Gov Daniels signs the work guns bill

[JBusch8899]

Does the new law specifically say that your car must be "locked" ?

The expressed prohibition for one to not secure hazardous, or potentially dangerous objects?

I'm thinking, yes. However, a search of the IC and court opinions for specifics would take a couple hours, that I don't have now.

 

[pudly]

Standard disclaimers. IANAL, yada, yada. But based on my reading...

This is great news. Now, I can legally keep my gun locked in my car while at work or at school. Now, if only they would allow me to CC my .22 SA at work.

Afraid not. Work is probably okay (there are some exceptions even for work). You are definitely barred if you are a student at the school. The only possible case where you are allowed is if you are an employee and only if the school does not prohibit it.

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;
(5) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));

Does the new law specifically say that your car must be "locked" ?

It appears that it is not explicitly required if the firearm is locked in your trunk, but otherwise the vehicle must be locked.

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.

You can read everything that was changed yourself here:
HB 1065

The bill made changes to a number of Indiana Codes (ICs), so if you want to read them as they were inserted into the various codes, you will have to start here and drill down to to different sections that were amended.

 

[Que]

Not at school, unfortunately.

You are right. Let me clarify...I am a student, but also an employee of the University, so I should have said just work.

 

[JetGirl]

NO, This is just saying that IF you are LEGEL to carry a gun in the state of Indiana you are protected from employers firing you for having a gun in your car.

But since we're an "At will" work state, they can just pick another reason.

 

[JBusch8899]

But since we're an "At will" work state, they can just pick another reason.

Yep. I can't fire you for the hunting rifle in the trunk of your car, but I can for no reason.......or even the political bumpersticker you have pasted your window.

 

[JetGirl]

Yep. I can't fire you for the hunting rifle in the trunk of your car, but I can for no reason.......or even the political bumpersticker you have pasted your window.

'Zactly.

 

[The Meach]

Yep. I can't fire you for the hunting rifle in the trunk of your car, but I can for no reason.......or even the political bumpersticker you have pasted your window.

But then it wouldn't be for "just cause" and they have start handing out unemployment benefits.

 

[edsinger]

I am glad the bill passed but I am weary also. Does this not TRUMP property rights? I happen to work for one that has no GUNS marked, but is a very good company to work for. I have respected it, but wondered why...

My car is mine, but I WORK for them. They are not antigun by ANY means, but it makes you wonder.

 

[Joe Williams]

I am glad the bill passed but I am weary also. Does this not TRUMP property rights? I happen to work for one that has no GUNS marked, but is a very good company to work for. I have respected it, but wondered why...

My car is mine, but I WORK for them. They are not antigun by ANY means, but it makes you wonder.

It protects the property rights of the employees, who should not have to allow their employers access to private property simply for a job.

 

[JBusch8899]

I am glad the bill passed but I am weary also. Does this not TRUMP property rights? I happen to work for one that has no GUNS marked, but is a very good company to work for. I have respected it, but wondered why...

My car is mine, but I WORK for them. They are not antigun by ANY means, but it makes you wonder.

You may work for the company, but your right to self defense, or for that matter, the possession of an entirely legal product is not suspended by your travel to and from work.

Employers don't have an obligation to provide parking to its employees, but it can't just arbitrarily deny a benefit to one offered to the rest of the employees, simply for the exercise of one's rights. It that were the case, anyone who had a political bumpersticker on their car, could be prohibited for their exercise guaranteed under 1A.

A huge slippery slope.

 

[miguel]

This may legally not be the case, but I personally think the property rights of a living, breathing person -- a citizen -- should trump the property rights of a legally constituted entity -- a corporation.

My two cents!

 

[JBusch8899]

This may legally not be the case, but I personally think the property rights of a living, breathing person -- a citizen -- should trump the property rights of a legally constituted entity -- a corporation.

My two cents!

You are entirely correct that individual liberties, granted to man by the rule of God, rightfully outweighs the liberties of a legally constituted entity, granted by the rule of law by man.

 

[skseifert]

Now I can't wait to see how the corporate lawyers at my employer decide to interpret this law. I for one a very pleased it passed and am proud of Gov. Daniels for his comments concerning our constitution rights.

 

[dburkhead]

Go back and read my original post. See the part I stated about qualified to certain conditions? I didn't think that I had to repeat that part when I repeated in my subsequent thread of having to transport within the trunk of the car.

Edit: Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body. Simply stated, it can't be available to you while in the car. That is why it must be transported in the prescribed manner.

"In any vehicle or on or about the person's body."
Two different criteria, either one of which is sufficient to make the handgun illegal. One criterion, "In any vehicle." The other criterion "on or about the persons body."

It does not have to be in a vehicle to be illegal from "on or about the person's body." And it does not have to be "on or about the person's body" to be illegal in a vehicle. Either, individually, is sufficient.

In the trunk is still in the vehicle, ergo still illegal.

Note that the case Ciyou cites in Indiana Handgun Law about "ready access" was not in the trunk of a car but in a rental storage unit. The book does not address the issue of carry in a car except in the "secure wrapper" aspect of transporting from ones dwelling to fixed place of business, etc.

 

[sporter]

You always could, according to the law, and of course qualified to certain conditions. A handgun must be unloaded and secured within the trunk of your car if you do not have a LTCH.

Please site the IC with the pistol in the trunk of car clause.

 

[JBusch8899]

In the trunk is still in the vehicle, ergo still illegal.

Yes, unless specifically exempted by the aforementioned criteria that I referenced within my first post. As such, it avoids becoming "on or about" a person's physical body, that is, unless the unlicensed person is in the trunk itself.

 

[dburkhead]

Yes, unless specifically exempted by the aforementioned criteria that I referenced within my first post. As such, it avoids becoming "on or about" a person's physical body, that is, unless the unlicensed person is in the trunk itself.

Except there is no exemption for in the trunk. On or about the person's body or in a vehicle. If in a vehicle it does not have to be on or about a person's body. If on or about a person's body it does not have to be in a vehicle. Those are two, separate, independent criteria.

This isn't even law. This is grade school grammar: the difference between "or" and "and".

 

[miguel]

Is it me or are most people overlooking the other aspect of HB 1065 -- the no confiscating of firearms during an "emergency" part?

 

[Joe Williams]

Is it me or are most people overlooking the other aspect of HB 1065 -- the no confiscating of firearms during an "emergency" part?

And the fact that neither the state or local governments can prohibit the sale of firearms or ammo!!!

 

[WeAreNotAlone]

Is it me or are most people overlooking the other aspect of HB 1065 -- the no confiscating of firearms during an "emergency" part?

RE: HB 1065 --= the no confiscating of firearms during an "emergency"


If that's in there, that's a good thing.


.