HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[Bill of Rights]

The law will pass, and there will be a lawsuit. I personally think this situation will reach the US Supreme Court in the future. The federal judge in Florida called their version "stupid," but upheld it for employees. The Florida law was broad, and said the business couldn't ban anyone from bringing guns in their cars. The federal judge, for whatever reason, said businesses have the right to ban guns from customers, but not employees. I felt that was kinda odd, but oh well.

If I were a business owner, I would just start charging my employees to park on company property. I would only charge what would be needed to cover the costs of legal fees, an additional $1,000,000 of insurance, the costs of zero tolerance work place violence training, and the costs to hire off-duty cops to stand guard on days when I was terminating or laying people off. I don't trust the law, as written, to help me with liability. The no liability language is way too vague. There is nothing in the law that directs the AG to provide legal funds for a company sued under the law. So even though I might win in the end, I still could be looking at a couple grand in legal fees. If the judge found the lawsuit did have some merit, but ultimately ruled in my favor, who would reimburse me/my company for my legal fees if I were the first "test case" for some ambulance chaser?

I'm confused, Indy317. How is the language vague?

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.

I'm no lawyer, but by my read, this says that if you maintain a "no guns" policy, you CAN be sued for actual damages, court costs, attorney fees, and the court can issue an injunction forbidding that policy's enforcement in the future.
If you do NOT maintain that policy, for what do you think you would be sued, and where? The law specifically removes a court's (any court's) jurisdiction, so in effect, if you have no "no guns" policy, you cannot be sued as there is no venue. There would be no legal fees because no action could be filed.


Again, I'm no lawyer, but if there's some interpretation you have that I'm missing, please relate it. (of note: I've said elsewhere but I'll repeat that while I like the idea of not being completely disarmed, I do not like the idea of businesses being told what they must allow (or must forbid) on their property. I also like eating a meal without breathing someone's foul cigarette smoke, but I don't like government-imposed smoking bans.)


Looking forward to your reply.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyGunworks]

I'm no lawyer,

Again, I'm no lawyer,


Blessings,
Bill

dont you mean IANAL

 

[Bill of Rights]

dont you mean IANAL

Well, if I really wanted to confuse people who didn't know that abbreviation (not mentioning any names, of course) because they hadn't looked in the FAQ to find the abbreviation list, I would have said, IANAL, IDPOOTV, IDSIAHIELN, and YMMV!

(mainly because a couple of those aren't in there either! )

 

[ATM]

Wait. INGO has a FAQ?

 

[IndyGunworks]

Wait. INGO has a FAQ?

News to me maybe they should make a quick link to it or something... or have the mods put it in thier signature... but who am i with all these good ideas.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Sen Nugent up right now for HB1065

 

[IndyBeerman]

Sen. Randolph from E. Chicago is a tool

 

[inav8r]

"We're in an atmosphere where we don't expect that to happen"

Tool is an understatement!

Like I can schedule where and/or when I am going to need to defend myself...

 

[inav8r]

Passed the Senate! (41-9)

 

[IndyBeerman]

HB1065 PASSED 41-9!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[pudly]

Passed in the Senate 41-9! On to the next stage!

 

[Bill of Rights]

HB 1065 just passed the Senate 41-9.

Heh. Scooped! Fast fingers, guys!

Randolph is not the only "tool" there. Wyss is consistently against any expansion of the 2A.

What surprised me was that Sen. Delph did not answer him that "No, those exceptions and exemptions are not there for safety, they're there because too many people in the Senate and across the hall in the House still don't understand that removing the guns from the good guys doesn't protect anyone." Not only that, I'm surprised Sen. Nugent didn't tell Randolph that no one ever expects to get attacked; if you expect to get attacked somewhere, logic dictates that you don't go to that place.

Alas, it matters not. They registered their objections and can now stand before their voters... who no doubt will return them to fight more battles against eeeeeevil inanimate objects.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T-rav]

HB 1065 just passed the Senate 41-9.

damn your fast bill!!!! were you watching it live?

 

[inav8r]

Yes, was watching it live.

 

[T-rav]

I couldnt get VLC to work on my computer i was mad!

 

[Bill of Rights]

damn your fast bill!!!! were you watching it live?

Several of us were, apparently.

 

[CoyoteCreekGuns]

This is great but don't forget about the exempted areas:

Specifically:

(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 individual from possessing a firearm:
(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; or
(8) on property owned, operated, controlled, or used by an entity that:
(A) is required to:
(i) conduct a vulnerability assessment; and
(ii) develop and implement a site security plan;
under the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards

So, if you work at a pharmaceutical facility, school, child care center, group home, a private secure facility (whatever that is) and more...

Your still not able to fully take advantage of your 2nd Amendment rights...

 

[Scutter01]

Did anyone mention that it passed the Senate, or was I the first?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It would still have to be signed by the Big Cheese.

Fenway is somehow involved?

Nah Fenway is more important than the Big Cheese, He's the Big Bacon.

Passed in the Senate 41-9! On to the next stage!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Nah Fenway is more important than the Big Cheese, He's the Big Bacon.

Why does that sound like a burger from Hardee's?