2nd amendment poll in Indy Star

[shibumiseeker]

Right. That's what I was saying in the next sentence: "It's just that, if they're not even allowed in a locked car, it has the effect of disarming employees on their commute."


.

Missed that, my apologies.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

47.8% yes
52.2% no

total votes: 802

 

[dross]

'Fraid I just couldn't vote. As much as I don't like it, they get to make policy on their own property.

This is an example of a law in which I like the outcome, but not the principle on which it is based. Like a smoking ban, for instance.

 

[Roadie]

'Fraid I just couldn't vote. As much as I don't like it, they get to make policy on their own property.

This is an example of a law in which I like the outcome, but not the principle on which it is based. Like a smoking ban, for instance.

So my car isn't my property? The road leading into the employer isn't theirs, but their rule disarms me there as well...

Would you be for them having a "no cigarettes in the car" rule, and searching your car for them, if they had a non smoking policy?

 

[dburkhead]

'Fraid I just couldn't vote. As much as I don't like it, they get to make policy on their own property.

This is an example of a law in which I like the outcome, but not the principle on which it is based. Like a smoking ban, for instance.

Then I'll ask you what I've asked others: Do you also favor eliminating health codes in food service businesses? Building and fire safety codes? Sanitation codes (no dumping raw sewage in your front yard)? Zoning ordinances? In fact anything which renders a piece of private property less than a fully sovereign nation with the owner being absolute monarch unrestricted even by treaty in what he or she can or cannot do? If the answer is "no" to any of those, then the question becomes simply where to draw the line?

In the case of guns in parked cars, private businesses already have government interference pushing them to forbid so the choice is not actually free. Consider: if they permit firearms and something bad happens they are likely to be the subject of lawsuits. That, in fact, is an argument given against passing the law but it applies now should any business allow the carrying of firearms. So, if a business allows firearms they are subject to liability from that decision.

Now, take the other side: they don't allow firearms. Do you know of even a single case where a crime happened at a business--or on the way to or from a business--to someone who could legally carry but didn't because of business rules successfully pursuing a suit for damages to the business owner for setting that policy? I don't know of one and even if any exist they are much less of a "threat" than the reverse.

So we have a business facing possible loss if they choose one way but being essentially immune from loss for choosing the other way. The effect is the business being "pushed" to choose one particular way by the government (since the courts, including civil courts, are part of the government).

Ideally, the fix would be to undo the pressure that's currently applied so that businesses either face the same legal risk either way: whether making businesses not liable for an employee "going postal" or making the businesses liable for people who are crime victims who might otherwise not be if company policy allowed them to keep arms. However realistically that's not going to happen.

SB25 does not require businesses to allow people to carry on their property--and it says nothing about ones home or other property at which one doesn't have employees. It only restricts businesses from forbidding employees who can otherwise do so from having firearms in their locked vehicles--said locked vehicles being the private property of the employee. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise on the issue of people being able to be armed when not on the business property while going to and from the business and between the business owner's right to decide whether people will be armed on his or her property.

 

[dross]

Then I'll ask you what I've asked others: Do you also favor eliminating health codes in food service businesses? Building and fire safety codes? Sanitation codes (no dumping raw sewage in your front yard)? Zoning ordinances? In fact anything which renders a piece of private property less than a fully sovereign nation with the owner being absolute monarch unrestricted even by treaty in what he or she can or cannot do? If the answer is "no" to any of those, then the question becomes simply where to draw the line?.

If you're asking if I'm against some of these things in principle, the answer is yes, I am.

1. Health codes? I think it could be solved with less government involvement, and I believe in the absence of regulation we might get safer food in restaurants. I'll explain, if you like.
2. Building and fire safety codes are different, since a fire in one place can easily spread to another. Again, I think the market might produce some interesting solutions if there was more room to operate.
3. Sanitation? No, if you dump sewage on your lawn, you affect people not on your lawn.

The government has an interest in regulation in those places that belong to all of us. The stream may run through my property, but if I dump into it, it ruins it for all the people downstream. This is the purpose of government.

In the case of guns in parked cars, private businesses already have government interference pushing them to forbid so the choice is not actually free. Consider: if they permit firearms and something bad happens they are likely to be the subject of lawsuits. That, in fact, is an argument given against passing the law but it applies now should any business allow the carrying of firearms. So, if a business allows firearms they are subject to liability from that decision.

Now, take the other side: they don't allow firearms. Do you know of even a single case where a crime happened at a business--or on the way to or from a business--to someone who could legally carry but didn't because of business rules successfully pursuing a suit for damages to the business owner for setting that policy? I don't know of one and even if any exist they are much less of a "threat" than the reverse.

So we have a business facing possible loss if they choose one way but being essentially immune from loss for choosing the other way. The effect is the business being "pushed" to choose one particular way by the government (since the courts, including civil courts, are part of the government)..

I agree with what you're saying here.

Ideally, the fix would be to undo the pressure that's currently applied so that businesses either face the same legal risk either way: whether making businesses not liable for an employee "going postal" or making the businesses liable for people who are crime victims who might otherwise not be if company policy allowed them to keep arms. However realistically that's not going to happen..

I understand this argument, and I see your point. The question becomes, how many of these things are we going to go along with?

SB25 does not require businesses to allow people to carry on their property--and it says nothing about ones home or other property at which one doesn't have employees. It only restricts businesses from forbidding employees who can otherwise do so from having firearms in their locked vehicles--said locked vehicles being the private property of the employee. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise on the issue of people being able to be armed when not on the business property while going to and from the business and between the business owner's right to decide whether people will be armed on his or her property.

You make a solid argument - as usual - and I'm not passionate in my disagreement on this issue.

I ask you, though: What in your argument couldn't be made by the smoking-ban proponents, especially as it concerns the employees of those businesses?

 

[versuchstier147]

I've got it to
Yes: 49.2%
No: 50.8%


You're welcome.

 

[dburkhead]

I ask you, though: What in your argument couldn't be made by the smoking-ban proponents, especially as it concerns the employees of those businesses?

Remember, I am not in favor of SB25 except as a counter to existing pressure coming viathe courts. Since that pressure is not going away any time soon, something like SB25 is necessary, IMO, to counter it.

When it comes to smoking bans, the pressure is already in the direction of banning smoking. There is already the threat of lawsuits by someone (an asthmatic say) going into a place where smoking is allowed and suing because they had an attack while a smoker isn't likely to get very far with a lawsuit for "pain and suffering" over withdrawal because smoking is prohibited. If anything my argument would lead toward laws requiring businesses to make accommodation for smokers to act as a counter to that pressure. And I say that as someone who not only doesn't smoke but has a bona fide allergy to the stuff.

 

[Bada Boom]

Done. Very close.

 

[Archbishop]

done 50% to 50% didn't pay attention to the total count, over 1k though.

 

[pinhead56]

I hit it and ditto on the 50 50 mark at 1037 votes

 

[bigcraig]

Its 50/50 with 1039 votes.

 

[HK45Mark23]

I transfered this to Glock Talk as well. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

 

[BUCK HINKLE]

How the hell is the vote this close 50.7--49.3 are you kidding me, with all the crazy stuff that happens. My boss knows I keep a gun in my office and working where i work till after 9:00 at night I would be dumb to not have one around..

 

[dross]

Remember, I am not in favor of SB25 except as a counter to existing pressure coming viathe courts. Since that pressure is not going away any time soon, something like SB25 is necessary, IMO, to counter it.

When it comes to smoking bans, the pressure is already in the direction of banning smoking. There is already the threat of lawsuits by someone (an asthmatic say) going into a place where smoking is allowed and suing because they had an attack while a smoker isn't likely to get very far with a lawsuit for "pain and suffering" over withdrawal because smoking is prohibited. If anything my argument would lead toward laws requiring businesses to make accommodation for smokers to act as a counter to that pressure. And I say that as someone who not only doesn't smoke but has a bona fide allergy to the stuff.

Your cocktail of two parts pragmatism mixed with one part ideology is quite tasty, I must admit. I'll sleep on it and check out the hangover tomorrow morning.

 

[dburkhead]

Your cocktail of two parts pragmatism mixed with one part ideology is quite tasty, I must admit. I'll sleep on it and check out the hangover tomorrow morning.

Three things that do one no good:

- A powerful gun that you aren't carrying because it's too big
- Ammunition that you are out of.
- The "perfect" law that you can never get passed.

I think if you take that as a chaser it might help with the hangover.

 

[DaveD]

Done at 2109 hrs

Yes @ 54.4%, No @ 45.8% Total votes 1217

 

[SavageEagle]

Done. Same as above but only a couple more votes than 1217. I think it was like 1219-20. I closed it out too fast.

 

[public servant]

So my car isn't my property? The road leading into the employer isn't theirs, but their rule disarms me there as well...

And as much as I'd like to see this pass...your property is still parked on their property. I dunno. Tough decision to make.

Would you be for them having a "no cigarettes in the car" rule...

Like the ban Morgan County has enacted if you have kids in the car?

 

[dburkhead]

54.6 Yes with 1223 votes