Can I carry in Boston Hospitals?

Bill,

Contacting security at any hospital is not going to get you the legal answer.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that every hospital you call will tell you it is "illegal" or "forbidden" . . . even if they aren't affiliated with any college.

It's kinda like asking a cop about MA gun laws! Lots more personal biases get thrown in than actual law.

Have to agree with that. I can't think of many places that will say "sure, come on down!"
 
I don't know that this is actually the OP's POV as much as it is your spin on it. I'd interpret his post as asking about what seems to be a huge gray area in gun laws (i.e., what exactly constitutes "school property", complicated by colleges and universities owning a huge amount of real estate and a large number of buildings, including rental property and hospitals). The "concealed means concealed" part is more likely something along the line of "I know that, since I carry concealed, this most likely would never pose a problem for me, but I'm still interested in obeying the law as long as I have some idea of what it is."

Ken

You misinterpret me, good sir. I said in my post, the one that you quoted, that I did not believe that the OP necessarily subscribed to that line of thinking. I ask because by his post it is obvious that some do subscribe to that line of thinking, and I find that to be a self defeating line of thought for "us".
 
Bassturd, you ask an interesting question. I think Kens point above nails it for me.

Fair enough...as I said before I did not mean the question as an indictment of you specifically.

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would use that particular jargon as an excuse to not follow the law but then claim to be part of the group of "law abiding gun owners".

You do not sound like that type as you are approaching this particular situation thoughtfully and with an eye towards acting lawfully. I would be interested in hearing from others that do not share your approach as a matter of course.
 
God help you if you ever have to actually discharge a firearm at a hospital. Thin walls with oxygen lines running inside them and hurt/sick people on the other side of every wall. Jesus H. Christ it would be a legal nightmare to prove you had no choice but to shoot with the chances for collateral damage/casualties.
 
I don't think the chances of collateral damage are that much higher than any other place with a lot of people.
 
It's not terribly likely that you'd ever need the gun to defend yourself INSIDE the hospital.

Walking to/from the hospital to your car and on your way to/from along the city streets is altogether another story.

One evening not many years ago I had to take my Wife into BWH on a weekend evening due to severe back problems. I parked on Brookline Ave along the wooded area. Well they did an MRI or some other test but nobody was available to read it, so they kept us there until ~3 AM and then declared that she was staying overnight. They'd set me up with a reclining bed/chair if I wanted to stay too. No thanks, I walked back to my car ~3:30 AM. The duty nurse was very nice and she was concerned for my safety walking to my car that late and offered to have an unarmed security person accompany me. I politely declined and told her that I could take care of myself. I suspect that she understood what I meant and I headed home.

This year my Wife had two back operations and numerous times there was a "security code" called for incidents on another floor at Caritas-Norwood. Prisoners from MCI-Cedar Jct (Walpole) and Norfolk are transported there when they need medical care. None of the hospital security staff are armed. Need I say more?

Those kind of incidents are the imponderables.

Stay armed, stay safe!
 
God help you if you ever have to actually discharge a firearm at a hospital. Thin walls with oxygen lines running inside them and hurt/sick people on the other side of every wall. Jesus H. Christ it would be a legal nightmare to prove you had no choice but to shoot with the chances for collateral damage/casualties.

The thing is we could say that for a lot of locations. So, what do we do, not carry because something bad might happen in a bad/inopportune location? [laugh] Further, we still have the choice to shoot or not shoot, or do something else- merely having a gun does not force a decision.

I can think of FAR worse places than a hospital, too. The potential for collateral damage exists in a lot of places. It's simply hard to escape this fact. I think "legal nightmare" is gonna happen in a lot of cases of self defense to begin with, outside of a few very canned, limited circumstances. Up front, however, it's best that we decide "survival" = > "legal nightmare".

-Mike
 
Several years ago at BMC there was an ED surgeon that carried all the time. The hospital had to enact an internal policy banning the carrying of weapons by employees to prevent this person from continuing to carry. This is evidence that hospital does not think that it is covered under the MGLs banning carry on campuses.

Since the merger there is no longer a city side and a University side. It's all just BMC. In terms of teaching, this is not just in name but in practice as the BU kids rotate to both sides of the street.
 
I saw people get shot at by gang bangers on CSI Miami. I saw Dr House get shot in his office... heck, people get shot in hospitals all the time. Just ask Hollyweird.

When the bullets start flying, immediately grab an oxygen line for more energy, call for a crash cart and get the relatives out of the room. Scream "Security" over and over until the bad guy runs away.

Geez, don't you guys know anything.
 
It's not terribly likely that you'd ever need the gun to defend yourself INSIDE the hospital.

Stranger things have happened. There was a shooting at MGH in 2003:

BOSTON -- A prominent cardiologist and a hospital employee were shot and killed inside a building at Massachusetts General Hospital, officials said Tuesday.

Dr. Brian Anthony McGovern, of Boxford, Mass., and a female hospital employee were shot inside an office at the Gray-Bigelow Building on Blossom Street at 10:09 a.m., Boston Police Department spokeswoman Mariellen Burns said.

NewsCenter 5's Jack Harper said that officials are treating the incident as a possible murder-suicide. The hospital and police would not comment on the relationship between McGovern and the woman.
 
Several years ago at BMC there was an ED surgeon that carried all the time. The hospital had to enact an internal policy banning the carrying of weapons by employees to prevent this person from continuing to carry. This is evidence that hospital does not think that it is covered under the MGLs banning carry on campuses.

Since the merger there is no longer a city side and a University side. It's all just BMC. In terms of teaching, this is not just in name but in practice as the BU kids rotate to both sides of the street.


I probably know who you mean! [grin] It must be BMC you are talking about because Health and Hospitals had very firm rules about that. Automatic termination, no other option. I know because we had a guy fired for exactly that about 25 years ago.

That aside as Mass-diver says they are separate entities. In 1996 University Hospital and Boston City Hospital merged to form Boston Medical Center. It's a very complex arrangement as to who owns what buildings. That being said, there are clearly marked signs that say "Now leaving BU School of Medicine and entering Boston Medical Center". I work in one of the buildings that is part of the old Boston City Hospital, but I don't work for BMC. The people on the seven floors above me, DO work for BMC. BMC staff has no access to our offices, we have to let them in.

BMC has it's own unarmed security force. BU has an armed police department. I frequently see BUPD officers on BMC property, but that seems to be more social than anything else. If BMC security has a problem that they can't handle, the call BPD, not BUPD.

BMC does maintenance on the hospitals and BU does maintenance on the Medical School. It seems that the intent is to keep the two entities separate.

It's very confusing and as others point out, I wouldn't want to be the test case.

Tufts School of Medicine is separate from the Tufts Medical Center. Again, they have their own security and Tufts University has it's own armed police force. Same at the Brigham, Beth Israel, and Childrens Hospital.
 
I guess I just don't understand why anyone would use that particular jargon as an excuse to not follow the law but then claim to be part of the group of "law abiding gun owners"

So this begs a question. In every day parlance is the definition of a "law abiding" citizen a person who obeys all laws all the time? I consider myself law abiding, yet I have exceeded the speed limit at times. If the definition of law abiding is truly that strict then I would suggest that there are few, if any, law abiding citizens period. I am not suggesting that it is OK to break any law, but at what point is a person no longer law abiding? Is a person legally armed who is driving 10 mph over the speed limit no longer a law abiding gun owner?
 
So this begs a question. In every day parlance is the definition of a "law abiding" citizen a person who obeys all laws all the time? I consider myself law abiding, yet I have exceeded the speed limit at times. If the definition of law abiding is truly that strict then I would suggest that there are few, if any, law abiding citizens period. I am not suggesting that it is OK to break any law, but at what point is a person no longer law abiding? Is a person legally armed who is driving 10 mph over the speed limit no longer a law abiding gun owner?

In the People's Republic of Massachusetts there are NO law-abiding citizens...just citizens that the laws haven't caught up to yet. [wink][grin]
 
Last edited:
In the People's Republic of Massachusetts there are NO law-abiding citizens...just citizens that the laws haven't caught up to yet. [wink][grin]

How true!

Partly because there are laws against damn near everything in MA . . .

. . . and for the rest, many in the upper echelons of MA LE believe that if there isn't a law that ALLOWS something, it must be illegal! [thinking] [rolleyes]
 
So this begs a question. In every day parlance is the definition of a "law abiding" citizen a person who obeys all laws all the time? I consider myself law abiding, yet I have exceeded the speed limit at times. If the definition of law abiding is truly that strict then I would suggest that there are few, if any, law abiding citizens period. I am not suggesting that it is OK to break any law, but at what point is a person no longer law abiding? Is a person legally armed who is driving 10 mph over the speed limit no longer a law abiding gun owner?

Just my perspective, but in this regard I am speaking towards criminal conduct. If you did something that would be considered criminal, you're out of the "law abiding" group.

A parking ticket for not feeding the meter is a civil offense. I don;t consider that significant.
 
Tufts School of Medicine is separate from the Tufts Medical Center. Again, they have their own security and Tufts University has it's own armed police force.

This is true. However, it is important to note that portions of the hospital are actually physically located in the Dental school building, and that other parts of the hospital facilities, such as most of the offices for the TMC physicians, are most commonly accessed by a route that runs through the school as well. It would not surprise me to see such an arrangement at any of the other major academic medical centers either. Thus, be mindful of where you are, because you can cross onto school grounds without noticing. Same thing with the med school, you can accidentally wander into one of their buildings because the entire campus is intermixed with each entity owning several different buildings that are not necessarily directly connected.
 
Last edited:
T
Do "law abiding gun owners" define themselves by what other crimes they do not commit, but not by committing a crime violating what they consider to be an inane firearms law so long as nobody catches them?

Your post is very thought provoking and I just cannot get it off of my mind. Yesterday I kept mulling it over. I certainly cannot speak for all "law abiding gun owners", but my answer to your question is yes, that is how I personally define law abiding. An otherwise good citizen who violates an insane law is still law abiding in my view. As an example I do not put the long haul truck driver who crosses multiple state lines, but chooses to be armed for self defense in the same category as a gangbanger who illegally carries a gun for nefarious purposes. Or the otherwise law abiding person who walks into a post office to mail a package with a j frame in his pocket. Or the person in an emergency response business who responds to a flooded building at 3 AM that happens to be on a college campus and chooses not to leave his means of protection several blocks away locked in his truck in a bad neighborhood. All of these people are breaking the law, but for my part I will not label them as criminals. Sometimes concealed is concealed and you pays your money and you takes your chances. I personally believe that any law that restricts an otherwise law abiding person's right to defend themselves is a bad law. People often break bad laws and are not viewed as non-law abiding, at least by me and I think some others. Of course if you get caught you will get punished, that is the risk. On the other hand if you truly find yourself in a situation where you really have to defend your life, or the lives of your family, then one might decide that it is worth that risk.

Additionally I have heard Masad Ayoob talk about the doctrine of competing harms and especially how it could have related to the Bernard Goetz case. Bernard Goetz, the so called "Subway Vigilante" had been previously assaulted and brutalized, he attempted to get a permit to carry, but was denied. Having already been assaulted, knowing that it could happen again and knowing the the city of New York could not protect him he made a rational decision and decided to be responsible for his own protection. He armed himself. When he was subsequently assaulted he protected himself. I consider Mr. Goetz a law abiding citizen, not a criminal. Had he obeyed the law he could have been maimed, crippled or dead. He made the decision to exercise his right to self defense. I applaud that decision.

Personally I am a big chicken and I never carry anywhere that it is prohibited by law. I have weighed the risk and I take my chances. That said I do not view the individual who chooses otherwise as not law abiding. The exception would be the individual who carries for bad purposes and with bad intent, meaning a criminal.
 
Last edited:
Your post is very thought provoking and I just cannot get it off of my mind. Yesterday I kept mulling it over. I certainly cannot speak for all "law abiding gun owners", but my answer to your question is yes, that is how I personally define law abiding. An otherwise good citizen who violates an insane law is still law abiding in my view. As an example I do not put the long haul truck driver who crosses multiple state lines, but chooses to be armed for self defense in the same category as a gangbanger who illegally carries a gun for nefarious purposes. Or the otherwise law abiding person who walks into a post office to mail a package with a j frame in his pocket. Or the person in an emergency response business who responds to a flooded building at 3 AM that happens to be on a college campus and chooses not to leave his means of protection several blocks away locked in his truck in a bad neighborhood. All of these people are breaking the law, but for my part I will not label them as criminals. Sometimes concealed is concealed and you pays your money and you takes your chances. I personally believe that any law that restricts an otherwise law abiding person's right to defend themselves is a bad law. People often break bad laws and are not viewed as non-law abiding, at least by me and I think some others. Of course if you get caught you will get punished, that is the risk. On the other hand if you truly find yourself in a situation where you really have to defend your life, or the lives of your family, then one might decide that it is worth that risk.

Additionally I have heard Masad Ayoob talk about the doctrine of competing harms and especially how it could have related to the Bernard Goetz case. Bernard Goetz, the so called "Subway Vigilante" had been previously assaulted and brutalized, he attempted to get a permit to carry, but was denied. Having already been assaulted, knowing that it could happen again and knowing the the city of New York could not protect him he made a rational decision and decided to be responsible for his own protection. He armed himself. When he was subsequently assaulted he protected himself. I consider Mr. Goetz a law abiding citizen, not a criminal. Had he obeyed the law he could have been maimed, crippled or dead. He made the decision to exercise his right to self defense. I applaud that decision.

Personally I am a big chicken and I never carry anywhere that it is prohibited by law. I have weighed the risk and I take my chances. That said I do not view the individual who chooses otherwise as not law abiding. The exception would be the individual who carries for bad purposes and with bad intent, meaning a criminal.

Great response Goose.

In large part I agree with your sentiments, but then I think that we need to remember that we look at things from a similar perspective. Unfortunately for you and I, society in large part might not be inclined to agree. That is the problem we need to overcome, and sometimes that might have to come at a sacrifice of safety.

I am certainly not going to raise my personal flag on top of a soapbox of sacrifice. As is true of many that can talk a good game, I have not made any real sacrifice to furthering the cause of protecting 2A rights other than some lifetime membership fees paid to firearms rights organizations.

I hate to sound extreme, but the movie "The Life of David Gale" comes to mind in this respect. This movie was full of characters that believed in a particular ideal, and they were willing to sacrifice themselves in order to make their point to society. If I were not a second class citizen and had been granted the privilege of protecting myself from harm, I am not sure I would be willing to enter a dangerous situation unprotected, bearing a letter stating that I had to die by violent hands because I was law abiding an peaceful, just for the sake of allowing an investigator to find that note if I were ever killed or seriously injured in a situation like that.

As I have discussed on several occasions with friends and family, I am not sure that I would do anything other than comply if authorities showed up at my house and ordered me to surrender my firearms. Would I be willing to make the sacrifice to defend my rights in almost certain forfeit of my life, whether by blood or by incarceration. I just don't know.

I asked the question in the first place because it sounds like there are many that do consider carrying concealed to protect themselves more important than obeying the law. Again, not speaking of the OP, you, or I, but more of an amorphous "them". I wonder what that does to our standing when we want to righteously claim ourselves to be "law abiding gun owners"
 
Your post is very thought provoking and I just cannot get it off of my mind. Yesterday I kept mulling it over. I certainly cannot speak for all "law abiding gun owners", but my answer to your question is yes, that is how I personally define law abiding. An otherwise good citizen who violates an insane law is still law abiding in my view. As an example I do not put the long haul truck driver who crosses multiple state lines, but chooses to be armed for self defense in the same category as a gangbanger who illegally carries a gun for nefarious purposes. Or the otherwise law abiding person who walks into a post office to mail a package with a j frame in his pocket. Or the person in an emergency response business who responds to a flooded building at 3 AM that happens to be on a college campus and chooses not to leave his means of protection several blocks away locked in his truck in a bad neighborhood. All of these people are breaking the law, but for my part I will not label them as criminals. Sometimes concealed is concealed and you pays your money and you takes your chances. I personally believe that any law that restricts an otherwise law abiding person's right to defend themselves is a bad law. People often break bad laws and are not viewed as non-law abiding, at least by me and I think some others. Of course if you get caught you will get punished, that is the risk. On the other hand if you truly find yourself in a situation where you really have to defend your life, or the lives of your family, then one might decide that it is worth that risk.

Additionally I have heard Masad Ayoob talk about the doctrine of competing harms and especially how it could have related to the Bernard Goetz case. Bernard Goetz, the so called "Subway Vigilante" had been previously assaulted and brutalized, he attempted to get a permit to carry, but was denied. Having already been assaulted, knowing that it could happen again and knowing the the city of New York could not protect him he made a rational decision and decided to be responsible for his own protection. He armed himself. When he was subsequently assaulted he protected himself. I consider Mr. Goetz a law abiding citizen, not a criminal. Had he obeyed the law he could have been maimed, crippled or dead. He made the decision to exercise his right to self defense. I applaud that decision.

Personally I am a big chicken and I never carry anywhere that it is prohibited by law. I have weighed the risk and I take my chances. That said I do not view the individual who chooses otherwise as not law abiding. The exception would be the individual who carries for bad purposes and with bad intent, meaning a criminal.

Those are all very good points.

Like Mr. Goetz, I wonder how many people who live in Boston have been victims of violent crime and denied an ALP LTC-A after? And how disgusting is it that one has to be brutalized before they will even be considered for a permit that will allow them to protect their life in public?

I don't carry in places where it's legally prohibited. However, I still find it offensive that I can be violating the law when carrying because I didn't know who signed the deed for the public property on which I set foot, especially when there's no signs or anything posted telling me that I can't carry there.

Most colleges are like small cities, most hospitals aren't exclusively populated by law-abiding citizens (ever read about the shootings that took place in Texas hospitals after failed murder attempts in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico?). Unless everyone is strip-searched on the way in the door and x-rayed, it's not a gun free zone.

I carry everywhere I go and religiously avoid going to places where I can't legally carry. I won't violate the laws and lose my right to defend myself ever again. But I will fully support any decent, law-abiding citizen who decides to protect their own life when the government does everything in their power to prevent that person from legal self defense.

Here's to the good guys.
 
Back
Top Bottom