imkopaka wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:26 am
srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:42 am
KLB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:09 pm
In my experience, virtually any healthcare or medical related facility will be posted. Doctors have to have enough individual variety that this isn't a coincidence. There must be some mandate somewhere.
Does anyone know where?
Well, sort of. There is a requirement in Government Code section 411.204 that all hospitals and nursing homes must post a sign banning concealed carry. It used to have effect also, but the ban on entering hospitals while carrying has been repealed unless they post 30.06/07. IIRC, this ban was part of the compromise to first get CHL passed in Texas. In my personal opinion, there has never been any industry as dead set against people owning guns as the medical industry and they fought hard to stop CHL. The big medical companies, like Seton, are still pretty much dead set against it and post almost all of their clinics and hospitals. As with any large group, there are individual doctors that are very pro-gun too and they do not post.
To give credit where it is due, I think the anti-gun bias is based at least in part on their medical training and the concept of first doing no harm. I also think it is actually more due to medical administrators and support staff and not the actual doctors. I know some doctors who are pretty strict and want to interfere with people's lives to stop risky activities like motorcycling and shooting, but I do not think they are the majority.
On a side note, a lot of the hospitals that get posted cannot be legally enforced. Seton has a lot of contracts running county hospitals which are on government property. I don't know if anyone has told them that it is not enforceable yet. I am really curious about the one in Austin, where the Dell Hospital is run by Seton and posted but is on campus property but funded by the city and county. Fortunately, I know most people with an LTC will not violate the rules, even when the rules are not legally enforceable or are in a gray area.
Wait, I'm confused. How does being on government property factor into the validity of the signage? I thought the AG opinion RE: Dallas Zoo basically said that private entities operating on government property have the authority to post valid signs. Am I missing something?
Government owned
hospitals can post enforceable 30.06/7 signs because carry under (authority of) LTC in hospitals is prohibited in PC 46.035, if they post a 30.0x sign. Also, 411.209 contains a section allowing posting of government property prohibited elsewhere (than 30.0x) in the penal code. So government owned --- schools, hospitals, amusement parks (Dallas Zoo), Parimutuel Racetracks, and churches can be posted. I'll leave the question of whether there are (or can be) government owned churches for another day.
Also AG Opinion KP-108 has nothing to do with whether government owned HOSPITALS can post. That is allowed by 411.209 whether the government or the operating entity is doing the posting.
KP-108 is concerned with whether a city can be fined for postings made by a lessee, even if they are not criminally enforceable. His opinion is NO. Also buried in the opinion is language which has been used to effectively render 411.209 useless. Basically, he says that if a non-government entity leases the place, there is nothing that forces them to allow carry. On the other hand there is no criminal penalty that the state can apply for carrying against their wishes.
