"Guns in the Workplace" Lawsuit Filed

[GuyRelford]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, the Law Offices of Guy A. Relford filed the first-ever lawsuit under Indiana's "Guns in the Workplace" statutes, Ind. Code 34-28-7-2 and Ind. Code 34-28-8-6, which became effective July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2011, respectively.

Ind. Code 34-28-7-2 prohibits most employers from having a policy that prevents employees from having a firearm locked in the employees' vehicle out of sight. Ind. Code 34-28-8-6 prohibits most employers from having a policy that requires employees to disclose whether they own, possess, use or transport firearms.

Our lawsuit may be viewed by visiting www.relfordlaw.com and clicking on the "Press Releases" button at the top of the page.

Guy

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Hope you win big!

 

[bobzilla]

Go Get 'em Guy!

 

[Rikkrack]

Watching this close! Good luck!

 

[Skywired]

Make 'em pay, Guy!!

 

[Captain Morgan]

Good to hear it.

Now, if we could just do something about allowing CC, at minimum, for those of us that work for the federal government. Fortunately, where I work, the building is also leased by a non-government entity and the parking lot is not official government property. Therefore, I'm permitted to have a firearm in my car. However, I have to make weekly "field calls" and am not permitted to have the gun (or a knife, or pepperspray, or any kind of weapon) in my car or on my person because of federal laws. Frankly, I think this is absolutely ridiculous, especially due to some of the areas I am required to visit. I can understand they don't want us to open carry because they don't want to worry about us "intimidating" the people we must contact, but to prevent us from having the ability to protect ourselves in the event of a situation arising is pretty stupid. And as the country and economy decline more, there is a greater likelihood of this happening. Yeah, I know, find a different job... If it were only that easy to find one in this town that paid as well.

 

[TopDog]

This case is going to be interesting. Looking forward to following this thread. Good luck to Guy and the plaintiff, Thomas.

 

[alexanjl12]

Go get them Guy!!

not trying to here, but i was not aware of "Code 34-28-8-6 prohibits most employers from having a policy that requires employees to disclose whether they own, possess, use or transport firearms"

Is it illegal if it is their policy that you have to inform building security if you will be keeping a weapon in your vehicle on company property?

 

[GuyRelford]

Go get them Guy!!

not trying to here, but i was not aware of "Code 34-28-8-6 prohibits most employers from having a policy that requires employees to disclose whether they own, possess, use or transport firearms"

Is it illegal if it is their policy that you have to inform building security if you will be keeping a weapon in your vehicle on company property?

Yep. Here's the statute (pardon the formatting):

A public or private employer doing business inIndiana may not:​

(1) require an applicant foremployment or an employee to discloseinformation about whether the applicantor employee owns, possesses, uses, or transportsa firearm or ammunition, unless the disclosureconcerns the possession, use, or transportationof a firearm or ammunition that is usedin fulfilling the duties of the employment of theindividual; or​

(2) condition employment, or anyrights, benefits, privileges, oropportunities offered by the employment,upon an agreement that the applicant foremployment or the employee forego the:​

(A) rights of the applicant or employee under this chapter; or​

(B) otherwise lawful:​

(i) ownership;​

(ii) possession;​

(iii) storage;​

(iv) transportation; or​

(v) use;​

of a firearm or ammunition.​

 

[Classic Liberal]

It's most pathetic this has to be applied toward a security company. Must be liberal owned.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Don't get me wrong, I am a big advocate of employers staying the heck out of my car. I will even tell them to stay the heck out of my pockets too. The gun-nut that I have worked for the last 20 years made it easy to be that kind of a hard case anyway.

With that being said, I have read all over this site that "if it's their place it's their rules". Now when this is being said it is usually being said about a place of business where we would be customers. (I ignore those rules also) How are we having it both ways? Why can I defy an employers liberal anti gun demands but not a shopkeeper's same demands? And if I can keep a gun in my car, why is my pants any less my personal property? If an employer is legally obligated to stay out of my trunk or glove box, then how come he can get right into my pockets with impunity?

Just asking.

 

[GuyRelford]

Why can I defy an employers liberal anti gun demands but not a shopkeeper's same demands?

Because there's a statute that says so.

 

[88GT]

Don't get me wrong, I am a big advocate of employers staying the heck out of my car. I will even tell them to stay the heck out of my pockets too. The gun-nut that I have worked for the last 20 years made it easy to be that kind of a hard case anyway.

With that being said, I have read all over this site that "if it's their place it's their rules". Now when this is being said it is usually being said about a place of business where we would be customers. (I ignore those rules also) How are we having it both ways? Why can I defy an employers liberal anti gun demands but not a shopkeeper's same demands? And if I can keep a gun in my car, why is my pants any less my personal property? If an employer is legally obligated to stay out of my trunk or glove box, then how come he can get right into my pockets with impunity?

Just asking.

Because there's a statute that says so.

Yep, there's a statute providing the legal grounds. It just doesn't cover the philosophical contradictory chasm that's at least a country mile wide.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Because there's a statute that says so.

"Shall not be infringed" should cover all of these situations, but it doesn't seem to. Isn't "a statute that says so." considered Infringement also? What I mean is this is a law passed on a subject where no laws beyond "Shall not be infringed" are legal or necessary. Why is embracing your law a proper course? By accepting a law that helps your cause aren't you giving credibility to the other laws that restrict your position? There should be no laws infringing arms. Isn't going after the foundation a more reasonable action?

I am not going against what you are doing, I honestly don't understand. Again, I am just asking.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

Go Guy !!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You'll, imagine the philosophy of the law as "should" and "is". Think of two separate railroad tracks.

As to employers there is ("is" track) a positive statute. Something we can all point it "in the books".

As to a shopkeeper, we may someday have a Heart of Atlanta or Bivens style constitutional tort ("should" track), but that will take legislation or a Supreme Court decision a la Bivens.

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

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ssblair]

I'm no lawyer, but I rationalize it philosophically on a few grounds:

1. Your vehicle is considered in many other jurisdictions and many other legal evaluations as an extension of your home (4th Amendment protections, anyone?)
2. What you wear to work is variably determined by your employer--ie. your employer determines appropriate dress code for where you work, so they could legitimately say "No ma'am, you cannot wear an AR15 over your shoulder while you wait tables at Hooters."
3. Business owners and private property owners are entitled to request that you "not carry" in their stores, buildings, etc and they can ask you to leave and have you held for trespassing, but they do not have economic leverage over you that your employer has. Employers, having that additional leverage, are in a position to coerce employees into effectively forfeiting their Rights, which would be in conflict with the laws that guarantee those Rights. And employers have done this.
4. Nearly everybody economically needs to be 'employed', so "opting out" of an employer that is hostile to people having firearms in their vehicles is a difficult thing (hence their leverage).
5. There are many lawful uses for firearms both before and after the workday, and there are enough people out there that it would be a major inconvenience (if not impossibility) for them to drop their firearm off at home before work, and pick it up again after work. Not to mention that this would effectively deny the lawful exercise of people's Right to self defense outside of those working hours, disenfranchising those with long commutes.

From what little I've read on this topic in other posts, I hope the guy gets a payday worth a couple years to find himself a new employer.

 

[jeremy]

Interesting...

 

[AndersonIN]

Wow and to put it into an email to his employees. Just how "I'm defying the law" can one person be? Doesn't sound real bright to me.

Got to love them liberals that think...."You're not smart enough to have a weapon unless I say you're smart enough to have a weapon and then I can tell you when you're no longer smart enough to carry that weapon until I need you to carry it again....to make ME money!!!" LOL

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Thanks kirk, for the links. I am just trying to figure out what's going on here.

ssblair, I would like to be as secure in my person as I am in my home. As I read the state constitution it seems that I should be, yet plainly I am not.

The more laws we enact the worse off we are getting. The weight of legislation is weighing our rights down when no laws are proper or needed.

I don't understand any of it.