TRX
Member
I chanced on an old thread on the indiansforguns forum a while ago. That's the India Indians, not the American ones. The thread is at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=16944&hilit=hospital
The original poster titled the thread "Gun Friendly Hospital" and said: (excerpted)
"Yesterday morning while visiting a super speciality hospital in Noida UP I had a pleasant surprise. In the main entrance all those who were entering had to pass through a metal detector. There was a board indicating that arms are not allowed inside. However, I found that a set of lockers have been fixed next to the door, where visitors are allowed to lock their arms after necessary entry of the no etc is made in a register. The locker door has two locking systems. One key is retained by the security people and the other is taken by the owner.While coming out of the hospital, the owner can get back the weapon."
The thread quickly degenerated with "When 'arms are not allowed inside" how can it be called a gun friendly hospital?' and on to civil rights and RKBA issues not relevant in the USA. However, I tossed my two rupees into the fray:
"I'd count it as 'gun friendly.' I agree being able to carry it in the hospital would be better than having to put it in a locker, but making a locker available to its patrons is a nice thing to do."
I don't know how things work in Uttar Pradesh, but in my state any business may prohibit CCW if they want. Though it's annoying, I accept they have the right to control their own property, as opposed to "public" areas like the various Federal, state, and city buildings, whose no-guns policies puts a kink in my otherwise fuel-efficient route as I take care of business.
I still think the lockers are a nice thing to do. It's not like a visit to the hospital is something that can always be planned in advance, and home or a safe place to leave a firearm can be a long way off if you're suddenly summoned to one.
I spent much of the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas at the hospital with my Dad, who finally made it back home in good shape. I'm pleased to say that the hospital he was at did not have the "Sign of Shame" posted...
The original poster titled the thread "Gun Friendly Hospital" and said: (excerpted)
"Yesterday morning while visiting a super speciality hospital in Noida UP I had a pleasant surprise. In the main entrance all those who were entering had to pass through a metal detector. There was a board indicating that arms are not allowed inside. However, I found that a set of lockers have been fixed next to the door, where visitors are allowed to lock their arms after necessary entry of the no etc is made in a register. The locker door has two locking systems. One key is retained by the security people and the other is taken by the owner.While coming out of the hospital, the owner can get back the weapon."
The thread quickly degenerated with "When 'arms are not allowed inside" how can it be called a gun friendly hospital?' and on to civil rights and RKBA issues not relevant in the USA. However, I tossed my two rupees into the fray:
"I'd count it as 'gun friendly.' I agree being able to carry it in the hospital would be better than having to put it in a locker, but making a locker available to its patrons is a nice thing to do."
I don't know how things work in Uttar Pradesh, but in my state any business may prohibit CCW if they want. Though it's annoying, I accept they have the right to control their own property, as opposed to "public" areas like the various Federal, state, and city buildings, whose no-guns policies puts a kink in my otherwise fuel-efficient route as I take care of business.
I still think the lockers are a nice thing to do. It's not like a visit to the hospital is something that can always be planned in advance, and home or a safe place to leave a firearm can be a long way off if you're suddenly summoned to one.
I spent much of the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas at the hospital with my Dad, who finally made it back home in good shape. I'm pleased to say that the hospital he was at did not have the "Sign of Shame" posted...
