Medical Facilities

[jar]

My Family Practitioner is not posted and has never said anything when I've been in to make an appointment or ask a question but I do not carry when I go for an appointment simply because they always weigh me and give me grief over every little pound. So Doctor Visit days are no gun, no phone (the cell phone, I will still wear the Dick Tracy Wrist Radio Samsung Gear S3), light weight shoes...

[imkopaka]

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 It used to have effect also, but the ban on entering hospitals while carrying has been repealed unless they post 30.06/07.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?

[flechero]

Most "Facilities" are part of a larger healthcare organization, so the organization's standards will apply to affiliated Physician Clinics. Private practices are generally an LLC or similar, and adopt office rules that, subjectively, lower liability. Very, very few docs are truly "Private" anymore, the liability is just too high.

This. My good buddy and shooting partner is a surgeon and he says the same... although the lack of private Dr's is not liability and more of the insurance contracts... the providers are squeezing out the small places and will only negotiate with big systems. (which is sad because it's diluting care overall)

[Bruin98]

Not all medical facilities post.

We had to go to an office we'd never been to before last week for a procedure for my wife.

It's on the border of Plano and Richardson. I just assumed it would be posted, so I disarmed in the car. I drove by the main entrance, but the view was some what obstructed, so I couldn't tell from the drive by.

It wasn't posted.

The Care Now down the street has a no weapons sign on both doors, but neither one is anywhere close to a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.

[KLB]

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?

Alas. It's complicated. My understanding of the Dallas Zoo opinion is that, in effect, being classified as an amusement park (which the Dallas zoo has gotten away with) trumps the ban on 30.06/30.07 signs on government property. So the ban still stands on government property unless the operator can establish the property qualifies as an amusement park.

[srothstein]

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?

The opinion was very carefully worded and covered two separate points. The primary purpose of the opinion was if the law against posting signs on government property applied to private entities that leased the property. He said they could not be charged or forced to take the signs down under the law regarding government agencies posting signs. He did restrict that to some pretty specific conditions, including that it must be a hands off lease.

But the AG managed to slip into the opinion a warning. The signs are not enforceable because the law on whether they apply on government owned property still applies. I was referring to this in my statement about the hospital on city owned property. They can legally post the signs but they have no valid meaning.

[imkopaka]

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?

The opinion was very carefully worded and covered two separate points. The primary purpose of the opinion was if the law against posting signs on government property applied to private entities that leased the property. He said they could not be charged or forced to take the signs down under the law regarding government agencies posting signs. He did restrict that to some pretty specific conditions, including that it must be a hands off lease.

But the AG managed to slip into the opinion a warning. The signs are not enforceable because the law on whether they apply on government owned property still applies. I was referring to this in my statement about the hospital on city owned property. They can legally post the signs but they have no valid meaning.

I actually reviewed KP-108 yesterday and refreshed my memory on what you're talking about. Had a long post written about it, including a lengthy section of that opinion. Then when I clicked "Submit" the site went down again like it did the other day and I lost the whole post.

Thanks for the information guys!

[ScottDLS]

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.

[Deltaboy]

Some are and some are not! When I make night visits to folks in the Hospital I am armed with less than lethal items like OS spray,my cane and a Speed safe folder. The ones that are not I CCW on!

[srothstein]

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.

You are correct and I forgot about that section. I should have remembered better and have no excuse for this. I have even cited this before to show how you can be charged twice for one incident by charging you with both 30.06 and 43.035 violations.

I have to stop posting while my mind is occupied with other things and make sure i do better research on the subject before I post. This is not the first time recently I have made such obvious mistakes.

[ScottDLS]

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.

You are correct and I forgot about that section. I should have remembered better and have no excuse for this. I have even cited this before to show how you can be charged twice for one incident by charging you with both 30.06 and 43.035 violations.

I have to stop posting while my mind is occupied with other things and make sure i do better research on the subject before I post. This is not the first time recently I have made such obvious mistakes.

In fact, I think you were the one who pointed this out to me a number of years ago.

[jordanmills]

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.

Not quite. LTC carry in hospitals is prohibited by TCP 46.035 if they give effective notice. There's nothing there about posting a sign. There is no effective notice since TCP 30.06(e)/30.07(e) makes TPC 30.06(b)/30.07(b) (which defines notice) not apply if the property is owned or leased by a government entity. Since there's no notice given, carry is not prohibited under 46.035, so 30.06(e)/30.07(e).

[Scott in Houston]

I have no idea if my experience is common or not, but I have had no problem in finding MD, DDS, eye doctor, pharmacy, etc., that is not posted. I carry openly in all of them. I work and get medical care in Austin.

However, with aging parents, I am visiting hospitals more often. I need to prioritize getting that KelTec Sub 2000.

My wife has been hospitalized a lot since this summer. I often stay over night at the hospital with her and obviously do not carry my handgun.
I do have a Sub 2000 that fits very nicely into my computer bag, and yes, it was with me all the time. It's not ideal as it would take time to deploy if something happens quickly, but having it with me was better than nothing.

Before I got the Sub 2000, my Ruger 10/22 Takedown was the best I could do.

[ELB]

My guess:

Much of healthcare is run by corporations now, and they all tend to be of the mindset "no guns" no matter what the facts are. So any practice, lab, specialist, etc that belongs to a corporate overseer is much more likely to ban LTC carry. Individual practices seem to me to be more independent on this, so there are some that do not ban either because they are OK with LTC or they never thought about it.