole. Read the second quote.

WOW!

 

[Manatee]

I'm sure you're shocked.

Why don't you stick with the OP's topic and quit trolling?

 

[JettaKnight]

You have the gravitas and philology to mis-understand everything this blog, post emporium is about. My Grandson is a History Master working for the Government, and he would not even think of posting what you post..Me-thinks you are way too full of your self. Go Hide

(...reading .... thinking .... )

IBTL

The is thread is full of (fail/awesome choose one)! There's Latin, 2A parsing, OC/CC, LGS warnings on carry, and my favorite, "Think of the children!".

 

[jbombelli]

I did *******. Read the second quote.

I would like to think that you would have better sense than to stoop to such a level. I guess not.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I'm sure you're shocked.

Why don't you stick with the OP's topic and quit trolling?

I guess I was wrong, thinking we could have a civil discussion.
Why is it that when people don't want to answer a question, or when they feel they are losing an argument ( not saying that is , in fact, the case here), they resort to name calling?