• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wisconsin Hospital Association Helps Hospitals Post "Firearms And Weapons Prohibited"

scm54449

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI
Wisconsin Hospital Association Helps Hospitals Post "Firearms And Weapons Prohibited"

In the July 15 edition of he Wisconsin Hospital Association's "Valued Voice" there is a brief article summarizing Act 35 with more detail available at:
http://www.wha.org/SummaryKeyIssuesConcealedCarryAct7-11.pdf

Posters ready for printing are being offered here: http://www.wha.org/NoWeaponsPoster.ppt

An on-line webinar is being offered on August 3 from 12:00 - 12:30. The link to the signup is here: http://events.signup4.com/ConcealCarry

Here are the bios for the two presenters:

Matthew Stanford
Matthew Stanford is vice president of policy and regulatory affairs and associate counsel for the Wisconsin Hospital Association (WHA). He is responsible for policy developement related to regulatory and compliance issues. He holds Juris Doctor and Masters of Health Administration degrees from the University of Iowa.

Paul Merline
Paul Merline is vice president of government affairs for the Wisconsin Hospital Association (WHA). He is responsible for lobbying state issues in Madison, tracking/analyzing legislation, and policy research. His experience includes more than eight years lobbying at the state level, and more than 10 years of government relations experience, including working as legislative staff. He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science, economics and international relations from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

If you are interested, here is the contact information for the "Event Coordinator":

For questions, please contact Lisa Littel
Phone: 608-274-1820
Email: llittel@wha.org



 
Last edited:
thebigsd

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Too bad hospitals are probably one of the few places where the No Guns=No Money idea would not be practical. If you get in an accident, they take you to the hospital and you gotta pay. Bummer. Too bad the hospitals(with all their "smart" doctors) don't understand that criminals don't follow the rules.
 
Last edited:
M

Mlutz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
758
Location
, ,
We all should have seen this one from a mile away. In fact, watching the hearings on sb93 and the assembly bill (cannot remember the #) Paul M. Was asking for a blanket ban on hospitals. This is not a surprise to me at all. Also, no guns no money cards, yep that won't work so well.
 
jpm84092

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
My thoughts: I wonder if the liability lawyers for the hospitals have thought this through. Each hospital that posts in accordance with the law is subjecting itself to the same liability before SB-93 became law, but each hospital who does so is depriving themselves of the blanket liability protection afforded by the language of the Bill. So, post = same as before. No Post = blanket protection from liability. It is only a matter of time before a gang-banger pulls a handgun and injures somebody at a hospital and the injured party sues before the liability lawyers see the folly in the positions taken by their clients, the hospitals.
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
thebigsd said:
Too bad hospitals are probably one of the few places where the No Guns=No Money idea would not be practical. If you get in an accident, they take you to the hospital and you gotta pay. Bummer. Too bad the hospitals(with all their "smart" doctors) don't understand that criminals don't follow the rules.
Click to expand...

Most Hospitals are ran by libs & are thusDUMB. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
 
scm54449

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI
Mlutz said:
<SNIP> Also, no guns no money cards, yep that won't work so well.
Click to expand...

In most of Wisconsin, choices in hospitals are nothing like restaurants, taverns, etc. If you wish to boycott your local hospital the next closest hospital can easily be >35 miles away. Start to factor in where your specialist of choice has privileges and knowing that critical access hospitals in rural areas have limited equipment, staff and services, the ability to boycott completely disappears for anyone with a significant medical condition. Hell, in several counties in Wisconsin, there isn't a single hospital to be found.....
 
Last edited:
Cobra469

Cobra469

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
218
Location
West Allis, WI, , USA
Yeah I have overheard Aurora discussing the legislature and what the legal options are for their facilities. Just not sure if they are looking to ban the public as they already have rules banning employees. Only heard a few minutes of conversation so I have no idea how it was going.
 
MKEgal

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Those signs aren't correct... they all say "firearms and weapons are prohibited on these premises".
(Some add "except in your locked vehicle".)

1) they can't prohibit anything except firearms.
2) they can't prohibit firearms from the "premises", only the building.
3) they can't prohibit firearms from being in vehicles.

And as Jim already pointed out, they're pretty stupid to refuse their chance at being protected from liability.
 
L

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
MKEgal said:
Those signs aren't correct... they all say "firearms and weapons are prohibited on these premises".
(Some add "except in your locked vehicle".)

1) they can't prohibit anything except firearms.
2) they can't prohibit firearms from the "premises", only the building.
3) they can't prohibit firearms from being in vehicles.

And as Jim already pointed out, they're pretty stupid to refuse their chance at being protected from liability.
Click to expand...

Hey MKEgal... I don't think that's entirely right.

RE 1) Truth is, they can ban weapons other than firearms, no sign needed. Sections 80-82 apply when a property owner bans firearms. Nowhere does it say that a property owner can't ban other weapons. So they can ban weapons other than firearms, and they don't have to post a sign to do it. If a person bearing a weapon other than a firearm is asked to leave and refuses, they're guilty of trespassing under s. 943.13 (1m)(b), as you can see in section 79.

RE 2) Most can ban firearms on their premises, the law clearly says. Almost all property owners can ban firearms from both buildings and grounds under sections 79-82. The exceptions are colleges, government-owned and occupied properties, properties leased by others, and the common areas of multifamily housing. That's what this language, for example, means in section 80:

"While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any
part of a nonresidential building, grounds of a nonresi-
dential building, or land that the actor does not own or
occupy after the owner of the building, grounds, or land,
if that part of the building, grounds, or land has not been
leased to another person, or the occupant of that part of
the building, grounds, or land has notified the actor not
to enter or remain in that part of the building, grounds, or
land while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm."

RE 3) I agree; vehicles in parking areas are excluded (except for on single-family property)

Regarding liability exemptions, have lawyers anywhere gotten excited? Either they're all stupid, or the exemption's all BS. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say.
 
L

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
Tom Maassen said:
Side note: Last week I was hospitalized for carbon monoxide poisoning. If I would have been unconscious, and the ambulance transported me to the ER while I had my weapon concealed, would I get in trouble? Since I didn't willingly/knowingly bring my firearm into the GFZ, can I still be fined?

If they can ban smoking from the premises, why can't they ban anything else? In most cases, the hospitals are viewed as private property, so in theory why can't they ban anything they desire? I was once issued a ticket for smoking on the sidewalk. Since the property was posted as "Smoke Free Premises", the cop decided that I was on the property since I wasn't across the street. I fought the ticket, and won since the city maintained the sidewalk not the hospital. Had I been in the grass between the sidewalk and the building, I would have been screwed.

Not trying to pick a fight, I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

Wow, glad you're still among us! What was the source of the CM?

The "good news" (ahem) is that you wouldn't be guilty of trespass unless you refused to leave after being notified. If you're unconscious, you're not notified. They'd put away your gun and save your life.....unless you looked just too dangerous, even out cold.

And yeah, private property owners have a nearly absolute right to control access and activity on their land. The only exceptions are in a few areas where specific laws force property owners to grant access, such as for law enforcement, health inspectors, or, in the case of places open to the public, diverse populations and mandatory smoking bans. Act 35 adds a new override of property rights so that landowners have to allow firearms unless they've provided a required notice, and always have to allow firearms in vehicles (except for on a single-family property).
 
A

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
No

Tom Maassen said:
Side note: Last week I was hospitalized for carbon monoxide poisoning. If I would have been unconscious, and the ambulance transported me to the ER while I had my weapon concealed, would I get in trouble? Since I didn't willingly/knowingly bring my firearm into the GFZ, can I still be fined?
Click to expand...

or at the very least extremely improbable. You had no criminal intent or even input on where you were taken. Even if you were conscious and lucid (let's say you suffered a fracture), you would have the defense of necessity (particularly if on foot but even if you have a vehicle and could have left your firearm there - if to do so might not be a reasonable alternative, a compound fracture for instance). It would help if you informed a experienced staff member (M.D. or R.N., admissions supervisor, not the cute girl who takes your BP) and if asked, surrender it to a LEO for the duration.

Medical people are interested in helping you. They are not interested in hanging a misdemeanor on patients, unless a patient's behavior interferes with the facility's operation or is harmful to himself or others.
 
Last edited:
A

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Clarify

LaBomba said:
Wow, glad you're still among us! What was the source of the CM?

The "good news" (ahem) is that you wouldn't be guilty of trespass unless you refused to leave after being notified. If you're unconscious, you're not notified. They'd put away your gun and save your life.....unless you looked just too dangerous, even out cold.

And yeah, private property owners have a nearly absolute right to control access and activity on their land. The only exceptions are in a few areas where specific laws force property owners to grant access, such as for law enforcement, health inspectors, or, in the case of places open to the public, diverse populations and mandatory smoking bans. Act 35 adds a new override of property rights so that landowners have to allow firearms unless they've provided a required notice, and always have to allow firearms in vehicles (except for on a single-family property).
Click to expand...

You do not to be notified in the sense that somebody comes up to you and tells you that guns aren't allowed. The notification is accomplished by the sign. It doesn't matter if a particular person sees the sign or not only whether or not it is reasonably conspicuous. In the case of the unconscious, it doesn't matter because as I said there is no intent to trespass and the individual has no ability to chose where he goes. Those could be defenses raised or more likely there would be no prosecution at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top