School corp bans firearms from school property

[yeti rider]

I thought a new law was passed that allowed them to be left in a secured vehicle on school grounds. Am i wrong?

LSC board accepts firearms proposal

 

[stephen87]

As far as I recall, the law prohibits them from adopting this policy. Let's see how long before someone challenges this.

 

[jagee]

IBGFGT

 

[Cameramonkey]

As far as I recall, the law prohibits them from adopting this policy. Let's see how long before someone challenges this.

Paging Mr. Freeman... Paging Mr. Freeman...

 

[jagee]

Paging Mr. Freeman... Paging Mr. Freeman...

Oh yeah, and IBKF

 

[jblomenberg16]

Their policy doesn't pre-empt state law. After the parking lot bill of 2013, a lot of businesses passed similar policies. Basically they do it for insurance purposes and to appease those that are still ignorant about safe gun handling and basic 2A rights. Think of it like Target's recent "polite request" that customers do not carry firearms on their premises. Legally speaking the Indiana Code would protect you from any criminal charges related to having that firearm (so long as you followed code), but doesn't mean that the school or business can't take disciplinary action, or ask you to leave if you are in violation of their policy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Paging Mr. Freeman... Paging Mr. Freeman...

Yes, yes?

Think of it as a tripwire for employment termination and an out for insurance decs.

 

[hooky]

A public school isn't a private business though. I'm assuming LSC is considered a political subdivision?

 

[jblomenberg16]

Yes, yes?

Think of it as a tripwire for employment termination and an out for insurance decs.

In your opinion, would an employee terminated for violation of that policy have a legal case for wrongful termination? Or, would the school have a legitimate case saying that said employee willfully violated policy and was in term subject to the consequences?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't know how it would pan out, but the latter is why the "new policy" was passed.

 

[drillsgt]

I don't know how it would pan out, but the latter is why the "new policy" was passed.

Then what purpose did the law even serve?

 

[hooky]

I've read the article a couple of times. It seems to suggest that it's not just employees who are prohibited. Does anyone have a link to the actual proposal?

 

[PRasko]

The proposed policy reads in part: “No school employee, except those specifically identified in this policy, may possess a firearm in a school building or on school property while on duty as a school employee.”

So this is basically to stop teachers from leaving their guns in their cars.

That's what I gather from this.

 

[hooky]

So this is basically to stop teachers from leaving their guns in their cars.

That's what I gather from this.

But then the article goes on to say that no one, even a board member, may openly or intentionally display a firearm at a public school board meeting.

 

[poppy]

Well, crap. This muddies the water even more. From my readings, a school district is considered a political subdivision.

 

[lovemachine]

But then the article goes on to say that no one, even a board member, may openly or intentionally display a firearm at a public school board meeting.

Without having permission for the school superintendent, they wouldn't have been able to display a gun anyway, correct?

 

[MCgrease08]

So this is basically to stop teachers from leaving their guns in their cars.

^^^This^^^ It seems to be aimed at school employees, although I still doubt the directive would hold up under a challenge, given the recent change in the law.

 

[hooky]

Without having permission for the school superintendent, they wouldn't have been able to display a gun anyway, correct?

Doesn't the Supe work for the Board?

I'd like to read the proposal in its entirety.

 

[Slawburger]

IC 35-47-9-1: Allows possession in a vehicle on school grounds while transporting another person.
IC 34-28-7-2: Allows employees to keep firearms in a locked vehicle on the employer's parking lot.

However, there are exceptions listed in IC 34-28-7-2 and a school is one of them.

________________________________________________

IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who may legally possess a firearm and who has
been authorized by:
(A) a school board (as defined by IC 20-26-9-4); or
(B) the body that administers a charter school established
under IC 20-24;
to carry a firearm in or on school property.
(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being
operated by the person to transport another person to or from
a school or a school function.
(4) A person who is a school resource officer, as defined in
IC 20-26-18.2-1.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11. Amended by P.L.172-2013, SEC.12.

________________________________________________________

IC 34-28-7-2
Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
(1) in or on school property, in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function, or on a school bus in violation of IC 20-33-8-16 or IC 35-47-9-2;
(2) on the property of:
(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home;
(E) an emergency shelter care group home; or
(F) a child care center;
in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80, 465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78, 465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
(3) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-232);
(4) in violation of federal law;
(5) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
(6) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(7) at a person's residence;
(8) on the property of a person that is:
(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(9) on property owned by:
(A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power; or
(B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1; or
(10) in the employee's personal vehicle if the employee, including a contract employee, is a direct support professional who:
(A) works directly with individuals with developmental disabilities to assist the individuals to become integrated into the individuals' community or least restrictive environment; and
(B) uses the employee's personal vehicle while transporting an individual with developmental disabilities.
As added by P.L.90-2010, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.114-2012, SEC.66.

 

[dagibson1507]

And wouldn't the "guns to work" law passed a few years back now apply for employees. The only thing stopping it from applying before was the possession restriction.