gun in locked car out of sight ok effective 01 july 2014

[jedi]

I know the law says this will be ok tomorrow on school property. What about the other gfz like a child care?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

HB1048 makes an exception for "school property".

Here's the bill: Indiana General Assembly - 2014 Session

 

[jedi]

Gggrrrr
Ok jedi master what is "school property" on a mobile can not access,search w very well

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is on page 3 of the bill in §2.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

(b) "School property", for purposes of IC 35-47-9, means a
24 building or other structure:
25 (1) owned or rented by:
26 (A) a school corporation;
27 (B) an entity that is required to be licensed under
28 IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27;
29 (C) a private school that is not supported and maintained
30 by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property,
31 income, or sales; or
32 (D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service
33 operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who
34 are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in
35 kindergarten, including a:
36 (i) Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.;
37 (ii) special education preschool program; or
38 (iii) developmental child care program for preschool
39 children; and
40 (2) that is being used exclusively by a school for a school
41 function.
42 The term does not include grounds adjacent to and owned or
2014 IN 1048—LS 6570/DI 694
1 rented in common with awith a building or other structure described in
2 this subsection.

 

[jedi]

Thanks

 

[Enkrypter]

This is the part that is a little difficult to read:

"Removes a provision from the law concerning firearms in locked vehicles that allows a person to adopt a policy or rule that prohibits an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition 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: (1) student discipline laws concerning possession of firearms; or (2) the law concerning possession of firearms on school property and school buses. Specifies that the law concerning firearms in locked vehicles does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from possessing a firearm or ammunition at the employer's residence."

Does this mean students who could legally own a firearm can also keep a weapon in the car as well? Does this means schools can't have crap in their handbook about firearms on school property in the parking lot?

And this last part?

"Specifies that the law concerning firearms in locked vehicles does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from possessing a firearm or ammunition at the employer's residence."

Who would this apply to and why? All I got is employers who run businesses out of their homes like hair stylists or maybe a backyard mechanic. Home based businesses?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Does this mean students who could legally own a firearm can also keep a weapon in the car as well?

No, school can still have their own policies.

oes this means schools can't have crap in their handbook about firearms on school property in the parking lot?

Id.

Who would this apply to and why? All I got is employers who run businesses out of their homes like hair stylists or maybe a backyard mechanic. Home based businesses?

I have a plumbing outfit up the road from me who operates from a shop on his property (nice set up too). However, what you say is correct, all guys who have businesses on their property--welders, mechanics, dance schools, martial arts instructors, whatever.

 

[Redhorse]

Thank you rep. Jim Lucas. Seriously guy who protects our gun rights.

 

[ModernGunner]

A step in the right direction, but hasn't gone far enough, yet.

NO business should be allowed to have a 'law', rule, or policy that prohibits lawful carry in or on the property of that business. IF that business allows customers in / on their property, the same 'rules and regs' should apply as when lawfully carrying 'on the street'.

That should really be the next step.

 

[Denny347]

A step in the right direction, but hasn't gone far enough, yet.

NO business should be allowed to have a 'law', rule, or policy that prohibits lawful carry in or on the property of that business. IF that business allows customers in / on their property, the same 'rules and regs' should apply as when lawfully carrying 'on the street'.

That should really be the next step.

You mean a PRIVATE business should not be allowed to make that choice for themselves?

 

[lonehoosier]

Well this thread just got derailed.

 

[KLB]

A step in the right direction, but hasn't gone far enough, yet.

NO business should be allowed to have a 'law', rule, or policy that prohibits lawful carry in or on the property of that business. IF that business allows customers in / on their property, the same 'rules and regs' should apply as when lawfully carrying 'on the street'.

That should really be the next step.

You are all about using the .gov to make people do what you want. The government should stay the hell out of it. If a business does not want my business, that is their prerogative. I no more want this kind of law than I am in favor of the no smoking laws, and I HATE smoking.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A step in the right direction, but hasn't gone far enough, yet.

NO business should be allowed to have a 'law', rule, or policy that prohibits lawful carry in or on the property of that business. IF that business allows customers in / on their property, the same 'rules and regs' should apply as when lawfully carrying 'on the street'.

That should really be the next step.

You mean a PRIVATE business should not be allowed to make that choice for themselves?

You can't have it both ways. Companies should have freedom to decide which benefits they're going offer in their compensation packages and they should be able to dictate the activities and behaviors of the guests on their properties.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You mean a PRIVATE business should not be allowed to make that choice for themselves?

PRIVATE businesses do not have a right to discriminate, correct?

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Next steps? There is much to do, but I think relegalization of SBS, changes to the tax code (making training tax deductible) and making the LCTH an exemption to no go zones should take priority.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Next steps? There is much to do, but I think relegalization of SBS, changes to the tax code (making training tax deductible) and making the LCTH an exemption to no go zones should take priority.

The first two should be fairly straight forward. That last one......will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Enkrypter]

Yeah, I'd like to see de-regulation of SBS's and SBR's. A gun is a gun is a gun IMO. You can own an AR pistol no problems, but throw a stock on it and now you need a tax stamp?

I'd also like to see legalized big bore air rifle hunting in Indiana for deer.

 

[Redhorse]

You guys want to discuss the next steps which should be allowing the right to carry on state property, public colleges namely. State representatives and senators can carry on state property and we can't? BS What's good for them is good for us. Finally, allowing carry at the state fair would be the right step.

Why worry about the same old private property rights vs. self defense rights crap when we should be concerned with all these PUBLICLY owned properties banning the right to carry.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I want to go find a school and lock my gun in my car just for the hell of it.