HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[CountryBoy19]

That dork Paul Helmke is probaly wetting himself over this. Score one for the good guys!

I still have a bit of heartburn over this I must admit. I confess to being a bit hypocritical. I like the 2nd to be upheld at every turn, but what about property rights? Shouldn't an owner of a business, or any property have the right to say what goes?

It's the same with the smoking ban here in Ft Wayne. Shouldn't the owner have the say?
I also like the smoking ban.

I carry to and from work, not allowed to carry inside.

Without getting into an argument and side-tracking the thread, what about the property rights of the vehicle owner? We're not asking to be allowed to carry at work, we just want to be able to lock them in OUR vehicles so we're not forcibly disarmed on our way to and from work. Just because our vehicle is on another person's property does not mean we give up the property rights of our vehicle.

 

[tyler34]

this issue will be talked about on crime beat tomorrow from 3-5p.m. on WIBC. he will have some NRA folks and some business owners who oppose it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Without getting into an argument and side-tracking the thread, what about the property rights of the vehicle owner? We're not asking to be allowed to carry at work, we just want to be able to lock them in OUR vehicles so we're not forcibly disarmed on our way to and from work. Just because our vehicle is on another person's property does not mean we give up the property rights of our vehicle.

The point made by those who are pro-gun who oppose this is that while you have a right to have whatever you want in your vehicle, you do not have a right to be on someone else's property. You are invited to be there, maybe even hired to be there, but your gun is not (necessarily). You are there voluntarily. You can choose to be employed elsewhere. That's the rub.

Forcing a property owner to allow something on his property against his wishes is no more correct than forcing them to disallow something they'd prefer to allow, and it's no more right to do that just because we agree with this law than it is to forbid, say, smoking (or eating fatty foods, or drinking carbonated, sugary drinks, or whatever) on privately owned, publicly accessible property.

 

[sporter]

Your vehicle=your property!

I hope this bill passes it's last reading and is signed by the Governor.

 

[bobn911]

As a non-resident of Indiana, I have sent Gov. Mitch an email asking him to sign HB1065 and HB 1068 even though I live in Michigan. Hope it helps.
Later, Bob

 

[femurphy77]

The entertaining side of the private property discussion is the fact that truth be told how many otherwise law-abiding citizens have a gun in their car in-spite of employer policy? All they are doing here is trying to legalize something that many on this board are already doing. I doubt that you will start seeing a large number of people coming to work with a piece in their car just because this legilation passes.

 

[dburkhead]

The point made by those who are pro-gun who oppose this is that while you have a right to have whatever you want in your vehicle, you do not have a right to be on someone else's property. You are invited to be there, maybe even hired to be there, but your gun is not (necessarily). You are there voluntarily. You can choose to be employed elsewhere. That's the rub.

Forcing a property owner to allow something on his property against his wishes is no more correct than forcing them to disallow something they'd prefer to allow, and it's no more right to do that just because we agree with this law than it is to forbid, say, smoking (or eating fatty foods, or drinking carbonated, sugary drinks, or whatever) on privately owned, publicly accessible property.

And the point made by people who support property rights but favor this bill is that when one engages in commerce one is, and always has been, subject to some regulation by the State (cf. fire codes, health codes, and the like). The question is whether forbidding someone from sanctioning people who have legally possessed and secured weapons in their vehicles while on their property is on one side of the line or the other is a legitimate one.

And when the State, through the courts and liability law, applies very strong pressure on those engaged in commerce to forbid firearms something to compensate for that pressure is legitimate.

 

[pig957]

On Thursday, February 18, House Bill 1065 successfully passed second reading and will now head to the Senate floor for third and final reading early next week! The Senate also passed House Bill 1068 on third reading by a unanimous vote (48 to 0) and will now head back to the House for concurrence. from NRA e-letter

 

[tatters]

The entertaining side of the private property discussion is the fact that truth be told how many otherwise law-abiding citizens have a gun in their car in-spite of employer policy? All they are doing here is trying to legalize something that many on this board are already doing. I doubt that you will start seeing a large number of people coming to work with a piece in their car just because this legilation passes.

Agreed

 

[glockpatriot]

UPDATE on HB 1065

Just received this from Jim Tomes of "2adamendemntpatriots.com".


I just received notice that HB 1065 has passed the Indiana State Senate on a 41 to 9 vote. This bill had all of the ornery amendments removed and developed into a much better bill than when it originated in the House last month.
This bill also contains the language concerning emergency powers that will protect Indiana residents from what took place in the New Orleans confiscation after Katrina.

What we all need to do now is to call our particular state representatives to accept this bill in its current form. There might be a last minute push from the Chamber of Commerce to make one last stab at trying to bully reps into stopping this bill. It is headed for the House for concurrence Please call your Indiana state rep. Indiana House 1-800-382-9842 or go to Indiana General Assembly: FAQs to support HB 1065.

It's our responsibility to pony up and make that call!! Thanks,


Jim and Margie
2nd Amendment Patriots

Stay Strong

 

[SedahDrol]

looks good, though they should define "private secure facility" Kinda vague. and they still need to remove the post-secondary school exemptions. Like I'm not going to have my gun on me anyway, but still.

 

[T-rav]

From the way it sounds its gonna pass. From what Ive gathered a vehicle is your private property is how it sounds it'll work out. Its locked in your vehicle out of sight its nobody's business.

 

[Marc]

whats this bill for?

 

[SedahDrol]

Here's a link to the bill, but basically it makes it illegal for mostly anyone to prevent you from storing your firearm in your locked vehicle while it's parked in their parking lot.

HB 1065

 

[Phil502]

Email sent. Great news so far.

 

[LanceRobbins24]

When will we know more on this becoming law? What is the time frame before it would get the Gov's signature?

 

[bigg cheese]

I get a tingle up my leg just reading the bill

 

[eldirector]

Did anyone catch the line:
in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
This will not protect you if you are a student or employee at a university/college. Are they starting to extend where firearms are prohibited, to include post-secondary?

I just thought it was odd, as everything else listed is already a place we can't carry . This is the only new location.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Possible eldirector, but the bill would not have passed the legislature with that excluded. We need to get a few more people who realize that Criminal Protection Zones only keep guns out of the hands of those who obey the law... then we can get that passed, too. Until then, the hoodwinked in the General Assembly will just keep on protecting criminals.

ETA: Also, all this says is that the school is allowed to make rules prohibiting storing your gun in your car there, not that there is any legal penalty for doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CountryBoy19]

Possible eldirector, but the bill would not have passed the legislature with that excluded. We need to get a few more people who realize that Criminal Protection Zones only keep guns out of the hands of those who obey the law... then we can get that passed, too. Until then, the hoodwinked in the General Assembly will just keep on protecting criminals.

ETA: Also, all this says is that the school is allowed to make rules prohibiting storing your gun in your car there, not that there is any legal penalty for doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

+1 It changes nothing regarding carrying/storing a gun on a campus.

The bill wouldn't have passed without the inclusion of that exception.