Gov Daniels signs the work guns bill

[jsgolfman]

"Additionally, I didn't realize this entire thread was dedicated persons residing, travelling, etc. exclusively within the state of Indiana. This is the reason the subsequent and whole post stated "limited circumstances" when referring to FOPA."

How could you not know this, unless you didn't read the bill?

 

[opus1776]

Oooooh. I see a

in the future....

======================================

"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss

You can NEVER be too rich or too thin.

Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours...

 

[CarmelHP]

If I remember correctly you're a lawyer, are you not?

Shhhhhhhsssssshhhh

 

[rhino]

I tried to throw the switch, but I think it was long after the train had passed me!

Oooooh. I see a

in the future....

======================================

"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss

You can NEVER be too rich or too thin.

Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours...

 

[sporter]

Dude, you're wrong. The others had posted the pertinent portions of the Indiana Code and tried to help you see, so I won't add to that.

I'm getting the sense that you've painted yourself into a corner and too prideful to admit that you're wrong. That's unfortunate, but getting snappish isn't going to change that you're wrong.

If you are an attorney, you may wish to reconsider professions. If you're a law student, you may wish to study a bit more. If you're neither and just stubborn, you may wish to consider that it's possible you are wrong (because you are). This is going to end in a much more positive manner if you can find the strength to reexamine your position and accept the truth that was shown to you.

Good luck.

 

[IndyBeerman]

If I remember correctly you're a lawyer, are you not?

Shhhhhhhsssssshhhh

I thought you was a lawyer with a little more authority.



JBusch8899, ever get the feeling that you're

Now could we get back on topic, it WAS about Our man Mitch signing HEA 1065 into law right??

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not sure what your point is here. I don't think that anyone is questioning that for any exemption to apply under Indiana law that the firearm has to be securely wrapped and inaccessible (both had their convictions upheld by the way). It's the other requirements that are not met. Taking a gun from home to drive to work to lock the gun in your car because you cannot possess it within your fixed place of business does not comply with the statutory exceptions to having a LTCH while transporting. Sorry, it just doesn't.

Carmel, based on this statement, a quasi-hypothetical comes to mind: I could be mistaken, but IIRC, we have a member who lives in the NW corner of the state, who travels through IL transporting a child to school, and works here in IN. I do not know if the following is applicable in reality, but for the moment, let's call it accurate for the purpose of my question.

If this member is traveling through IL to drop the child off at school there and continuing on to his workplace in IN, if I understand correctly, he may carry on his person up to the state line, pull over and exit the vehicle, lock the pistol, with magazine removed and chambered round ejected, in the trunk, cross into IL to drop off the child (not exiting the vehicle, so there is no stop in his travel--he's still operating the vehicle) and then continue his trip on back across into IN, where he can re-holster his re-loaded firearm.

(and actually, I realized as I typed this, it would seem he could put the pistol in his trunk (secure wrapper, unloaded, yadda yadda) at home, make the same trip by the daughter's school and arriving at his fixed place of business in IN, where he could remove it into his workplace (a store he owns) even without a LTCH)

Have I interpreted this correctly, or would the pulling up to the school and braking the car to a full stop so the child can exit safely be considered an interrupted trip, negating FOPA?

Thanks for the review!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LEO IN TRAINING]

i agree with trad78 gives me an opputunity to buy another gun, but on the serious note just hope everyone can control themselves and problems are not caused by this bill...hopefully we might see IL get a gun policy set for the state with a carry permit, i know im asking a lot like the CUBS are trying for the World Series this year...

 

[glock2010]

great news this is sweet...... cant wait to carry on the job now

 

[pudly]

great news this is sweet...... cant wait to carry on the job now

Whoa!! Hold on there partner. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with carrying on the job. It is about being able to bring a firearm with you while you are driving back and forth to work and not being forced to be a victim outside the home. The key thing is that it says that you can store it out of sight in your locked vehicle and the company cannot fire you. There are a number of limitations.

There is nothing in the bill that says that you can carry into work unless the management is okay with it. Please do the reading and understand the law. Keep safe.

 

[2cool9031]

Way to Go Mitch!

 

[CarmelHP]

Carmel, based on this statement, a quasi-hypothetical comes to mind: I could be mistaken, but IIRC, we have a member who lives in the NW corner of the state, who travels through IL transporting a child to school, and works here in IN. I do not know if the following is applicable in reality, but for the moment, let's call it accurate for the purpose of my question.

If this member is traveling through IL to drop the child off at school there and continuing on to his workplace in IN, if I understand correctly, he may carry on his person up to the state line, pull over and exit the vehicle, lock the pistol, with magazine removed and chambered round ejected, in the trunk, cross into IL to drop off the child (not exiting the vehicle, so there is no stop in his travel--he's still operating the vehicle) and then continue his trip on back across into IN, where he can re-holster his re-loaded firearm.

(and actually, I realized as I typed this, it would seem he could put the pistol in his trunk (secure wrapper, unloaded, yadda yadda) at home, make the same trip by the daughter's school and arriving at his fixed place of business in IN, where he could remove it into his workplace (a store he owns) even without a LTCH)

Have I interpreted this correctly, or would the pulling up to the school and braking the car to a full stop so the child can exit safely be considered an interrupted trip, negating FOPA?

Thanks for the review!

Blessings,
Bill

I recall a member who got into a heated debate, who worked in IL and believed FOPA would protect him going to work in IL, then driving home later, which is obviously wrong. Same with the school trip, if you are doing anything else in the state other than things incidental to "traveling," you fall out of FOPA protection. In the scenario you described the purpose of the trip IS the school dropoff, not traveling. See this:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...across_state_lines_question-2.html#post282378

 

[Bill of Rights]

I recall a member who got into a heated debate, who worked in IL and believed FOPA would protect him going to work in IL, then driving home later, which is obviously wrong. Same with the school trip, if you are doing anything else in the state other than things incidental to "traveling," you fall out of FOPA protection. In the scenario you described the purpose of the trip IS the school dropoff, not traveling. See this:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...across_state_lines_question-2.html#post282378

I kind of see the parallel, however if he was doing business with a client, his trip stopped and he exited his vehicle. Conversely, in the example I gave, I could see the argument made that the purpose of the trip was to go to work (in Indiana) but on the way to work, he dropped his kid off at school, (coming to a stop, as one would at a red light, but not ceasing the process of driving the car.)

Regardless, I appreciate your input in reply to my question. Thanks!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

Conversely, in the example I gave, I could see the argument made that the purpose of the trip was to go to work (in Indiana) but on the way to work, he dropped his kid off at school, (coming to a stop, as one would at a red light, but not ceasing the process of driving the car.)

Remember this quote from the case:

Since the statute suspends the operation of a state's penal law, it should be strictly construed. Any activity by the owner in the state passed through for a purpose unrelated to accomplishing the passage forfeits the protection of the federal law

Is there some reason he would pass through IL going from point to point in Indiana? And I find it hard to believe that dropping off at the school required no detour. Remember, it's not the position of your body in relation to your car, it's your activity and purpose. Dropping the kid off without getting out of the car is a purpose or activity unrelated to the trip. You can get out of your car, stopping to sleep at a motel for the night because you're too tired to drive, and still be FOPA covered because that activity is incidental to accomplishing the trip. The school scenario bears no incidental relationship to the trip.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Remember this quote from the case:

Is there some reason he would pass through IL going from point to point in Indiana? And I find it hard to believe that dropping off at the school required no detour. Remember, it's not the position of your body in relation to your car, it's your activity and purpose. Dropping the kid off without getting out of the car is a purpose or activity unrelated to the trip. You can get out of your car, stopping to sleep at a motel for the night because you're too tired to drive, and still be FOPA covered because that activity is incidental to accomplishing the trip. The school scenario bears no incidental relationship to the trip.

Really?? I was given to understand that the trip had to be continuous and uninterrupted...excepting circumstances such as mechanical failure and/or fuel stops... interesting.

Thanks once again.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bman]

great news

 

[DragonGunner]

At my work they have a written policy of no guns on the property or
you will be fired....now we have this bill an I would assmue it trumps
the policy on July first....however at the Indy Gun show yesterday, my
son bought a book about Indiana Handgun Laws...we talked to the lady
about the new law passing about being able to have guns on work property.
She gave the impression that this may not be so clear cut, an until someone
did, an or got fired to bring it to court, it was unsure what the final verdict
is going to be........? It sounds like a war is coming, do we have the law on
our side or don't we....?

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

In response to the latest in a continuing string of defeats, The Brady Campaign Against Freedom, Self Defense and Common Sense's Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke issued the following statement regarding the passage of Indiana Bill 1065:

"WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!"