St Mary's is NOT gun friendly

[ATM]

Yes, and the law states that if its private property, they can prohibit anything they want, same as anyone else.

What law? Where does it state this?

So if it's private property and the sign was there when OP walked in, then the hospital has every right to ban him from the property.

Yep. They can ask anyone to leave or even not to return with or without reason.
But they have no power to prohibit objects like you claim.

 

[jsharmon7]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but they surely can ban you from the property for breaking a policy even once. And they can ask to search you, but you don't have to submit, unless you're a patient.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but they surely can ban you from the property for breaking a policy even once. And they can ask to search you, but you don't have to submit, unless you're a patient.

It is very specific to my situation, so I am not reffering to anyone else on this. But:

1. I have parental rights over my child that transcend regular "private property" laws because this is a hospital.

2. A nonposted policy that pertains to a behavior that is not illegal would have a hard time standing up to the lawsuit my lawyer would file if they would try to ban me.

 

[jsharmon7]

It is very specific to my situation, so I am not reffering to anyone else on this. But:

1. I have parental rights over my child that transcend regular "private property" laws because this is a hospital.

2. A nonposted policy that pertains to a behavior that is not illegal would have a hard time standing up to the lawsuit my lawyer would file if they would try to ban me.

I want to say, first of all, that it sounds like the situation could have been handled better by Security. Hopefully you can speak with the managers/CEO/whomever and get some satisfaction. But, you're wrong on both of the above counts. I'm not sure if you're son has been discharged at this point, hopefully he has and he's home now. If not, my advice would just be to continue to leave the gun at home and just play nice for the time being. Hopefully your son is home though and doing better.

 

[BumpShadow]

You didn't even read the first post did you? And no, they CAN'T ban me from the property by breaking a "policy" once. That isn't tresspassing.

Yes I did. And yes, they can ban you. For no reason at all if they want to, assuming its private property. Just like you can do on your property. Same rules. It's common law "Right to Control" and "Right to Exclude".

What law? Where does it state this?

Yep. They can ask anyone to leave or even not to return with or without reason.
But they have no power to prohibit objects like you claim.

Again, if it's private property, they have the same rights as you would on your property. If you don't want someones elses private property (i.e. a gun) on your private property, you have the right to prohibit said property or the person altogether. No prison time or anything like that, but an officer will remove the offending person from your property.

 

[BumpShadow]

It is very specific to my situation, so I am not reffering to anyone else on this. But:

1. I have parental rights over my child that transcend regular "private property" laws because this is a hospital.

2. A nonposted policy that pertains to a behavior that is not illegal would have a hard time standing up to the lawsuit my lawyer would file if they would try to ban me.

1. you have the right to your child, but that doesn't mean you have the right to your child while you are violating a public safty policy.

2. I have a hard time believe that it wasn't posted anywhere. Every hospital I've even been to makes it very clear that no weapons are allowed in the building. Although carrying in a hospital makes no sense to me, even if you go to the old stand by of carrying at all times, hospitals are still excessive.

 

[qualitytym]

If there is a next time, demand to speak with the nurse supervisor on duty and or the VP on call.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

1. you have the right to your child, but that doesn't mean you have the right to your child while you are violating a public safty policy.

2. I have a hard time believe that it wasn't posted anywhere. Every hospital I've even been to makes it very clear that no weapons are allowed in the building. Although carrying in a hospital makes no sense to me, even if you go to the old stand by of carrying at all times, hospitals are still excessive.

There is NO place on this planet that it is excessive to exercise a natural right of self defense. And no, for the 100th time it was admitted BY SECURITY that it is not posted anywhere. That is why I posted the pic of the *new* sticky notes saying "no firearms".

In the end, I believe I was vindicated. My son is still there and I do not carry there as per my promise to the nurse so there really isn't much point in going on about who is or should get banned from the property. Special thanks to Lori, ATM, Bill and others that have given great advise and supported me through this endeavor.

 

[Bill of Rights]

1. you have the right to your child, but that doesn't mean you have the right to your child while you are violating a public safty policy.

2. I have a hard time believe that it wasn't posted anywhere. Every hospital I've even been to makes it very clear that no weapons are allowed in the building. Although carrying in a hospital makes no sense to me, even if you go to the old stand by of carrying at all times, hospitals are still excessive.

A public safety policy? Kindly tell me who is kept safe by disarming good, law-abiding, citizens? Let's just see... could it be... criminals??

I used to work in a couple of hospitals, neither of which was posted. Having worked there for years, nowhere was it made public. Believe that or not, I don't care. As for making no sense to you to carry in a hospital, you just tell me what it is that's keeping the criminals, those who would do harm, those who want the drugs that they think are more readily available in an ER, from coming in? This silly little "public safety policy" of theirs? Lastly, you called it excessive to carry there. My crystal ball just has never been too accurate in telling me when and where an attack is going to come. I plan on going home every time I leave the house. If I want that to happen, there is NOWHERE that is "excessive" for me to carry. Not in a school, not in a courthouse, not on a plane, not in the effing White House. Nowhere. (and yes, as a result, I don't go to those places if I can help it. I don't like having my rights unConstitutionally infringed upon.) It's the perpetuation of thoughtless, emotion-based feelings advanced by people of your mindset that makes anyone feel it makes sense to disarm good people in those and other places, like (in other states) banks, churches, restaurants, public gatherings, or really, anywhere at all where some brain-dead politician gets convinced that a bunch of words on a paper will stop criminal behavior by people who disobey laws!

Don't need a gun in a hospital? I'll admit, I didn't read any of the links, but just for s and grins: Let me google that for you

Think any of those people would have preferred to be armed in those places where some "policy" made them helpless?

You have a right to your opinion. You do not have a right to your own facts. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BumpShadow]

A public safety policy? Kindly tell me who is kept safe by disarming good, law-abiding, citizens? Let's just see... could it be... criminals??

I'm not agreeing with the policy, but "public safety" is the reason that is cited most often. Agree or disagree, either way its their right for the policy to be put in place.

I used to work in a couple of hospitals, neither of which was posted. Having worked there for years, nowhere was it made public. Believe that or not, I don't care. As for making no sense to you to carry in a hospital, you just tell me what it is that's keeping the criminals, those who would do harm, those who want the drugs that they think are more readily available in an ER, from coming in? This silly little "public safety policy" of theirs? Lastly, you called it excessive to carry there. My crystal ball just has never been too accurate in telling me when and where an attack is going to come. I plan on going home every time I leave the house. If I want that to happen, there is NOWHERE that is "excessive" for me to carry. Not in a school, not in a courthouse, not on a plane, not in the effing White House. Nowhere. (and yes, as a result, I don't go to those places if I can help it. I don't like having my rights unConstitutionally infringed upon.) It's the perpetuation of thoughtless, emotion-based feelings advanced by people of your mindset that makes anyone feel it makes sense to disarm good people in those and other places, like (in other states) banks, churches, restaurants, public gatherings, or really, anywhere at all where some brain-dead politician gets convinced that a bunch of words on a paper will stop criminal behavior by people who disobey laws!

I am well aware of your reputation and your stance on carrying Bill. I was just stating that I would not carry at a hospital, which is my right. And as distastful as it may seem to you, we all need respect each others rights. It's their right not to have guns on their property, we need to respect that.

Don't need a gun in a hospital? I'll admit, I didn't read any of the links, but just for s and grins: Let me google that for you

Think any of those people would have preferred to be armed in those places where some "policy" made them helpless?

You have a right to your opinion. You do not have a right to your own facts. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Blessings,
Bill

I would imagine that many would have been no better off, and might have made the situation worse, if they did have one. Since useing a gun requires a level of skill and bravery that many do not have. We can deal in "what if"s all day long, but as have already pointed out, we cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Simply put, the policy is no guns. The hospital as every right to it, and if we are true americans, and not just thugs who just want to carry guns around for whatever reason, then we will respect the wishes of those who have the right to make their wishes a reality. Just as we want people to do when we can make our wishes a reality.

 

[finity]

Man, this thread really took off.

I didn't want to be left out so I just thought I'd post nothing since I've got nothing to say.




Ah, who am I kidding. I've always got SOMETHING to say.

1. you have the right to your child, but that doesn't mean you have the right to your child while you are violating a public safty policy.

(Just in case this statement was lost on anyone, I'm reposting it.)

Wow! That is a VERY scary concept that you are promoting.

Do you REALLY believe that the state or especially a private hospital, as in this case, shoud have the power to deny your parental rights for simply violating a private company's "public safety policy"?

Are you really trying to say that the hospital should have the power to keep him from his child for violating an unposted rule?

What if there was a rule (that nobody told anyone about) that bananas were prohibited on the property "for the safety & comfort of our patients who are allergic to them"? Do you think that the hospital now has the power to deny parental rights to someone who sneaks one in? Or do you only hold your opinion because it was involving a gun?

I'm not agreeing with the policy, but "public safety" is the reason that is cited most often.

They can cite it all day long but that doesn't make it anymore true.

Agree or disagree, either way its their right for the policy to be put in place.

I don't think anyone is arguing any differently.

I would imagine that many would have been no better off, and might have made the situation worse, if they did have one. Since useing a gun requires a level of skill and bravery that many do not have.

Oh, brother...

Now here we have the typical anti-gun mentality that:

1. You are 43 more times likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it to defend yourself. Or was it 22...or whatever other number the anti's made up this week?

2. Only people who have "years of training" are qualified to use their guns to defend their lives. The rest of us who are not the "ones" must rely on "them" to protect us.

3. If you resist you'll only make it worse for yourself. Just give him what he wants & HOPEFULLY he'll LET you live. & if not then, hey, at least you didn't make it "worse" for yourself.

Do you carry a gun? Why? You'll only make things worse for yourself.

Or have you had years of training to develop your "skills & bravery"?

Would you deny the Right of self-defense to someone who hasn't seeing as there is NO EVIDENCE to show that mandating training has NO BEARING on the gun accident rate? & as far as I know there is no evidence to show that people who have had no formal training are significantly less successful defending themselves as those who have?

We can deal in "what if"s all day long, but as have already pointed out, we cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Ok, I agree.

Simply put, the policy is no guns.

Which the policy wasn't posted or made readily known to the general public.

The hospital as every right to it, and if we are true americans, and not just thugs who just want to carry guns around for whatever reason, then we will respect the wishes of those who have the right to make their wishes a reality.

He was. The guard said give to give him the gun or leave. He chose to leave & the guard & cop made a scene. How was that the OP being a thug?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not agreeing with the policy, but "public safety" is the reason that is cited most often. Agree or disagree, either way its their right for the policy to be put in place.

I am well aware of your reputation and your stance on carrying Bill. I was just stating that I would not carry at a hospital, which is my right. And as distastful as it may seem to you, we all need respect each others rights. It's their right not to have guns on their property, we need to respect that.




I would imagine that many would have been no better off, and might have made the situation worse, if they did have one. Since useing a gun requires a level of skill and bravery that many do not have. We can deal in "what if"s all day long, but as have already pointed out, we cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Simply put, the policy is no guns. The hospital as every right to it, and if we are true americans, and not just thugs who just want to carry guns around for whatever reason, then we will respect the wishes of those who have the right to make their wishes a reality. Just as we want people to do when we can make our wishes a reality.

Finity made some excellent points for having nothing to say.

They can call it a "public safety policy" all they want, BumpShadow, but the fact is that prohibiting guns does not make anyone safer except the criminals. If the hospital (or whatever other business) wants to make a rule like that, I'd fully expect them to take responsibility for the safety of the people they are making helpless, and Paul Blart or Barney Fife with his self-important arrogance backed up by a cop who didn't know or respect the law he's hired to enforce don't seem to be confidence-inspiring in their quest to rid the world (or at least the part of it they attempt to control) of those eeeeevil tools that some use with ill intent and most of us use only reluctantly for anything other than target practice on a range.

Yes, you have the right to choose to not carry. You didn't say that, though. You said that it was "excessive" to carry in a hospital and that it "didn't make sense". Never did you specify that it was only your opinion that it made no sense or that you applied that only to yourself. You want to make a target of yourself and try to wish the BGs away, peachy, just don't for a moment think that you have the right to impose unicorn farts and rainbows on the rest of us.

I respect their rights. I respect my own more, and as is so often stated, their rights to "swing their fist" ends at the tip of my nose. My gun on my hip does not infringe on their property rights. Their choice to disarm me if I'm there to see my newborn DOES infringe on my safety. I'll leave if I'm asked to, but I will certainly voice my opposition to their policy, because that also is MY right.

"No better off"? "Skill and bravery"? I've never had to pull my pistol in anger, this is true. I'm willing to run toward gunfire. I'm willing, properly equipped, to run into a burning building if there's a need to do so. I don't think I'm particularly unusual amongst our community. I also don't think it takes THAT much skill to point at the threat, take off the safety, and squeeze a trigger. Even if it did, what is it about criminals that gives them more skill than the rest of us? As to "no better off", are you really saying that someone able to defend him/herself against a threat is no better off than a sitting duck? I think Susanna Gratia Hupp would probably have a few words to argue that point.

At the end of the day, the hospital does have the right to make rules for their property. Along with that right, however, goes the responsibility for the consequences of that decision. I don't see too many hospitals "manning up" and acknowledging their responsibilities along those lines.

Of note: I know that there are INGO members who are hospital (and other) security guards. I in no way mean the comments above to apply to the job generally, only to the two nimrods whose authority meant more to them than the results they claimed to seek. Remember: Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LPMan59]

Finity made some excellent points for having nothing to say.

every time I rep him, my comment is always "do you ever get tired of being right? "

 

[KG1]

Originally Posted by BumpShadow
"I'm not agreeing with the policy, but "public safety" is the reason that is cited most often." You bring up this issue of "public safety" like all legal gun owners are going around being reckless with their firearms. Tell me, When have you personally seen or heard about a person with an LTCH that is legally carrying a firearm just willy nilly running around handling or waving their unholstered weapon or just firing shots off in the air yelling "YEEE HAAW!"?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, and the law states that if its private property, they can prohibit anything they want, same as anyone else. So if it's private property and the sign was there when OP walked in, then the hospital has every right to ban him from the property.

But is it really private property? I mean, most of the hospitals I've seen are either built with tax money and/or receive tax abatements and/or any number of other incentives that the general public pay for.

If I'm helping pay for it without having a choice not to do so, that makes it public, not private, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsgolfman]

BoR, that's been my point forever. There are no private businesses anymore.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by BumpShadow
"I'm not agreeing with the policy, but "public safety" is the reason that is cited most often." You bring up this issue of "public safety" like all legal gun owners are going around being reckless with their firearms. Tell me, When have you personally seen or heard about a person with an LTCH that is legally carrying a firearm just willy nilly running around handling or waving their unholstered weapon or just firing shots off in the air yelling "YEEE HAAW!"?

Well, there was one....

​

 

[Relatively Ninja]

Well, there was one....

​

Was it goinggreyfast?

 

[BumpShadow]

(Just in case this statement was lost on anyone, I'm reposting it.)

Wow! That is a VERY scary concept that you are promoting.

Do you REALLY believe that the state or especially a private hospital, as in this case, shoud have the power to deny your parental rights for simply violating a private company's "public safety policy"?

Are you really trying to say that the hospital should have the power to keep him from his child for violating an unposted rule?

What if there was a rule (that nobody told anyone about) that bananas were prohibited on the property "for the safety & comfort of our patients who are allergic to them"? Do you think that the hospital now has the power to deny parental rights to someone who sneaks one in? Or do you only hold your opinion because it was involving a gun?

No, I am saying that if your not going to respect other peoples rights, dont expect them to respect yours.

They can cite it all day long but that doesn't make it anymore true.

It's their right to cite it.

I don't think anyone is arguing any differently.

Bill is.

Oh, brother...

Now here we have the typical anti-gun mentality that:

1. You are 43 more times likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it to defend yourself. Or was it 22...or whatever other number the anti's made up this week?

2. Only people who have "years of training" are qualified to use their guns to defend their lives. The rest of us who are not the "ones" must rely on "them" to protect us.

3. If you resist you'll only make it worse for yourself. Just give him what he wants & HOPEFULLY he'll LET you live. & if not then, hey, at least you didn't make it "worse" for yourself.

Do you carry a gun? Why? You'll only make things worse for yourself.

Or have you had years of training to develop your "skills & bravery"?

Would you deny the Right of self-defense to someone who hasn't seeing as there is NO EVIDENCE to show that mandating training has NO BEARING on the gun accident rate? & as far as I know there is no evidence to show that people who have had no formal training are significantly less successful defending themselves as those who have?

Do you always make personal attacks when some one doesn't sing the same song as you? Just having a gun doesn't mean anything if you don't know how to use it. although I will ami itt would go a long way for pro-gun politics.

Whats the very next thing EVERYONE here says after telling someone to get a gun? Train with it. Develop the "skill". While it may seem like a no-brainer to you and me, that doesn't mean its that way for everyone. Talking about gun accident rates in an irrelavant manner doesn't make them irrelavant. An idiot with a gun is just as dangerous to himself and others as a violent criminal.

I don't carry, yet. I have been the military as a weapons tech and have been trained with them. And I am also pro-gun. But I'm not a thug about it either.

Which the policy wasn't posted or made readily known to the general public.

Then OP acted correctly. I've never said otherwise.I've only reacted to the thuggish idea of "Always carry, even if it violates someone elses rights". It's hypocritical and wrong.

I respect their rights. I respect my own more, and as is so often stated, their rights to "swing their fist" ends at the tip of my nose. Bill

BINGO!!! Thank you for saying that! You hit the nail on the head, and highlighted the thing I have problem with.

The problem here is you don't care about American rights as you claim. You care about about YOUR rights. It's fine if your rights violates other people rights. Thats just their tough luck. But God forbid someone elses rights violate yours. If you truly respect the Bill of Rights as you and your username suggest, you would respect everyones rights equally, not just your own.

You are free to live your life how you see fit, and have any option you want. But don't expect me to let the thuggish hypocrisy of the value system you have just admitted to not be called out.

 

[ATM]

BumpShadow, you seem to be mixing up legal rights with your own personal feelings and value system.

If you wish to abide by requests which are in no way legally enforceable, go right ahead. But those who ignore such requests are not violating anyone's legal rights.