Nursing Homes

[Taypo]

A couple of thoughts for the OP. You can be given oral notification that firearms are not allowed and if the building you want to go to is a separate building I think it would also have to be posted. So, if the main building is posted, but the building your mom is in is not, then you only have to avoid the main building while carrying. Also, be mindful of any papers you have been given or signed in case there is anything on them that has the 3006 language. I have not seen anything like this yet myself, but it could eventually start making it's way into various businesses as a form of notification.

I think the key word in 30.06 is 'property'. I would think that as long as the property is contiguous that signage anywhere on the property meets the statute concerning notification. I don't think a difference in buildings on the same contiguous property makes a difference as far as the language of 30.06 is concerned.

It may. I'm not sure.

It does. There is no specifics in 30.06 for where to place the sign other than 'displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public'. So, if it is on say a main building, then it would apply to all other buildings and the property.

I've heard the "whole property" discussion before and I have a bi of an issue with it. If Grandma lives in building B and I can drive straight there without passing that 30.06 posted at the main building, how conspicuous is that sign?

[Pawpaw]

I've heard the "whole property" discussion before and I have a bi of an issue with it. If Grandma lives in building B and I can drive straight there without passing that 30.06 posted at the main building, how conspicuous is that sign?

Unfortunately, the judge or jury will get to answer that.

[Taypo]

I've heard the "whole property" discussion before and I have a bi of an issue with it. If Grandma lives in building B and I can drive straight there without passing that 30.06 posted at the main building, how conspicuous is that sign?

Unfortunately, the judge or jury will get to answer that.

Indeed! Luckily we won't have to take a ride for it once the new laws kick in.

[C-dub]

A couple of thoughts for the OP. You can be given oral notification that firearms are not allowed and if the building you want to go to is a separate building I think it would also have to be posted. So, if the main building is posted, but the building your mom is in is not, then you only have to avoid the main building while carrying. Also, be mindful of any papers you have been given or signed in case there is anything on them that has the 3006 language. I have not seen anything like this yet myself, but it could eventually start making it's way into various businesses as a form of notification.

I think the key word in 30.06 is 'property'. I would think that as long as the property is contiguous that signage anywhere on the property meets the statute concerning notification. I don't think a difference in buildings on the same contiguous property makes a difference as far as the language of 30.06 is concerned.

It may. I'm not sure.

It does. There is no specifics in 30.06 for where to place the sign other than 'displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public'. So, if it is on say a main building, then it would apply to all other buildings and the property.

I've heard the "whole property" discussion before and I have a bi of an issue with it. If Grandma lives in building B and I can drive straight there without passing that 30.06 posted at the main building, how conspicuous is that sign?

Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there and properly posted. I agree, there are issues that haven't been resolved yet in this area.

[C-dub]

A couple of thoughts for the OP. You can be given oral notification that firearms are not allowed and if the building you want to go to is a separate building I think it would also have to be posted. So, if the main building is posted, but the building your mom is in is not, then you only have to avoid the main building while carrying. Also, be mindful of any papers you have been given or signed in case there is anything on them that has the 3006 language. I have not seen anything like this yet myself, but it could eventually start making it's way into various businesses as a form of notification.

I think the key word in 30.06 is 'property'. I would think that as long as the property is contiguous that signage anywhere on the property meets the statute concerning notification. I don't think a difference in buildings on the same contiguous property makes a difference as far as the language of 30.06 is concerned.

It may. I'm not sure.

It does. There is no specifics in 30.06 for where to place the sign other than 'displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public'. So, if it is on say a main building, then it would apply to all other buildings and the property.

This would seem to be problematic to me. For example, if my business has buildings in multiple locations and the headquarters is posted, but the other facilities are not, would that mean that they are also effectively posted since they are also my property? Doubtful, but if the whole property thing is clear, I also don't see anything distinguishing between addresses.

[oohrah]

And, extrapolating to campus carry, if a private university opts out, does that mean they will only have post one sign for the whole campus, say at the Admin bldg?

[Dragonfighter]

I have to post on this thread only for the comedy of it. My mother in law is in a nursing home and recently they put up a sign at the entrance. I started laughing as I walked up to the door and my wife couldn't understand why. They posted a 51% sign thinking that would be notice enough. No wonder all the residents seem so happy!

Lewisville Medical Center used to be posted that way.