HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • kludge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,361
    48
    a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the state, a political subdivision, or any other person may not prohibit or restrict the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during:
    (1) a disaster emergency;
    (2) an energy emergency; or
    (3) a local disaster emergency;
    declared under this chapter.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not authorize the possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during an emergency described in subsection (a):
    .
    .
    (7) at a person's residence; or (?)
    .
    .

    What am I missing here???? :dunno:

    This seems very strange. Did someone goof on a copy/paste?
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    BoR got it before , just deleted my response.
    Speedy-poster.jpg

    (OK, so the graphic isn't exactly applicable. Meh.)

    Yee-haaaaaaaaaaaaa!
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I just hope it will be interpreted that way.

    I would think they'd have to. If it meant what you're worried about, it would say, "in one's own residence". Also,

    IC 35-47-2-1
    Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
    Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
    Emphasis mine, obviously, but directly stated:
    Except as provided a person shall not carry a handgun except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business,(without a license)


    The intent is clearly that you CAN carry and thus, necessarily, own, in your dwelling, on your property, or fixed place of business. Failing that, Article I, Sec. 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.


    One's home has always been sacrosanct.


    IANAL, IDPOOTV, IDSIAHIELN


    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    Notice the CEO of Lilly chimed in on this Bill in the Star.

    He's anti of course.
    The point is moot where Lilly is concerned. The bill specifically exempts them from the law. Lilly employees will not be allowed to carry their firearms if this passes.
    From The Star

    The bill excludes employees at schools, universities, jails and prisons, domestic violence shelters and child care centers. Also exempted during the final negotiations are investor-owned utilities, chemical facilities that are covered by federal Department of Homeland Security regulations, nuclear facilities and employees who use their personal vehicles to drive patients at centers for the developmentally disabled.
    The exception for the chemical facilities means that employees of Eli Lilly and Co. and Roche Diagnostics are not covered in the bill.
     

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    The whole issue is moot anyway, as far as I'm concerned. Indiana is an at-will employment state. If they want you gone, they can easily fire you for any other reason, even with the implied contract exceptions. While I'm happy to see this bill, I still feel like it's a gigantic waste of time.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    The point is moot where Lilly is concerned. The bill specifically exempts them from the law. Lilly employees [STRIKE]will[/STRIKE] may still not be allowed to carry their firearms if this passes.

    (modified quote to reflect what I believe to be more accurate.)

    Remember that this bill does not require anyone to adopt or enforce any policy. It simply allows some excepted places to do or continue doing so if they wish.

    I don't know if Lilly also meets both requirements of being a subjected chemical facility and licensed by the NRC but they may:

    (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

    This bill will do no harm - it just isn't all-reaching.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    The Star specifically cited Lilly and Roche as excluded entities. Lilly is listed with Homeland Security as a risk site.

    Never said it would cause harm, just pointed out that Lilly is excluded from the granted privilege.
     
    Top Bottom