HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[Roadie]

The bottom line here is that no law, rule, policy etc will make one IOTA of difference to an employee that is already deranged enough to shoot up a business. As any other gun law, it only affects the law abiding. Period.

Nutcases go out to their car and get a gun and come back in to shoot the place up. They go HOME and get a gun and come back too. They are already in violation of company policy, if the company had such a policy, right? So now, only the law abiding employees, the ones that could have gone to their car and retrieved THEIR weapon to protect themselves and their co-workers, are weaponless and powerless to do so.

This Bill will not change one way or another how an angry deranged employee responds, but it WILL change the way the law abiding employees are able to respond to the threat.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So this law says I can make my employer supply me with a firearm to exercise my rights while on his property? That would be a more similar analogy.

So you feel it should be unlawful for me to have my laptop in the car while it is on your property so that I can stop at B&N on the way home and use their wifi, because you disagree with what I might say?

Fantastic analogy. Rep added. Of note, it's not unlawful, just against the employer's rules, for which an employee could be terminated. This could apply to an employee from having a laptop in his locked vehicle or to a hymnal, if the employee is stopping to practice with the church choir on the way home.

Indy317, your thoughts on the analogies above? Should property rights supersede the rights of freedom of religion or free speech OFF of the employer's property?

IANAL And this could be total bs, but I could think of one situation that an employer could possible held liable. As an indirect cause. An employee starts acting flaky, and over a week or two gets worse. Other employees complain about it and say they are starting to get worried. The guy has made no threats and other than appearing to turn into a nutcase is a model employee. Everyone knows he owns guns and brings them to work and keeps them in his car. A couple of days after the employees complain he snaps and kills half the plant.

I could see him being sued for failing to protect his employees by not firing a model employee who could of just been going through a rough divorce or other problem. Although he knew he was armed at work.

Again I am not a lawyer and I have no idea if that would fly or not, but I could see it costing the company a bit in legal fees to fight it at least.

And after it happened once, I'd hate to see how many employees would get fired for just having a moody day.

Would firing this employee really prevent the problem? There was a shooter recently who went back to a former employer two years (IIRC) after he was terminated. No, I don't think that's a valid argument for prosecution or even for a civil suit, but in any event, I'm not sure that that would be related to the issue of the employer being compliant with Sec. 2 of this bill.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

Fantastic analogy. Rep added. Of note, it's not unlawful, just against the employer's rules, for which an employee could be terminated. This could apply to an employee from having a laptop in his locked vehicle or to a hymnal, if the employee is stopping to practice with the church choir on the way home.

Indy317, your thoughts on the analogies above? Should property rights supersede the rights of freedom of religion or free speech OFF of the employer's property?




Would firing this employee really prevent the problem? There was a shooter recently who went back to a former employer two years (IIRC) after he was terminated. No, I don't think that's a valid argument for prosecution or even for a civil suit, but in any event, I'm not sure that that would be related to the issue of the employer being compliant with Sec. 2 of this bill.

Blessings,
Bill

re: The bolded text..

THIS has always been one of my points as well. However, I am sure the reply will be "they can always park off property" or "they can go get another job" so...

 

[Bill of Rights]

The bottom line here is that no law, rule, policy etc will make one IOTA of difference to an employee that is already deranged enough to shoot up a business. As any other gun law, it only affects the law abiding. Period.

Nutcases go out to their car and get a gun and come back in to shoot the place up. They go HOME and get a gun and come back too. They are already in violation of company policy, if the company had such a policy, right? So now, only the law abiding employees, the ones that could have gone to their car and retrieved THEIR weapon to protect themselves and their co-workers, are weaponless and powerless to do so.

This Bill will not change one way or another how an angry deranged employee responds, but it WILL change the way the law abiding employees are able to respond to the threat.

Right. If an employee has decided he's going to go out to his car, retrieve a firearm there and bring it in, that employee may be terminated then without violating this law, and of course we all know that said employee would, once terminated, then turn around and leave like the criminal in this video clip:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8"]YouTube - Gun Free Zones - 1/2 Hour News Hour[/ame]

​

Blessings,
Bill

 

[INMIline]

Well I can chime in with this. We had a guy at work this week say he wanted to shoot the guy trying to stab him in his eye. Noone was trying to stab him in his eye, he admited to arguing with the "voices" in his head. They sent him home, he'll return to work in 3 months. Had he in fact drove a block from work to his house and grabbed whatever and came back someone could have got hurt. Noone can carry on work property. He's known for going off on rampages in the past that carried on for periods of time. Let's just say I support this bill 100%

 

[LEaSH]

Well I can chime in with this. We had a guy at work this week say he wanted to shoot the guy trying to stab him in his eye. Noone was trying to stab him in his eye, he admited to arguing with the "voices" in his head. They sent him home, he'll return to work in 3 months. Had he in fact drove a block from work to his house and grabbed whatever and came back someone could have got hurt. Noone can carry on work property. He's known for going off on rampages in the past that carried on for periods of time. Let's just say I support this bill 100%

So they can't fire him for fear of violating the Disabilities Act? Or is he ultra tallented and works for cheap and management doesn't want to lose him? Why will he be coming back in 3 months?

 

[INMIline]

It's the RV Industry. They fire him his brother walks. They think these two aren't replaceable. It's bull all the way around.

So they can't fire him for fear of violating the Disabilities Act? Or is he ultra tallented and works for cheap and management doesn't want to lose him? Why will he be coming back in 3 months?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My comments in blue

Would firing this employee really prevent the problem? Heck no, anyone with a brain knows that There was a shooter recently who went back to a former employer two years (IIRC) after he was terminated. No, I don't think that's a valid argument for prosecution or even for a civil suit, definitely not for prosecution and imo not for civil either, but I could see a lawyer trying but in any event, I'm not sure that that would be related to the issue of the employer being compliant with Sec. 2 of this bill.

Blessings,
Bill

How I see it being possibly related is this, if the employer did allow firearms and employees started complaining about being afraid of the guy, the boss could talk to him and if he felt a little leary, but not enough to fire/suspend him, he could ask him not to bring the firearms in for a while, which if the guy was homicidal wouldn't work. But the boss could claim he "tried". Under sec 2, he wouldn't be able to do that. I don't think I'm explaining it very clearly, sorry. I'm running on about 2 hours of sleep.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I know how I would handle this as a business owner. It is exactly what was told to me by a practicing civil law lawyer: Buy more insurance. To pay for this, either workers would get a pay cut, or I would charge for parking, or someone would lose their job, or I would sell the business and be done with an over reaching government. I get sick of jacking prices for customers, so this time the state can deal with this law. They can deal with another unemployed person as a result of them running my business for me. Either way, I flat out _refuse_ to spend one additional dime from my personal bank accounts to buy this insurance when someone else is telling me how to run MY PROPERTY. I view business property no different than my home. A business owner took out a loan, took on this risk, and now year after year more and more employees who don't want to take the risk, don't want to put in the hours, do the hard work...demand government come in and tell the owner what they can and can't do with their property. It makes me sick, and again is exactly why I would never go in business on my own.

if i worked for you, id make it easy to pay for your insurance ..... id quit. then id pay homeless people to hang on public property in front of your business.

 

[Indy317]

People's homes and personal property have special protections built into the Constitution that just aren't there for businesses.

Like what? Are you telling me the police can go into any business and search without a warrant? Business property has just as many protections as residential property. Yes, a business has rules and regulations affixed to it...so what? Residential property has just as many law governing it. Try raising kids in filthy and dangerous conditions in a private residence and see what happens. Try storing dangerous amounts of regulated materials in a private residence. The fact is, all property has government regulations to some extent, in the end though, they are all owned by one or more persons. Each rule and regulation is just one more encroachment by government. I personally could careless about the law as a private business owner. Just chalk it up to yet another one of my rights taken away from me.

I actually agree with most everyone else: An employee hell bent on shooting up the place will likely do it anyways. My main issue is that there are law and rule abiding employees out there who _have_ kept their gun at home. That will no longer be the case. There will be more guns on private property not owned by the gun owner. As such, I can see possible issues when it comes to those guns being stolen as it _could_ affect the business owner in some sort of civil manner. As I said before, I would take steps I felt necessary to protect me and mine, and the employees would suffer as I am not raising prices in this economy. It might be a .5% pay reduction, a 2% pay reduction, a fee to park on the lot so I could make it more secure, or no reductions/parking fees, but one employee is let go so I can still pay for insurance, gates, fences, etc.. as I see fit.

if i worked for you, id make it easy to pay for your insurance ..... id quit. then id pay homeless people to hang on public property in front of your business.

So someone who is providing tax revenue for a municipality, who has provided actual _American_ jobs, gets this kind of treatment because they make a business decision as a result of a new government regulation? No wonder more and more companies are moving out of this country, if the above is your typical American worker attitude ("Not only will I quit, I will work to destroy your evil American jobs providing business!!!" ) So you don't have the balls to quit when I banned guns from my property, but since you may look at a pay cut or a fee for parking (which I have paid the last 13 years of employment), then you grow some balls and quit? Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

Hey, maybe we should all start protesting all sorts of businesses, paying homeless to drive off customers and such. If we work hard enough, maybe these job providing companies will go under, and we can add even more folks to the unemployment rolls in this economy!!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

re: The bolded text..

THIS has always been one of my points as well. However, I am sure the reply will be "they can always park off property" or "they can go get another job" so...

And that's true, they can. This gets clouded partly because it is guns we're really talking about, and partly because a law like this DOES infringe on a property owner's rights.

This is why I asked the question I did, not about the law, but about opinion. Should one right supersede the other, when the other is being exercised elsewhere. Member antsi has pointed out, though, that he works in a hospital, and they all, every one, have the same rule. With the new bill, he should not have that concern anymore, and as the point has been made, I really don't personally care one whit for overrriding a corporation's so-called "rights". Legally, they might be considered a "person", but corporations were not created by God but by man.. As such, they should have no rights, only powers. I don't know how, if at all, we could differentiate legally between a business owned by a human vs. by a corporation.

So I suppose the question isn't whether or not someone CAN get another job or CAN park elsewhere (member dburkhead pointed out that doing so clearly identifies which vehicles are more likely to have firearms in them, too).. I think the main question might be whether or not it is right for an employer to make them do so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LPMan59]

all i know is that i work in a bad neighborhood where armed robberies, among other crimes, are extremely common. i am not allowed to carry anything at all. i go to my car at night looking over my shoulder. i would like to not be fired for providing a bit of my own security- especially since my company does not employ any sort of security personnel. i know some of you will say "well you can find another job" but its a bit more complicated than that. and i also know those same people will say "your life is more important than a job." but to that i say, in my business, armed robberies are common....with indiana ranking among the highest in the country. and i am not aware of any employer in my line of work that allows carrying.

of course, i own stock in my company. so therefore i own the property too and i think that should allow me to carry my legally own firearm. i wonder what a court would day?

 

[LPMan59]

just another thought concerning the overriding the property owner's rights....arent those rights already superceded by the 4th Amendment in regards to searching the car? if the employer cannot search the vehicle, then it seems this law really doesnt matter....it's almost like this law is just a clarification of what should have been understood in the 1st place. i believe Ohio has a law that shields any business from the actions of CCW holder. maybe that's what we need instead.

 

[DHolder]

I'm a simple kinda guy, and I dont see why the passage of this bill has been muddied by worrying about being sued as a bussines owner or worrying about getting fired for having a legal gun in the trunk.

To me the 2nd Amendment means I have the RIGHT to bear arms PERIOD!!! Our RIGHT has been minced to the point of not being anything more than a point to argue about. Lets be happy it passed and we live in a state that is willing to take back some of that right and not bow to those who would rather see its citizens unarmed.

 

[tv1217]

So this part about utilities, does that mean if I, for example, work for a certain major telco, I'm out, or is that just for like NIPSCO or the public works dept or something?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I've got a question about part of the language in the bill.

Chapter 7. Possession of Firearms in Locked Vehicles
Sec. 1. This chapter applies only to possession of a firearm by an individual who may possess the firearm legally. This chapter does not apply to the possession of a firearm or other device for which an individual must possess a valid federal firearms license issued under 18 U.S.C. 923 to possess the firearm or other device.

The only firearm that I can think of that requires a ffl is post-ban full autos. That section of federal code refers to manufactures, dealers, importers, and c&r licenses. Did they put that in just to allow companies to be allowed to prohibit post '86 full-auto? Oh and I guess SBS also. All the rest at the most need a tax stamp to possess.

US CODE: Title 18,923. Licensing

 

[Timjoebillybob]

just another thought concerning the overriding the property owner's rights....arent those rights already superceded by the 4th Amendment in regards to searching the car? if the employer cannot search the vehicle, then it seems this law really doesnt matter....it's almost like this law is just a clarification of what should have been understood in the 1st place. i believe Ohio has a law that shields any business from the actions of CCW holder. maybe that's what we need instead.

Yes, an employer cannot force you to let him search your car, but if it's a condition of your employment they can fire you if you refuse. Actually since Indiana is an at will state, it doesn't matter if it's a condition of employment, if they ask and you tell them no they can fire you.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I still want to know in what court anyone is going to sue an employer for complying with the state law.

Blessings,
Bill

I don't see it as doing that.
Sec. 5. A court does not have jurisdiction over an action brought against an employer who is in compliance with section 2 of this chapter for any injury or damage resulting from the employer's compliance with section 2 of this chapter.


Blessings,
Bill

Bill, I just reread your question, when I first read it I took it to be how. But in answer to your question I think possibly Federal in certain instances. Would that section of code effect Federal courts? If an employee or their family lived out of state, and they were suing for at least $75,000 they can file directly in Federal court under diversity of citizenship.

28 U.S.C. § 1332 : US Code - Section 1332: Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, I just reread your question, when I first read it I took it to be how. But in answer to your question I think possibly Federal in certain instances. Would that section of code effect Federal courts? If an employee or their family lived out of state, and they were suing for at least $75,000 they can file directly in Federal court under diversity of citizenship.

28 U.S.C. § 1332 : US Code - Section 1332: Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

You might be right that an employer could be sued in federal court, TJBB, but it would not be over this law; Federal courts do not enforce state laws, IIUC. If I'm right about that, then that suit would possibly proceed, but that this bill passed into law would not be an issue.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

And that's true, they can. This gets clouded partly because it is guns we're really talking about, and partly because a law like this DOES infringe on a property owner's rights.

This is why I asked the question I did, not about the law, but about opinion. Should one right supersede the other, when the other is being exercised elsewhere. Member antsi has pointed out, though, that he works in a hospital, and they all, every one, have the same rule. With the new bill, he should not have that concern anymore, and as the point has been made, I really don't personally care one whit for overrriding a corporation's so-called "rights". Legally, they might be considered a "person", but corporations were not created by God but by man.. As such, they should have no rights, only powers. I don't know how, if at all, we could differentiate legally between a business owned by a human vs. by a corporation.

So I suppose the question isn't whether or not someone CAN get another job or CAN park elsewhere (member dburkhead pointed out that doing so clearly identifies which vehicles are more likely to have firearms in them, too).. I think the main question might be whether or not it is right for an employer to make them do so.

Blessings,
Bill

I think you've got the real issue framed up pretty well here, BoR... One thing to point out re: corporations. How many businesses are technically owned by a "corporation" or LLC but really represent the property of an individual or family? How many family owned farms are there? Or family owned software businesses like mine? I know of several family owned factories - some that employ(ed) hundreds of people, but were effectively owned by one family. What about the family doctor?? Any attempt to distinguish between the rights of a corporation and the rights of an individual would result in the proverbial "baby being thrown out with the bath water"....

It is quick and easy to assume corporations == evil bastard heartless soulless etc.... The truth is a little more blurry: sometimes they do indeed represent the rights of an individual. It's just for tax or legal protection reasons that they are called corporations.

If we believe in, and invoke the Constitution as the codification of our natural, God given rights, then we have to take a little extra care in the areas where two of these rights are in some degree of conflict. I believe that they are in this case.

I do believe that this bill will give some legal cover to shield companies from SUCCESSFUL lawsuits. I don't believe that helps prevent the FRIVOLOUS variety of lawsuit. And those CAN and DO cost money errr... jobs errr.... prosperity!

Again, while I would choose to lean toward this law (and take the side of the 2A over property rights), some of the things I have heard in the debate here concern me. Many of the people here have had the experience of "Workin' for Da' Man"... hence "The Man" = some corporation with no face... I can't argue with your experiences! Many times, this is exactly correct. That said, I do have some things I would ask you to consider....

1) In reality, THE Man might be the dude that's shooting at the next bench over from you at the local range!
2) How many of you own stock in any form?
3) What about your retirement / pension fund???

I would suggest that we all should be careful in griping about The Man. You may find out that indeed YOU are The Man!!!