On the topic of "Gun Free" zones.

[Howland937]

I'll preface this by saying earlier this afternoon I got a text from my sister in law. The hospital where she works (in the same city where I work) was on an active shooter lockdown this afternoon. She hadn't arrived to work yet when she found out, and subsequent clearing of the facility revealed no indication there ever was a shooter.

The problem is, all their doors have signs declaring them "gun free" "weapon free" etc. There are no metal detectors, which to me should be required anywhere that decides to be gun free. If the place I'm entering wants to criminalize my carrying of a weapon, the least they can do is make sure the folks in front of and behind me aren't carrying.

I'm not 100% clear on what the penalties are in Ohio for carrying in places that CHOOSE to be gun free zones. I know there are places where carrying is forbidden and the penalties are pretty stiff...but the places like malls, hospitals, large retail stores etc...that just want to put a sticker on the door and make no further effort can't always be avoided.

I'm not going to discuss my personal policy for dealing with these places and don't wanna know yours. No reason to post anything incriminating on the net.
I guess my question is, where did this stuff originate...that a simple sign on the door would suddenly function as a shield of some sort? Did some focus group dream it up? Has anyone ever heard of or known a person that returned to the vehicle to secure their gun after seeing such a sign?

 

[JohnKSa]

When it comes to corporate actions, you can run down the list to determine possible motives.

1. Liability. (Does the action limit, or potentially limit liability?)
2. Revenue. (Does the action affect revenue?)
3. Corporate personality. (Is the action consistent with the "personality" of the corporation--often this relates to the views/mindset of those directing the company.)

In this case, I suspect that they believe the signs will limit their potential liability in a future situation. If someone does something that is within their policy and things go bad, there could be potential liability. But if it's against their policy, it's hard to hold them responsible even if their preventive measures aren't especially effective. Enforcement isn't a big deal because they're not really concerned with employee safety, only liability.

Here's an example. I know a person who works at a company that recently announced that they were going to increase workplace safety. So they made the employees hand in all company issued sharp objects. Xacto knives, scrapers, box cutters, etc. Oddly enough, there was ZERO attempt to stop people from bringing in or using their own scrapers, box cutters, etc. At first glance, it made no sense, but when you use the list the first question resolves the apparent contradiction.

If you cut yourself with your own box cutter, it's got nothing to do with the company. But if you cut yourself with the company's box cutter, they might have to prove in court (at their expense) that they trained you adequately in its use and offered you safe alternatives. It had nothing to do with workplace safety--it was all about limiting liability.

 

[Howland937]

Ive always been under the impression it was strictly from a liability standpoint and nothing else. It's kind of disgusting, such as in this case, where the spokesperson released a statement that started off "the safety of our employees, staff, and patients are our top priority".

Upon availability of additional information, according to the statement from the spokesperson, the "lockdown at our facility this afternoon was the result of a report that someone may have been in possession of a gun inside our building"

Nothing about an active shooter, as was conveyed to the employees who were required to wait outside.

 

[wiscoaster]

I guess my question is, where did this stuff originate...that a simple sign on the door would suddenly function as a shield of some sort?

Depends on state law. If a state allows concealed or open carry, they also generally allow owners of private property to deny carrying within their premises, but require that to be posted in a certain way in order to be enforceable.

 

[Howland937]

Right, that's how the law states it in Ohio. I've seen some signs on the doors of private entities that said you were commiting a felony by entering with a weapon. Most are just a gun with a line through it. The law says it's "illegal" but there's no clear definition of what crime you'd actually be commiting. Local LEO's have stated you'll be asked to leave, then potentially trespassed but not arrested unless you refuse to comply.

 

[WrongHanded]

JohnKSa nailed it. Liability. It's why most employers have a clause in the employee handbook about no weapons on the premises, but generally have no process to prevent weapons being brought into the building.

 

[theotherwaldo]

In Texas we have a specific, prominently-displayed sign with lettering of a specific size with specific wording in English and Spanish to make private property into a gun-free zone.
Businesses and private residences must use (and I'm not making this up) a 30.06 sign to ban concealed weapons and a 30.07 sign to ban open carry.
Property owners should post BOTH signs if they want their property perceived to be completely gun free.

 

[Howland937]

A few years ago, they did pass a few more enhancements to carry law. The biggest one was that companies prohibiting employees from carrying could not prohibit storing firearms in their vehicles on company property. Previously they could prohibit that. In return, the companies were given immunity from liability for firearms bought onto their property against company policy.