HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[jsgolfman]

All true... except that it's on the eighth day after it reaches his desk. HB 1068 was signed by Bauer and Sen. Long on 3/1 and became law yesterday, the 12th. I have not seen whether that means he signed it, only that it became law. That means it could not have gotten to him earlier than the 5th, though I cannot fathom why it would take 4 days to move downstairs to his office. I will be interested to see what he does. If Jim Tomes' emails are any indication, his office has been deluged with calls(probably more from our side), so I would think he would sign it.. We shall see, however.

Edit: Of course, if he REALLY wanted to show his support for the 2A and Art. I, Sec. 32, he would have the Dep't of Administration revoke the prohibition on carry in the State House. THAT would impress me.

Blessings,
Bill

Whoa there big fella, don't inhale I thought I was the one who reached for the stars

 

[Bill of Rights]

Whoa there big fella, don't inhale I thought I was the one who reached for the stars

No. Reaching for the stars would be expecting IN to make a peaceful secession from the Union and create a republic that actually recognized and respected individual rights as they are, not as the punch line of a joke.

I'm an idealist insofar as what I want, but I'm also a realist when it comes to what I expect to get.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DocBoCook]

No. Reaching for the stars would be expecting IN to make a peaceful secession from the Union and create a republic that actually recognized and respected individual rights as they are, not as the punch line of a joke.

I'm an idealist insofar as what I want, but I'm also a realist when it comes to what I expect to get.

Blessings,
Bill

What? You expect any kind of recognition of state soverteignty and Individual Rights to liberty and privacy? You know darn good and well that this has been on a steep grade downward since the war of Northern aggression. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if that particular scirmish had gone the other way?

 

[mk2ja]

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if that particular scirmish had gone the other way?

We'd be speaking German. Or Japanese.
Really, without the strength of our full Union, the Allies probably wouldn't've been able to win the world wars.

 

[Lex Concord]

We'd be speaking German. Or Japanese.
Really, without the strength of our full Union, the Allies probably wouldn't've been able to win the world wars.

Highly unlikely. The Germans didn't have the requisite navy, and the Japanese didn't have the land forces once they would've landed. Neither had the will power to try, let alone see it through.

I often wonder, had Wilson kept us out of WW I (you know, the guy who campaigned on the slogan "He kept us out of war") and let the Europeans sort it out, as it seemed was about to happen, would WW II ever have happened.

Alas, what was was, and what is is, though oftentimes governments work to convince you what isn't is, what is isn't, and what was never happened.

 

[tv1217]

Also, a bunch of white people walking around speaking Japanese would just be too weird for the world to handle. Just like an anime convention.

 

[rich8483]

suddenly, this thread has gotten off track im afraid.

 

[CountryBoy19]

suddenly, this thread has gotten off track im afraid.

I concur. I came here to see if there was a "breaking update" and we're talking about WWI and WWII?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Looks like Gov. Daniels is taking the weekend off... He's not signed it today, so maybe it's not on his desk yet, but if not, it's on the way. Something tells me he knows it's coming. I'm guessing he will either sign it as soon as it arrives or he will let it become law without his signature... Not sure which, but I don't see him holding onto it for four days and signing... I'm thinking one extreme or the other, but I'm thinking it *will* pass.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rich8483]

Looks like Gov. Daniels is taking the weekend off... He's not signed it today, so maybe it's not on his desk yet, but if not, it's on the way. Something tells me he knows it's coming. I'm guessing he will either sign it as soon as it arrives or he will let it become law without his signature... Not sure which, but I don't see him holding onto it for four days and signing... I'm thinking one extreme or the other, but I'm thinking it *will* pass.

Blessings,
Bill

good! the thread has been rescued. i did not know till now that a bill could become law by default without a signature. dont, knock me. ive only been interested in politics for the last year or so.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

That dork Paul Helmke is probaly wetting himself over this. Score one for the good guys!

I still have a bit of heartburn over this I must admit. I confess to being a bit hypocritical. I like the 2nd to be upheld at every turn, but what about property rights? Shouldn't an owner of a business, or any property have the right to say what goes?

It's the same with the smoking ban here in Ft Wayne. Shouldn't the owner have the say?
I also like the smoking ban.

I carry to and from work, not allowed to carry inside.

The buisness owner still has the right to not allow parking on the buisness if he is dead set against it. Smoking ban doesn't allow that option therefore impeads on the owners rights.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The buisness owner still has the right to not allow parking on the buisness if he is dead set against it....

How do you figure, unless it's by removing the parking lot?

From the text of the bill:

Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
(1) 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 IC 20-33-8-16 or IC 35-47-9-2;
(2) on the property of:
(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home;
(E) an emergency shelter care group home; or
(F) a child care center;
in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80, 465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78, 465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
(3) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-41-1-21);
(4) in violation of federal law;
(5) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
(6) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(7) at a person's residence;
(8) on the property of a person that is:
(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(9) on property owned by:
(A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power; or
(B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1; or
(10) in the employee's personal vehicle if the employee, including a contract employee, is a direct support professional who:
(A) works directly with individuals with developmental disabilities to assist the individuals to become integrated into the individuals' community or least restrictive environment; and
(B) uses the employee's personal vehicle while transporting an individual with developmental disabilities.
Sec. 3. (a) An individual who believes that the individual has been harmed by a violation of section 2 of this chapter may bring a civil action against the person who is alleged to have violated section 2 of this chapter, other than a person set forth in IC 34-6-2-103(j)(2).
(b) If a person is found by a court, in an action brought under subsection (a), to have violated section 2 of this chapter, the court may do the following:
(1) Award:
(A) actual damages; and
(B) court costs and attorney's fees;
to the prevailing individual.
(2) Enjoin further violations of this chapter.
Sec. 4. This chapter does not limit a person's rights or remedies under any other state or federal 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.

By my read, that says that anti-gun polices, laws, and rules are forbidden, and if the employer has one and the employee is harmed by it, the employee may sue for actual damages, court costs and attorney fees, AND the court may issue an injunction against the policy, law, or rule being further enforced.

So yes, if the employer is dead set against it, he can have his policy, just like if an employer is dead set against hiring women, Mexicans, Catholics, etc., he may have his policy.... right up until someone takes him to court over it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jdhaines]

The buisness owner still has the right to not allow parking on the buisness if he is dead set against it. Smoking ban doesn't allow that option therefore impeads on the owners rights.

Actually Bill...he may be right. What you bolded in Red does not say that the employer must allow the employee to park in the parking lot. It says that the employee is allowed to have the gun in his car. Not where is he allowed to put his car.

The law forbids the employer from doing anything to stop the employee from having the gun. Seems the employer would not be violating the law if he said anyone with a gun in their car cannot park in my parking lot.

The employer could then request to search the vehicle (pending termination if you refuse). If the employer finds a gun the employee would be in violation of a policy that says the employee with a gun in their car may not park in the parking lot. Did we miss a giant loophole?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Actually Bill...he may be right. What you bolded in Red does not say that the employer must allow the employee to park in the parking lot. It says that the employee is allowed to have the gun in his car. Not where is he allowed to put his car.

The law forbids the employer from doing anything to stop the employee from having the gun. Seems the employer would not be violating the law if he said anyone with a gun in their car cannot park in my parking lot.

The employer could then request to search the vehicle (pending termination if you refuse). If the employer finds a gun the employee would be in violation of a policy that says the employee with a gun in their car may not park in the parking lot. Did we miss a giant loophole?

I'd think if the policy forbids an employee from parking a car with a firearm in it on company property, that would

(1) prohibits; or
(2) ha[ve] the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.

The policy would discriminate against the armed employee.

I do see your point and agree that it could be argued that way. It's unnecessary, though; Being an employment-at-will state, they don't have to have a reason to terminate, though I'd be surprised if they didn't drum something up just to avoid paying unemployment.

Either way, the Emergency Powers legislation is the important part of this bill and the part that most needs to pass, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rich8483]

I'd think if the policy forbids an employee from parking a car with a firearm in it on company property, that would
The policy would discriminate against the armed employee.

I do see your point and agree that it could be argued that way. It's unnecessary, though; Being an employment-at-will state, they don't have to have a reason to terminate, though I'd be surprised if they didn't drum something up just to avoid paying unemployment.

Either way, the Emergency Powers legislation is the important part of this bill and the part that most needs to pass, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

that highlighted part is what makes this bill somewhat easily defeatable. the employer might not be able to terminate you b/c of a gun policy but, if you bring a gun to work and he doesnt like it. he can still fire you like the next day and just SAY it was b/c you wore a blue shirt on tuesday or something. if i understand correctly.

but i am still fully behind the bill, mostly for the state of emergency part of it.

 

[IndyBeerman]

One thing that we need to immediately start to think about the second Mitch signs HB1065 into law is between the day it's signed and July 1st. Is that every vehicle becomes far game if your company has a search policy along with a no gun policy.

This means that every employer may try to get rid of every single employee that that currently has a gun in the vehicle, regardless of the cost of having to retrain new workers.

They may try this power ploy to hire workers that are anti gun.

There will be companies that will do this, and they try to hide it by saying they are instituting a random search program because of unexplained losses and try to tie this in like the random drug screenings that companies have.

We don't know how they react until we start seeing reports coming out.

It this a far fetched reach, it this something that is plausible?

 

[E5RANGER375]

One thing that we need to immediately start to think about the second Mitch signs HB1065 into law is between the day it's signed and July 1st. Is that every vehicle becomes far game if your company has a search policy along with a no gun policy.

This means that every employer may try to get rid of every single employee that that currently has a gun in the vehicle, regardless of the cost of having to retrain new workers.

They may try this power ploy to hire workers that are anti gun.

There will be companies that will do this, and they try to hide it by saying they are instituting a random search program because of unexplained losses and try to tie this in like the random drug screenings that companies have.

We don't know how they react until we start seeing reports coming out.

It this a far fetched reach, it this something that is plausible?

sadly i think you are right on!! theres a lot of dirty employers out there that will be doing this for sure.

 

[E5RANGER375]

(1) 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 IC 20-33-8-16 or IC 35-47-9-2;

does this mean if you work at a job where children take field trips to that the employer has a right to not let you keep a gun in your car? for example conner prairie? could they prevent their employees from keeping guns in their cars due to school funtions being held their?

 

[Bill of Rights]

does this mean if you work at a job where children take field trips to that the employer has a right to not let you keep a gun in your car? for example conner prairie? could they prevent their employees from keeping guns in their cars due to school funtions being held their?

Some on here have said that no, the school would have to rent out the whole place, otherwise, you could be sitting at, for example, McDonalds, and a school bus pull in, and suddenly, you're a felon, without any intention nor any way out of it.

As always, though, IANAL, so please contact a competent attorney for a definitive answer.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[E5RANGER375]

ok thanks bill!! i feel this will be an important issue to look into because we could all be in danger of commiting felonies unknowingly if like you said, a school bus pulls into mcdonalds while we are there and carrying. i hope this isnt the case, it would suck