gun in locked car out of sight ok effective 01 july 2014

[actaeon277]

I think they should make so many convoluted laws regarding firearms, that people run the risk of becoming "accidental felons".

Oh wait, looks like they already did that.

Mission Accomplished.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Well, with the 2014 regular session out of the way, Indiana Code Article 35, Criminal Law and Procedure constitutes a PDF file that rule to 974 pages. At the end of the 2013 sessions, and what 2014 had to start with, that same document ran to 1125 pages, for a loss of just over 150 pages or more than 10%. Let's keep that trend up, shall we, legislators?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No. SB 229 http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/6/6/6/6/66663bcd/SB0229.04.ENRS.pdf (wow, that's a lot more than just 3 sixes) explicitly leaves in place the prohibition on firearms on the property of: a child care center, an emergency shelter, a group home, or a private secure facility.

Actually the part I believe you are referring to doesn't prohibit you from leaving it out of sight in a locked vehicle at those places, what it refers to is that they can still have policies against it and fire you for it if found out.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

My understanding is that the new law on affects firearms in motor vehicles, right?

I bike a lot, and of course, always carry while biking. Am I correct in my belief that I can ride on the sidewalk that is in front of the school as long as I am just passing by, but I am not allowed to cross the parking lot?

 

[SteveM4A1]

My understanding is that the new law on affects firearms in motor vehicles, right?

I bike a lot, and of course, always carry while biking. Am I correct in my belief that I can ride on the sidewalk that is in front of the school as long as I am just passing by, but I am not allowed to cross the parking lot?

Assuming you have a license to carry, yes. You don't have to be "just passing by" on the sidewalk from my understanding though.

 

[Bravo-4-2]

A step in the right direction, but hasn't gone far enough, yet.

NO business should be allowed to have a 'law', rule, or policy that prohibits lawful carry in or on the property of that business. IF that business allows customers in / on their property, the same 'rules and regs' should apply as when lawfully carrying 'on the street'.

That should really be the next step.

No, that should NEVER be the next step. Private property rights must ALWAYS trump your comparatively meager 2A right. If a private property owner doesn't want your gun on his property, the conversation ends right there. Period.

 

[Redhorse]

No, that should NEVER be the next step. Private property rights must ALWAYS trump your comparatively meager 2A right. If a private property owner doesn't want your gun on his property, the conversation ends right there. Period.

Businesses with public access wanting the public to come in and spend their money with them should not be allowed to deny the right to carry. My right to self-defense, my right to live and avoid bodily harm trumps their right to ban it. I could easily be assaulted in the parking lot on the way to my vehicle where my gun would be locked up in it of no use.

 

[bwframe]

Businesses with public access wanting the public to come in and spend their money with them should not be allowed to deny the right to carry. My right to self-defense, my right to live and avoid bodily harm trumps their right to ban it. I could easily be assaulted in the parking lot on the way to my vehicle where my gun would be locked up in it of no use.

Use your right to shop elsewhere. Forcing property owners opens a door that cannot be closed.

 

[jkaetz]

A step in the right direction, but hasn't gone far enough, yet.

NO business should be allowed to have a 'law', rule, or policy that prohibits lawful carry in or on the property of that business. IF that business allows customers in / on their property, the same 'rules and regs' should apply as when lawfully carrying 'on the street'.

That should really be the next step.

Next steps? ... and making the LCTH an exemption to no go zones should take priority.

I think the solution to both of these is not forcibly making them allow carry, but making them directly responsible and liable should someone be attacked in their designated gun free zone. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways either. Strip me of my right to defend myself and you should be shouldering the responsibility for that instead of standing back and saying "Not my fault." As it stands, businesses/property owners/ACOE/school zones can not only tell us we can't have firearms/weapons/etc... but also claim that they aren't responsible for us if we're attacked on their property. Along with this there should be some shielding of businesses and property owners from legal action simply because an attack took place on their property as long as they are following state laws regarding weapons.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Use your right to shop elsewhere. Forcing property owners opens a door that cannot be closed.

But where is the fun in that? It is so much more fun to force others to bow to your every whim.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I think the solution to both of these is not forcibly making them allow carry, but making them directly responsible and liable should someone be attacked in their designated gun free zone. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways either. Strip me of my right to defend myself and you should be shouldering the responsibility for that instead of standing back and saying "Not my fault." As it stands, businesses/property owners/ACOE/school zones can not only tell us we can't have firearms/weapons/etc... but also claim that they aren't responsible for us if we're attacked on their property. Along with this there should be some shielding of businesses and property owners from legal action simply because an attack took place on their property as long as they are following state laws regarding weapons.

I would say this is the correct step to take. It would be tricky to enforce, though. Having a firearm doesn't guarantee your safety, so one should not be sued simply because they do not allow an individual to carry on their property and that individual was harmed. I would say there are many factors involved.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Use your right to shop elsewhere. Forcing property owners opens a door that cannot be closed.

While I agree with you completely in principle, that door was kicked open a long time ago. Think smoking bans.

 

[SteveM4A1]

While I agree with you completely in principle, that door was kicked open a long time ago. Think smoking bans.

So we should continue to abuse the power? Just because a smoking ban was allowed to infringe on property owners' rights, that doesn't mean we should be infringing on more rights because we successfully did it in the past.

 

[jkaetz]

I would say this is the correct step to take. It would be tricky to enforce, though. Having a firearm doesn't guarantee your safety, so one should not be sued simply because they do not allow an individual to carry on their property and that individual was harmed. I would say there are many factors involved.

I'm going to have to say that's TFB. If your policies don't offer me the means to defend myself, you should be responsible. Don't want the responsibility, don't remove my means to defend myself. I'm sure there would be plenty of time to argue any legal action in the courts just as there is now as well.

 

[ATM]

I'm going to have to say that's TFB. If your policies don't offer me the means to defend myself, you should be responsible. Don't want the responsibility, don't remove my means to defend myself. I'm sure there would be plenty of time to argue any legal action in the courts just as there is now as well.

If you willingly disarm to conform with a policy of property usage, you are still responsible. Nobody disarmed you against your will or forced you to attend their property.

You can't just shift the burden of responsibility for yourself upon another simply because you desire to be on their property and they have conditions.

 

[Mr. Habib]

So we should continue to abuse the power? Just because a smoking ban was allowed to infringe on property owners' rights, that doesn't mean we should be infringing on more rights because we successfully did it in the past.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that that has already happened with smoking. Even as a nonsmoker, I think that smoking bans are wrong. I just want to maintain the status quo. The property owneer can have what ever rules they want. I can choose to follow them or leave.

 

[SteveM4A1]

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that that has already happened with smoking. Even as a nonsmoker, I think that smoking bans are wrong. I just want to maintain the status quo. The property owneer can have what ever rules they want. I can choose to follow them or leave.

I thought that was what you meant. I hate smoking as well and am completely against the bans placed on private property owners. I don't think we should maintain the status quo when the current status infringes on individuals' rights.

 

[jkaetz]

If you willingly disarm to conform with a policy of property usage, you are still responsible. Nobody disarmed you against your will or forced you to attend their property.

You can't just shift the burden of responsibility for yourself upon another simply because you desire to be on their property and they have conditions.

I have no desire to shift the responsibility. What I don't want is the current state of affairs where businesses and property owners can sit back and take no responsibility for what happens on their grounds and at the same time tell us we cannot take steps to protect ourselves. While I'm not 100% on board with forcing property owners to accept my choice, I would like them to have some stake in it if they choose to deny me the option. The act of doing business should be a transaction where both parties get something they want. Right now the board is heavily slanted to the business and property owners.

This is of course ignoring the option to go somewhere else, but I have no doubt that the alternate places to go will continue to dwindle. We are the minority and the lost $$ from us will not have a big enough impact on businesses and property owners to cause them to change their policies. When all businesses have no weapons policies that carry the force of law will you still disagree that they should have some skin in the game?

 

[ATM]

...When all businesses have no weapons policies that carry the force of law will you still disagree that they should have some skin in the game?

I won't agree that such policy should ever have the force of law behind it, but I will still maintain that your choice to adhere to their policies while doing business with them is simply that - your choice. Nobody is stripping you of your right to defend yourself in these examples.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Businesses with public access wanting the public to come in and spend their money with them should not be allowed to deny the right to carry. My right to self-defense, my right to live and avoid bodily harm trumps their right to ban it. I could easily be assaulted in the parking lot on the way to my vehicle where my gun would be locked up in it of no use.

The Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice your religion. By your logic, since I should be able to keep and bear arms on your property (regardless of your feelings about firearms) shouldn't I also be able to conduct a prayer service in your store (again, regardless of your feelings towards my particular religion)?