HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

The HR Manager at my work said she is already prepared to re-write the employee hand book and will be removing "the no gun policy" on company grounds -tee hee

 

[SSGSAD]

I already called today and asked him to sign it.

Me too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SSGSAD]

Ok, indy 317, here it is, I have the right, responsibility, whatever you want to call it, to protect myself, on the way to and from work... if I get carjacked, attacked, or whatever, who do I sue, or my family, sue if I am not around to do so.....

 

[Indy317]

Ok, indy 317, here it is, I have the right, responsibility, whatever you want to call it, to protect myself, on the way to and from work... if I get carjacked, attacked, or whatever, who do I sue, or my family, sue if I am not around to do so.....

No one. You have the right to sit in your home 24/7, barricaded with as many guns as you want. I also have the right not to be carjacked, attacked, whatever...does this mean if this happens (me carrying a gun doesn't mean this can't happen), that I get to sue you and your family because you failed to pay enough taxes to provide me enough police in your hometown? Do I get to sue your local cops for failing to protect me? Do I get to sue a business owner because they located their business, thus my job, in the ghetto and that forced me to drive through a dangerous neighborhood? You and others paint gun owners/carriers as sue happy types, so you are proving my point. I locate by business in a rough area, you get to bring your gun to my parking lot, it gets stolen, and then you sue me for failing to provide enough security for the lot.

Your attitude proves _exactly_ why I would be buying more insurance and saving up for a legal defense fund, and passing those costs onto my employees. Having a gun means nothing, it only gives you an additional option. Using the logic that an employer is liable is laughable. But, this is exactly why I could never stand opening a business. I don't care if it was proven to me that I would be promised a good wage, able to gainfully employee a good # of people at a good wage, and have it easy...it is just too much risk for the unknown that is future regulation of my property. If you think you should be able to sue an employer for not letting you bring your gun to work and keep it _in your car_, then that means there are other employees who will sue because they aren't allowed to _carry_ their guns during work. Sue, sue, sue...that is exactly my issue with this law. Again, not a big deal, I would do what I needed to do to protect me and mine. The costs would be passed onto my employees. I don't feel my customers should take on the additional costs when the benefit the government mandated goes to the employees.

Incidents will happen. I don't care how much of a chance there is of certain acts occurring, the fact is I don't trust the government to back me. The idea that we should always keep constant watch on government, but in _this_ case, a business owner should just trust the immunity clause and the government has their back is laughable.

Oh look, someone just went and got a gun from his car and shot at co-workers:

State worker opens fire on co-workers

PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) - Police say an Indiana Department of Workforce Development auditor who had just received a poor job review shot at co-workers at the agency's office in Portage.

Sgt. Keith Hughes says the 60-year-old man became upset during his job review Friday and told his supervisor he needed to go to his car. After he retrieved a shotgun, a manager locked the front door and ordered the other 15 employees to the rear of the office.

___________________________________

Thankfully no one was hurt. I wonder if he had a permit? I wonder if he would have shot someone, if the state would have been liable for not allowing employees to carry their own handguns and/or long guns to work?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Indy317 -

I am conflicted on this bill. As Bill of Rights has pointed out, two freedoms are kind of at a crossroads here. That's what makes it tough. Property rights on one side vs. RKBA on the other.

On the RKBA side, I understand why employees should be allowed to at least have things locked in their car.

On the property rights side, I totally see your argument. I am a business owner and a landlord.

Part of the problem is that many people cannot see the vision that you have shown. You seem able to "walk in the shoes" of the business owner. To many people (even on this board), the "business owner" is a faceless, soul-less corporation. To me, a "business owner" is decidedly NOT faceless and soul-less!

The flip side is also true - there are a LOT of faceless and soul-less corporations out there that look at their employees as mere chattel. So for them, the legal liability trumps the individual right and need for self protection.

So that's what makes this law a tough one - and I'm honestly conflicted. If I take the RKBA side - I'm saying that business owners cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and that warrants infringing on their property rights to accommodate forcing them to do the right thing. If I take the Property rights side - then I'm saying the reverse - that the business owner generally does the right thing, and that we should err on the side of infringing the 2nd Amendment in favor of the property rights.


What's really needed is less legislation and more common sense. BOTH sides need to remember that the other side consists of REAL human beings. With rights. And feelings. And then these issues might not need to come down to lawyerball...

At my company - we carry whenever we choose to! And I have no fear of anyone "going postal." Why? Because I _try_ to treat people decently. Currently only have immediate family on the payroll - but that has not always been the case.

Unfortunately - I see more bad behavior from the corporate side. So I _lean_ towards the RKBA argument. If companies treated people more reasonably, however, this would be a non-issue. And that would be the best course of all.

 

[antsi]

Oh look, someone just went and got a gun from his car and shot at co-workers:

State worker opens fire on co-workers

PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) - Police say an Indiana Department of Workforce Development auditor who had just received a poor job review shot at co-workers at the agency's office in Portage.

Sgt. Keith Hughes says the 60-year-old man became upset during his job review Friday and told his supervisor he needed to go to his car. After he retrieved a shotgun, a manager locked the front door and ordered the other 15 employees to the rear of the office.

Oh, Heavens! It must be the result of the "everyone can have guns in their cars at work law!"

If only employers had the power to fire people who have guns in their cars, this never would have happened!

We need to repeal this "guns to work" law immediately!

Oh, wait....

 

[sporter]

No one. You have the right to sit in your home 24/7 (We also have the right to keep and bear arms in this country which is not limited to our property) barricaded with as many guns as you want. I also have the right not to be carjacked, attacked, whatever...does this mean if this happens (me carrying a gun doesn't mean this can't happen), that I get to sue you and your family because you failed to pay enough taxes to provide me enough police in your hometown? Do I get to sue your local cops for failing to protect me? Do I get to sue a business owner because they located their business, thus my job, in the ghetto and that forced me to drive through a dangerous neighborhood? You and others paint gun owners/carriers as sue happy types, so you are proving my point. I locate by business in a rough area, you get to bring your gun to my parking lot, it gets stolen, and then you sue me for failing to provide enough security for the lot.
The "sue" argument does not hold any water. Anyone can sue anyone for anything...it does not mean this will hold up in court. This is why we have judges.

Your attitude proves _exactly_ why I would be buying more insurance and saving up for a legal defense fund, and passing those costs onto my employees. Having a gun means nothing, it only gives you an additional option. Using the logic that an employer is liable is laughable. But, this is exactly why I could never stand opening a business. I don't care if it was proven to me that I would be promised a good wage, able to gainfully employee a good # of people at a good wage, and have it easy...it is just too much risk for the unknown that is future regulation of my property. If you think you should be able to sue an employer for not letting you bring your gun to work and keep it _in your car_, then that means there are other employees who will sue because they aren't allowed to _carry_ their guns during work. Sue, sue, sue...that is exactly my issue with this law. Again, not a big deal, I would do what I needed to do to protect me and mine. The costs would be passed onto my employees. I don't feel my customers should take on the additional costs when the benefit the government mandated goes to the employees.
Another meaningless argument. People are going to carry regardless of company policies....The employer is not responsible for an employees crime.
But somehow you associate the lawful carry or possession of firearms with criminals. Are you sure you progun or anti gun because this is an argument that anti-gunners use all the time.

Incidents will happen (duhh incidents happen regardless of law or policy, murder is illegal yet it happens, robbery happens despite being illegal etc). I don't care how much of a chance there is of certain acts occurring, the fact is I don't trust the government to back me (neither do I and that is why I carry a handgun). The idea that we should always keep constant watch on government, but in _this_ case, a business owner should just trust the immunity clause and the government has their back is laughable. (do you not take your pay from the public's dime? yet pipe on here about private business?)

Oh look, someone just went and got a gun from his car and shot at co-workers: (was this not illegal already? Lets make guns illegal too?)

State worker opens fire on co-workers

PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) - Police say an Indiana Department of Workforce Development auditor who had just received a poor job review shot at co-workers at the agency's office in Portage.

Sgt. Keith Hughes says the 60-year-old man became upset during his job review Friday and told his supervisor he needed to go to his car. After he retrieved a shotgun, a manager locked the front door and ordered the other 15 employees to the rear of the office.

___________________________________

...Once again I think some here got this website confused with the brady campaign to prevent gun violence.... I also think some here would be just fine with not having the general public be able to carry firearms at all.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I still want to know in what court anyone is going to sue an employer for complying with the state law.

Sec. 5. A court does not have jurisdiction over an action brought against an employer who is in compliance with section 2 of this chapter for any injury or damage resulting from the employer's compliance with section 2 of this chapter.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyBeerman]

Oh look, someone just went and got a gun from his car and shot at co-workers:

State worker opens fire on co-workers

PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) - Police say an Indiana Department of Workforce Development auditor who had just received a poor job review shot at co-workers at the agency's office in Portage.

Sgt. Keith Hughes says the 60-year-old man became upset during his job review Friday and told his supervisor he needed to go to his car. After he retrieved a shotgun, a manager locked the front door and ordered the other 15 employees to the rear of the office.

WOW, Indy317 do you see the irony in this, it's a state worker at a the state's agency office. I do believe that he was not allowed to have a weapon in the parking lot.

Now take this one step further, how long did it take law enforcement to arrive? 2,3,4,5 minutes? A law will not change anything like this, it will happen regardless of the fact as to the state the person is in. He could just as easily went home and got it and came back and did the deed. This is the whole point that EVERYONE against HB1065 forgets. People who break laws do not pay attention to laws.

The difference is on July 1, 2010 (if it is not veto'd) a person can run to his/her vehicle and stop the threat or be a deterrent until LEO's arrive. Possibly saving lives, including yours if you was in the building.

Thankfully no one was hurt. I wonder if he had a permit? I wonder if he would have shot someone, if the state would have been liable for not allowing employees to carry their own handguns and/or long guns to work?

HELLO......He had a shotgun, permit does not matter.

Now to the second part of this......here we go let's sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue, sue and the we'll sue you again when you die to get what's worth of the little amount of metal's in your body.

No offense to the lawyers on INGO, but if our society was not so darngumit sue happy, the phone book would not have listings as deep for lawyers as there is for doctors & dentist.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

I still want to know in what court anyone is going to sue an employer for complying with the state law.

Blessings,
Bill

That clause is frightening in its wording. It effectively puts an entire class of civil claim beyond the reach of judicial recourse. Granted, I think SOMETHING to that effect would have to be present for the bill to pass, but I would rather it be worded simply to completely absolve the business owner of responsibility - NOT to extra-judicially flip-off legal recourse.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That clause is frightening in its wording. It effectively puts an entire class of civil claim beyond the reach of judicial recourse. Granted, I think SOMETHING to that effect would have to be present for the bill to pass, but I would rather it be worded simply to completely absolve the business owner of responsibility - NOT to extra-judicially flip-off legal recourse.

I don't see it as doing that.
Sec. 5. A court does not have jurisdiction over an action brought against an employer who is in compliance with section 2 of this chapter for any injury or damage resulting from the employer's compliance with section 2 of this chapter.


I see it as saying that as long as the employer does not have a "no guns" policy, the fact that that policy is not present cannot be used as a claim against them. That is, if someone falls in the parking lot of a business that is in compliance, they can still be sued (as ludicrous as I think that is)

If an employee brings a firearm into the workplace, that is a situation beyond this law. This just says that a victim's family can't come back and claim that the state-law-compliant employer is somehow at fault for the employee having the firearm there. If a firearm is stolen from a locked vehicle in the parking lot, no one can fault the employer for not forbidding it; The simple answer is, "State law does not permit me to forbid that."

This is actually a good thing for businesses; that said, however, I still don't think that it's a place the law should have gone. There are many things that are positive and advisable, but that doesn't mean they should be matters for the law to address and certainly not to force.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[inav8r]

No one. You have the right to sit in your home 24/7, barricaded with as many guns as you want. [...snip...]

Your attitude proves _exactly_ why I would be buying more insurance and saving up for a legal defense fund, and passing those costs onto my employees. [...snip...]

Oh look, someone just went and got a gun from his car and shot at co-workers: [...snip...]

Your attitude makes me happy I don't work for your company. If you PM me the name, I'll make sure to never patronize it.

As you see from the incident the other day that you referenced in your post not having this law isn't going to stop this from happening. Only time will tell if this new law will increase the frequency of these incidents, but I, and our state legislators believe it won't. The kind of people involved in these tragic, despicable, unlawful incidents aren't going to be stopped by law nor company policy.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

I don't see it as doing that.
Sec. 5. A court does not have jurisdiction over an action brought against an employer who is in compliance with section 2 of this chapter for any injury or damage resulting from the employer's compliance with section 2 of this chapter.


I see it as saying that as long as the employer does not have a "no guns" policy, the fact that that policy is not present cannot be used as a claim against them. That is, if someone falls in the parking lot of a business that is in compliance, they can still be sued (as ludicrous as I think that is)

If an employee brings a firearm into the workplace, that is a situation beyond this law. This just says that a victim's family can't come back and claim that the state-law-compliant employer is somehow at fault for the employee having the firearm there. If a firearm is stolen from a locked vehicle in the parking lot, no one can fault the employer for not forbidding it; The simple answer is, "State law does not permit me to forbid that."

This is actually a good thing for businesses; that said, however, I still don't think that it's a place the law should have gone. There are many things that are positive and advisable, but that doesn't mean they should be matters for the law to address and certainly not to force.

Blessings,
Bill

I simply don't like government to declare that a certain type of redress is outside of the jurisdiction of all courts. What will they put outside of the law next, the ability to challenge the taking of property? The ability to challenge government - and other citizens - for wrongdoing is pretty important to me. I agree that businesses should hold no liability for compliance - but I would rather it be worded that way: No business shall be held liable, criminally or civilly, in any court for any action brought forth on behalf of any person harmed, maimed, killed, or otherwise injured by any act of violence committed with firearms due in part or in sum to compliance with Section 2... bla bla bla. Or something to that effect... not to eliminate jurisdiction of the courts. Unnerves me something fierce.

 

[Indy317]

We also have the right to keep and bear arms in this country which is not limited to our property.

OK. I need to use _YOUR_ computer so I can partake in my right to free speech. When will you be off the computer so I can come upon _YOUR_ property and use _YOUR_ property? Oh, I also need to go around and preach Islam to as many people as I can. I am going to be setting up a table with a big sign in YOUR front yard. Remember, I also have the right to religion and free speech in this country, which according to you, is not limited to just _MY_ property.

 

[Expat]

OK. I need to use _YOUR_ computer so I can partake in my right to free speech.

So this law says I can make my employer supply me with a firearm to exercise my rights while on his property? That would be a more similar analogy.

So you feel it should be unlawful for me to have my laptop in the car while it is on your property so that I can stop at B&N on the way home and use their wifi, because you disagree with what I might say?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I still want to know in what court anyone is going to sue an employer for complying with the state law.

Blessings,
Bill

IANAL And this could be total bs, but I could think of one situation that an employer could possible held liable. As an indirect cause. An employee starts acting flaky, and over a week or two gets worse. Other employees complain about it and say they are starting to get worried. The guy has made no threats and other than appearing to turn into a nutcase is a model employee. Everyone knows he owns guns and brings them to work and keeps them in his car. A couple of days after the employees complain he snaps and kills half the plant.

I could see him being sued for failing to protect his employees by not firing a model employee who could of just been going through a rough divorce or other problem. Although he knew he was armed at work.

Again I am not a lawyer and I have no idea if that would fly or not, but I could see it costing the company a bit in legal fees to fight it at least.

And after it happened once, I'd hate to see how many employees would get fired for just having a moody day.

 

[Eddie]

OK. I need to use _YOUR_ computer so I can partake in my right to free speech. When will you be off the computer so I can come upon _YOUR_ property and use _YOUR_ property? Oh, I also need to go around and preach Islam to as many people as I can. I am going to be setting up a table with a big sign in YOUR front yard. Remember, I also have the right to religion and free speech in this country, which according to you, is not limited to just _MY_ property.

Here are two problems that I have with your arguments on this thread:

#1: The RKBA "shall not be infringed". Telling someone effectively that they can't have their gun with them on their way to and from work is an infringement of that right. On the other hand, there is no such special protection for business property. Businesses are subject to all sorts of intrusive government rules; they have to comply with OSHA, inspectors from different branches of government (for example the Department of Mines or the Department of Energy or the Department of Labor) get to come on their property, check compliance and fine them, they are subject to buidling codes, safety regulations, fire codes and health codes that are all different from how we treat residential property. There are different bodies of law that deal with injuries at work, sexual harassment at work, racism at work. The business owner doesn't have the same special protections built into the Constitution that the private citizen does. To me this is a case of Constitutional Law trumping Common Law or Statutory Law.

#2 Partly for the reasons stated above your response to Sporter fails. You are comparing his home to a business. People's homes and personal property have special protections built into the Constitution that just aren't there for businesses.

 

[IndyBeerman]

OK. I need to use _YOUR_ computer so I can partake in my right to free speech. When will you be off the computer so I can come upon _YOUR_ property and use _YOUR_ property? Oh, I also need to go around and preach Islam to as many people as I can. I am going to be setting up a table with a big sign in YOUR front yard. Remember, I also have the right to religion and free speech in this country, which according to you, is not limited to just _MY_ property.

Say you're a business owner with a crazy thought about people using your property.....

Got a solution for your if you want to have idiotic thinking like this.

Tear out the restrooms, make them go out instead.
Make the wear compressed O2 tanks so they can't breath your air inside the building.
Don't want them walking on your grass, sidewalks and delivery entry drive, make them parachute in.

Got a problem with employees bringing guns to work in secured in their locked vehicles, tear the darn parking lot out and make them park off your property. See just how long your business last with business practices like this.

Heck let's take this one step further, you want people to not be able have that secured gun in the car and have them park across the street. So now I want you to practice what you preach.

Do that, then I can use the idiotic extreme argument that since I'm a taxpayer and you parked on the street across from the parking lot, I don't want you to have your gun there.

Because you know, I'm a taxpayer, I own a percentage of the street, leave your darn gun home.


See how stupid this sounds, do you really? I don't think you do.

 

[Roadie]

(snip)

Oh look, someone just went and got a gun from his car and shot at co-workers:

State worker opens fire on co-workers

PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) - Police say an Indiana Department of Workforce Development auditor who had just received a poor job review shot at co-workers at the agency's office in Portage.

Sgt. Keith Hughes says the 60-year-old man became upset during his job review Friday and told his supervisor he needed to go to his car. After he retrieved a shotgun, a manager locked the front door and ordered the other 15 employees to the rear of the office.

___________________________________

Thankfully no one was hurt. I wonder if he had a permit? I wonder if he would have shot someone, if the state would have been liable for not allowing employees to carry their own handguns and/or long guns to work?

For every one of these stories, I can post you one where the employees went home first, THEN came back, or where the employee was fired and came back days, weeks, or months later.

Now what?

 

[Roadie]

OK. I need to use _YOUR_ computer so I can partake in my right to free speech. When will you be off the computer so I can come upon _YOUR_ property and use _YOUR_ property? Oh, I also need to go around and preach Islam to as many people as I can. I am going to be setting up a table with a big sign in YOUR front yard. Remember, I also have the right to religion and free speech in this country, which according to you, is not limited to just _MY_ property.

Look up the definition of "straw man argument"...