HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[Eddie]

Like what? Both the third and fourth amendments specifically mention houses. Are you telling me the police can go into any business and search without a warrant? Never said that. Business property has just as many protections as residential property. No, it very simply doesn't. Agencies like OSHA, Department of Labor, Weights and Measures, Department of Mines and State Excise have nowhere near the same level of regulation over private homes as they do over businesses. This is simply not a true statement. Yes, a business has rules and regulations affixed to it...so what? Residential property has just as many law governing it. Again, no, it doesn't. An individual can engage in a far broader range of activity inside their own home than they can inside a business. For example, I can be prejudiced against race or gender inside my own home and my right to free speech protects me. If I am openly prejudiced at work then an employee can make a claim that their rights are being violated. Try raising kids in filthy and dangerous conditions in a private residence and see what happens. Try storing dangerous amounts of regulated materials in a private residence. The fact is, all property has government regulations to some extent, in the end though, they are all owned by one or more persons. Each rule and regulation is just one more encroachment by government. I personally could careless about the law as a private business owner. Just chalk it up to yet another one of my rights taken away from me. Then why are you so rabid about this law? This law is a victory, albeit a minor victory, for second amendment rights.

My thoughts in red.

 

[antsi]

It's just for tax or legal protection reasons that they are called corporations.

Yes, and the reason for this is that the individual wants to be protected from the business' liabilities. For instance, if the business gets sued, their personal (non-corporate) assets would be protected.

Now you want to turn around and say, "Yeah, but if it's a family owned corporation, it's really personal property. The corporation is just a fiction." Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You're basically saying "when it comes to rights, I want to call it personal property. When it comes to responsibilities, I want to call it corporate property." In other words, you want to make up the law as you go along to suit whatever is to your advantage from moment to moment.

evil bastard heartless soulless

I never said that. By corporate standards, the company I work for is actually fairly ethical. But that company still isn't a person. It doesn't have personal freedoms.

And, like most big corporations, it can't really be called private, either - it has taken on all kinds of governmental functions and received all kinds of special perks and benefits from the government that an individual would never receive. The justification for this is that the corporation is providing essential public services.

I'm sorry, but if the government is making all kinds of special accommodations for an entity to provide public services, I can't see where you turn around and say this is personal private property, or that the rights pertaining thereto take precedence over the rights of a real life actual person.

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

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

cool

 

[Redemption]

It's going to happen. :amen:

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's going to happen. :amen:

I've actually been watching three bills on their way through and while HB1068 is now awaiting only Gov. Daniels' signature, HB 1065 and the other one I'm watching are both awaiting Bauer's signature first.

I really, really want Pat Bauer out of the House.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BloodEclipse]

I've actually been watching three bills on their way through and while HB1068 is now awaiting only Gov. Daniels' signature, HB 1065 and the other one I'm watching are both awaiting Bauer's signature first.

I really, really want Pat Bauer out of the House.

Blessings,
Bill

If it has been voted on, why does Bauer have to sign it?
I also want to see that POS gone.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If it has been voted on, why does Bauer have to sign it?
I also want to see that POS gone.

By both houses of the legislature's rules, the leader of each, beginning with the one in which it originated, must sign the bill indicating that it passed and in the form on which their house voted, before it goes to the governor.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[inav8r]

By both houses of the legislature's rules, the leader of each, beginning with the one in which it originated, must sign the bill indicating that it passed and in the form on which their house voted, before it goes to the governor.

Could he [Bauer] effectively kill the bill by failing to sign it?

 

[E5RANGER375]

L
So someone who is providing tax revenue for a municipality, who has provided actual _American_ jobs, gets this kind of treatment because they make a business decision as a result of a new government regulation? No wonder more and more companies are moving out of this country, if the above is your typical American worker attitude ("Not only will I quit, I will work to destroy your evil American jobs providing business!!!" ) So you don't have the balls to quit when I banned guns from my property, but since you may look at a pay cut or a fee for parking (which I have paid the last 13 years of employment), then you grow some balls and quit? Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

no i wouldnt have quit when you banned guns from your property, i would have just thought you were being un smart and would have kept carrying anyways. you would have never been the wiser, and probly still arent if you think none of your employees carry guns to work.

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes, and the reason for this is that the individual wants to be protected from the business' liabilities. For instance, if the business gets sued, their personal (non-corporate) assets would be protected.

Now you want to turn around and say, "Yeah, but if it's a family owned corporation, it's really personal property. The corporation is just a fiction." Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You're basically saying "when it comes to rights, I want to call it personal property. When it comes to responsibilities, I want to call it corporate property." In other words, you want to make up the law as you go along to suit whatever is to your advantage from moment to moment.



I never said that. By corporate standards, the company I work for is actually fairly ethical. But that company still isn't a person. It doesn't have personal freedoms.

And, like most big corporations, it can't really be called private, either - it has taken on all kinds of governmental functions and received all kinds of special perks and benefits from the government that an individual would never receive. The justification for this is that the corporation is providing essential public services.

I'm sorry, but if the government is making all kinds of special accommodations for an entity to provide public services, I can't see where you turn around and say this is personal private property, or that the rights pertaining thereto take precedence over the rights of a real life actual person.

Absolutely, Corporate owners are fine and dandy with accepting state created protections that infringe on the property rights of others, such as creditors, but don't dare touch their "property rights."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Could he [Bauer] effectively kill the bill by failing to sign it?

Good question. Honestly, I don't know the answer.

That said, though, I don't think he would do that. The past couple of years, any pro-gun bill that came his way, he killed before the session started by assigning them to committees that never met, hence ensuring they would die in committee. This year, he killed the two Senate bills the same way. He let the House bills be heard, voted, etc., even having another rep serve so that "Mr. Speaker" did not vote on them. Analysis: Bauer wants his democrats to have some political cover in the coming election. NRA (and maybe GOA) will be rating folks on these bills. What better/more ironic way to ensure they can vote in bad gun bills than to convince gun owners to vote them in to do it?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

Is this the gun owners against guns thread?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Is this the gun owners against guns thread?

Nope. It's the My rights trump Your rights thread. On both sides.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Is this the gun owners against guns thread?

In cases it has been very much, just that.

 

[rightwingmilitia]

I hope it dies in committee as well. This bill is just morally wrong.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I hope it dies in committee as well. This bill is just morally wrong.

Try to stay up to date. No committee left to die in.

 

[Roadie]

I hope it dies in committee as well. This bill is just morally wrong.

Huh? It's morally wrong to allow citizens to keep their 2nd Amendment rights??

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

Indiana: Governor Daniels Under Business Pressure to VETO Emergency Powers/Workplace Protection!
Please Contact Governor Daniels Today!​

As we have previously reported, House Bill 1065 is currently pending consideration with Governor Mitch Daniels. Despite passing the Indiana House and Senate with broad bi-partisan support, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Manufacturer's Association are shamefully urging Governor Daniels to veto this important pro-gun bill.
Anti-gun big businesses are sending letters, calling and emailing the Governor, insisting on a veto. That’s why Governor Daniels needs to hear from YOU, and he needs to know you support HB 1065! Indiana would become the 27th state to enact Emergency Powers reform measures and the 13th state to enact Employee Workplace Protection laws.
HB1065 would prevent state or local government authorities from confiscating lawfully-owned firearms during declared states of emergency, such as occurred in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
Moreover, this bill would also prohibit employers from firing employees who safely and lawfully store a firearm in their privately-owned, locked vehicle while on an employer’s publicly accessible parking lot. Indiana has more the a quarter million Right-to-Carry permit holders, many of whom carry their firearm during their commute to and from work. This legislation would prohibit anti-gun businesses from punishing law-abiding gun-owners for safely storing their firearm in their vehicle should they carry a firearm for self-defense during their daily commute or have a firearm in the vehicle to target shoot or go hunting before or after work.
Please contact Governor Daniels TODAY and respectfully ask him to protect our Second Amendment rights in Indiana by signing HB 1065.
Please contact Governor Mitch Daniels by email by clicking HERE or by phone at 317-232-4567.

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

LOL ! I just called again and before I could utter a word, the person the answered the phone said" You're calling about HB1065?" I said "Yes" I was told he will pass it along.

Let's flood 'em with calls

 

[eldirector]

email sent. More from my wife (well, me again), in-laws, and a few friends coming up! Thanks for keeping us updated!