Will this allow people employed in the school system to be protected from termination? I know the previous law prevented employers from terminating employees for having guns secured in their service except for certain excluded facilities.
Will this allow people employed in the school system to be protected from termination? I know the previous law prevented employers from terminating employees for having guns secured in their service except for certain excluded facilities.
Indiana being an "at will" work state means you're never truly protected from termination but from what I heard it would make it legal to have a gun/ammo in your vehicle.
According to State Rep Austin...............YES!!!
I'm aware we are an at will state. My understanding though was the previous "take your gun to work law" prevented employers from banning weapons in locked vehicles, out of plain sight. While they could still fire you they would open themselves up to civil and punitive damages. My question is if this passes world employees of the school be given the same protection if it's no longer a crime to simply possess one secured in a car on school grounds.
I worked in/around IPS schools & was a reserve officer for part of that time. I trained along side the merit officers & what I learned was that most of the non LEO's that I knew could shoot circles around most of the LEO's.Most of the non LEO's had as much or more firearms training & knowledge than the LEO's & paid for everything out of their own pockets. Not bashing my brothers & sisters in blue/brown/etc. just stating what I observed.
Maybe they should look up the IN Constitution if they think someone or a group should have special privilege. [h=3]Section 23. Equal privileges and immunities[/h]Section 23. The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens
As well as;
[h=3]Section 32. Arms--Right to bear[/h]Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
Doesn't say "the police" or that we can bear arms only in certain locations, It says, "The people" and "for the defense of themselves"!
Also sounds like the LTCH requirement is unconstitutional under the IN Constitution as it creates an imunity to the crime of carrying a handgun only for those who have it.
That's a lot of verbiage. Let's break it down with respect to some of the larger repeated phrases.The term ["school property"] does not include parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection if the parking lots are used by a person who is not enrolled as a student in any high school or is a high school student and is a member of a shooting sports team, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as a member of the shooting sports team. As applied to a person enrolled as a student in any high school who is not a member of a shooting sports team, the term ["school property"]includes parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection.
Better, but let's get some of those and/or clauses reorganized.The term ["school property"] does not include PLATAORINC if the parking lots are used by not HSS or HSS and MOAST, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as a MOAST. As applied to HSS who is not MOAST, the term ["school property"] includes PLATAORINC.
It doesn't really make sense to apply the school's principal clause to the not HSS part of that OR construction, since the principal clause is predicated on persons who are MOASTs. Also, if you removed that questionable not, how would that read?The term ["school property"] does not include PLATAORINC if the parking lots are used by {
not HSS
or
{HSS and MOAST, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as MOAST}
}.
As applied to HSS who is not MOAST, the term ["school property"] includes PLATAORINC.
Now, it's problematic. In the first sentence, the whole HSS clause before the OR is meaningless, or rather, it renders the principal clause, which is a limitting criterion, in the HSS clause after the OR meaningless. "The term doesn't apply to HSS OR HSS who meet this specific criterion."The term ["school property"] does not include PLATAORINC if the parking lots are used by {
HSS
or
{HSS and MOAST, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as MOAST}
}.
As applied to HSS who is not MOAST, the term ["school property"] includes PLATAORINC.
I suspect they didn't do that because these clauses are already tacked on after (a) and (b) subsections and when broken down, as I have, are clear in their own right.The term ["school property"] does not include parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection if the parking lots are used by:
(a) a person who is not enrolled as a student in any high school or
(b) is a high school student and is a member of a shooting sports team, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as a member of the shooting sports team.
As applied to a person enrolled as a student in any high school who is not a member of a shooting sports team, the term ["school property"] includes parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection.