"Guns in the Workplace" Lawsuit Filed

[bobzilla]

I don't understand any of it.

Welcome to Gov't.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

For those who don't know, this was filled by a fellow INGO member.

http://https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/the_legislation_of_the_2nd_amendment/233802-going_to_war_fired_in_violation_of_senate_bill_411_passing-18.html

 

[hacksawfg]

No lawyer, but I'm guessing it's going to be hard to litigate these cases where employers aren't total idiots and leave a trail. They'll probably just leave it unspoken, like not hiring pregnant people because of FMLA, etc.

Good luck, though, this one seems pretty open and shut.

 

[Jzim]

I'm sure someone else works up at the mill. From what I've been told they search every 10th car coming through the guardhouse. My department doesn't have a guard house so I've never had a problem, but I feel like that might be infringing on some right...?

 

[AndersonIN]

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.

They NOW have you EXACTLY where they want you!!! That way they can make it say anything they want to...............that is ONLY if Guy isn't on your side!!!

 

[BigMoose]

The fact they withheld his last check is stupid enough. That is cut and dry and they will get roasted good over that. I don't need to see the other sides case after hearing this. Anyone that stupid deserves to be taken to court.

 

[Hammerhead]

Guy Relford for President.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[SmileDocHill]

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.

I think, and I may be wrong, I may see where you are getting confused. I'm not a lawyer so my logic may be entirely wrong. Since I'm not a lawyer, though, I think I understand your question from a different perspective.
In overly general terms I think the principals behind the laws can be boiled down as follows...
The constitution and 2A recognize, spell out, and ID your rights but that is in the context of the relationship between citizens and the citizen government.
The government is not, however, the only authority a person may be under at any given time. As a guest, customer, employee, or otherwise non-owner entering or existing on privately owned property I should (and to a big extent legally have to) respect the wishes of the property owner (employer). If property owner rights didn't exist like this then mob rule, gov., or someone other than YOU are going to be able to tell you what you can or can't do or allow on your property.

The problem arises when a property owner makes a rule about how people should behave on the owners property (no problem so far) that results in having a huge affect on how the guests behave beyond the property.
If a rule has an affect that controls the behavior of others beyond the "jurisdiction" of the rule maker then there is an issue.

In the case of the parking lot law, owners were saying " it is my property here is my rule...no guns blah blah blah". The problem is that by abiding by that rule you were forced to be limited in your behavior not only at work but on the way to and from work. The parking lot law was made to solve the problem of employers making gun rules that affected employees behavior beyond the scope of a business or property owner.

It basically says look, even though the parking lot is your private property, if you prevent employees from having guns in their car you have caused them to be without elsewhere also. It is a little bit not right that we (the law) are telling you to allow this on your property but it would be more not right for you to control their actions beyond their employment, so here is how it is going to work..enter the law here.

They added the law that prevents employers from being able to even ask about guns to keep employers from gaming the system and firing people (for other official reasons of course) for having them. If you don't want them to know you have them it should be really hard for them to legally find out.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

There is a point somewhere of tranquility between firearms owners and employers. This is a common ground of preservation and self defense that we must find. Business Owners have the right to protect their employees and businesses, but the employee's also have the right to self defense and preservation of life to and from work.

These laws were an attempt to bridge those common grounds into an Im Ok you're OK situation. Firearms owners did not feel defenseless in their travels to and from work, Business owners were still allowed to keep firearms out of the physical workplace; and were covered from liability as well specifically.

Some business owners have embraced the concept and others through ignorance and/or willful disregard have refused to adapt to the new laws.

This lawsuit is hopefully the last building block in the quest for tranquility amongst employers and firearm owning employee's. Its time to open the eyes and educate those left holding out. I am Ok and they will be too.

 

[daedrian]

There is a point somewhere of tranquility between firearms owners and employers. This is a common ground of preservation and self defense that we must find. Business Owners have the right to protect their employees and businesses, but the employee's also have the right to self defense and preservation of life to and from work.

These laws were an attempt to bridge those common grounds into an Im Ok you're OK situation. Firearms owners did not feel defenseless in their travels to and from work, Business owners were still allowed to keep firearms out of the physical workplace; and were covered from liability as well specifically.

Some business owners have embraced the concept and others through ignorance and/or willful disregard have refused to adapt to the new laws.

This lawsuit is hopefully the last building block in the quest for tranquility amongst employers and firearm owning employee's. Its time to open the eyes and educate those left holding out. I am Ok and they will be too.

Very well said I think.

On a related note, I've noticed that several of the warehouses that seem to be popping up all around Hendricks county have signs posted at their entrances that they do not allow firearms on the premises. I would assume they include the parking lot, since most of the parking lots are fenced in.

 

[daddymikey1975]

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

Guy

Go get 'em !!

Tagging for updates

 

[rgrimm01]

It looks to me that in (2), if you waive this protection as a condition of hire, you get no benefit of the law? If one wants the job, one would waive their right under the law?

 

[singlestacksig]

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...his-car?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

 

[templar223]

Go Get 'em Guy!

Ditto.

We're in good hands with people like Guy on our side!

John

 

[jon5212]

^^^ If thats what happened... thats not going to help at all.

And Off topic, Guy, did you happen to be in the crystal flash today or now I guess its the circle K at 106th and college?

 

[GuyRelford]

And Off topic, Guy, did you happen to be in the crystal flash today or now I guess its the circle K at 106th and college?

Nope - some other big bald Guy.

 

[themadmedic]

 

[Mike.B]

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

My work violates these policies. They tell you that you have to fill out a form with the "safety officer". With them it is more like filling out your resignation.

 

[Bill B]

I'm sure someone else works up at the mill. From what I've been told they search every 10th car coming through the guardhouse. My department doesn't have a guard house so I've never had a problem, but I feel like that might be infringing on some right...?

Depending on where and which mill, some of them are MARSEC areas and thus no-go for firearms.