No firearms allowed signs were put up at a medical center that used to allow conceal carry on site, but not open carry.

 One thing about locations like this is the consistent threats and violence staff deal with, especially in emergency rooms.  The ICU is an area of concern as well as it is common (where I worked it averages 6 times a year) for patient relatives to threaten staff with statements like:

"If my mother dies so do you." or "I will have anyone that doesn't keep my father alive murdered"  

 In the ER a 16 year old drunk patient threatened a staff member by stating he would "rape you in all three holes".

 So staff are allowed to protect themselves, unfortunately a staff member would carry a pistol in a small pack on his waist that was unzipped.  Multiple requests for him to keep his weapon concealed resulted in him indicating that he has a right and that the medical center cant do anything about it.  He was terminated for violating the companies policy on the open carry of weapons.  (elderly patients can get confused, and they call security over a man in their house with a gun etc.)

 The hospital, as preparation for a lawsuit posted no-weapon signs including firearms which then by CO law prohibited conceal carry.  The signs were not put up to discourage criminals but to mitigate future lawsuits.  Lawsuits are presented weekly, threats about every other month.

Why are you so literal?
The signs only exist because of a law.
And since the signs are without function other than to advertise the vulnerability of the people who are behind it, the law that the sign represents is stupid

Eegore wrote on 06/28/18 at 06:00:12:

 No firearms allowed signs were put up at a medical center that used to allow conceal carry on site, but not open carry.  One thing about locations like this is the consistent threats and violence staff deal with, especially in emergency rooms.  The ICU is an area of concern as well as it is common (where I worked it averages 6 times a year) for patient relatives to threaten staff with statements like:"If my mother dies so do you." or "I will have anyone that doesn't keep my father alive murdered"   In the ER a 16 year old drunk patient threatened a staff member by stating he would "rape you in all three holes".  So staff are allowed to protect themselves, unfortunately a staff member would carry a pistol in a small pack on his waist that was unzipped.  Multiple requests for him to keep his weapon concealed resulted in him indicating that he has a right and that the medical center cant do anything about it.  He was terminated for violating the companies policy on the open carry of weapons.  (elderly patients can get confused, and they call security over a man in their house with a gun etc.)  The hospital, as preparation for a lawsuit posted no-weapon signs including firearms which then by CO law prohibited conceal carry.  The signs were not put up to discourage criminals but to mitigate future lawsuits.  Lawsuits are presented weekly, threats about every other month.

Understand, the reason for the hospital to put up, ‘no gun’ signs.
No one wants a son, saying to a doctor,
 “You save my moms life or I will shoot you”
And having the means to carry it out.

Yet, will a, ’sign’, stop that son from carrying ?

Your statement: “…unfortunately a staff member would carry a pistol in a small pack on his waist that was unzipped.  Multiple requests for him to keep his weapon concealed resulted in him indicating …”
I am taking the, ‘A’, to mean a single person.
So because of one persons refusal to follow the companies policy, all the rest are, NOT, allowed to defend themselves.

Your statement: “…The hospital, as preparation for a lawsuit posted no-weapon signs including firearms which then by CO law prohibited conceal carry….”
That will then, supposedly, prevent, good and bad people from having a firearm.

Again, understand why the sign, to, perhaps, stop the son, from doing, ‘… I will kill you’.  
Because a, ’sign says’, it prevents a CC, or open, from going in.  
It also, prevents a employee, from defending themselves.
Who do you think will comply with the ’sign’, the son, who’s mom is suppose to be all right, or the Doctor/staff ?

Does not look like this policy, is to protect, Lives, it looks like it is to protect, money.

"So because of one persons refusal to follow the companies policy, all the rest are, NOT, allowed to defend themselves"

 They are allowed to defend themselves.  They are not allowed to conceal carry.  The most prudent action would be to change locations to a facility that allows firearms to be carried by staff.

"Again, understand why the sign, to, perhaps, stop the son, from doing, ‘… I will kill you’.  "

 Incorrect.  The signage was not placed to stop people from making threats, or to stop them from entering with a firearm.

 I was attempting to indicate that nobody has stated that they believe a sign will stop threats, guns or anything of that sort.  Nobody has stated thus far that they think a sign will stop crime.

"The sign, ’no guns’ is for BOTH, CC and Open."

 Yes.  

 The company policy has always been no open carry of weapons, no change to that policy has ever occurred.  The employee was terminated for open carry, since he refused to enclose or conceal the weapon he was carrying.  Terminated means from employment for the company that runs the associated medical centers.

 When the signs were posted state law then requires no concealed carry either.  Thus the statement "They are not allowed to conceal carry" specifically on property where signage is posted, but only after the signage was posted.
 

 I do not care for "what ifs" which is why I ask for data, or reference that can be cited so discussion can be about factual things and not imaginary things.

"You love 'what if's'  so much. Say it is a 96 pound nurse, who is 5',1", tall, and a 250 lb, 6", 4' patient, threatens to kill her with his fist/s.
No where to run away. No one around to help, just the two of them.
Please explain how, "... They are allowed to defend themselves...".


 She is "allowed" to defend herself if she feels she is in danger of imminent severe bodily injury or death.  There is no policy in existence, and has never been, that prohibits staff from defending themselves or others.

 She can not carry a firearm on the property.  If this is a requirement then she must seek employment elsewhere as there is also no policy that says she must work in that particular medical center.

 To say there is a policy that exists that says she is not allowed, as in she can not, should not, or would be unjustified in - protecting herself at all is incorrect.  Nobody has ever said that staff must allow criminals to assault them.

 So as an example of why I don't care for what-ifs, we can imagine this stuff all day and counter each scenario with another scenario, (for instance the risk of losing the control of a firearm while in close quarters - Tollet principle of reactionary gap) or use factual data.  That factual data being that zero firearm signs at this particular facility were put in place to deter crime, or increase safety in any capacity.  So far nobody has stated they feel posted signage increases safety.

"So in, “…locations like this is the consistent threats and violence staff deal with, especially in emergency rooms…” That person, is NOT allowed to protect his/her self."

 Incorrect.  They are allowed to defend themselves, there is no policy that states they must allow crimes to be committed against them.

 Do you mean to say they can not defend themselves exclusively with a firearm?   The answer to that is yes.  They can not carry stun guns, pepper spray, knives, canes, swords, nunchuks etc. as a means of defense on company property.  These are all legal to carry in the state but not allowed on the property.

 And yes that can not park on company property with a firearm in the vehicle.

"Again it sounds like, Saving Money, (Less Lawsuits), and not caring if, employees defend themselves, (While at Work)"

 This is correct, as stated in the original post there are more lawsuits than threats: " Lawsuits are presented weekly, threats about every other month."

 The signs were not put up to prevent crime or increase safety.

Eegore wrote on 07/10/18 at 10:41:55:

   I can send you a copy of the EIC meeting transcript that has statements from all administrative staff  ..."

Sure, send them to me.  Just PDF/RFT/DOC it, then, PM me the info.
I will read it, and use the statements, in any way I choose to do so.
Thanks !  (eliminating names of people, totally expected)

“… Do you mean to say they can not defend themselves exclusively with a firearm?   The answer to that is yes…”
Ya, the way the discussion was going, believe just about everybody was thinking the same thing.
So, the Doctors/Staff, can can defend themselves with what, a pen and a clipboard,  against a Gun.

The, ‘opinions/meeting transcripts’ you are going to send, say, a sign works, (or was it, they don’t work), well, will find out when you send copies.
So, while at work, or walking to their car, in a high risk area, the Doctors/Staff can use a  clipboard and a pen, to defend against a gun, which the person with the gun, don’t give one hoot ‘bout what a sign say.

Looking forward to reading the meeting transcripts, which the names have been crossed out.