HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[Bill of Rights]

The problem is that laws are always tested. Here is what will happen in the future:
An employee will have his/her gun stolen.
That gun will be used in a crime, causing some sort of harm to someone.
It will be known by the business owner his/her employees were bringing guns to work.
It will be proved by police records there was a history of break-ins to vehicles at the business/general area, known by the owner.
Some ambulance chaser will sue the business saying that they knew the guns their employees were bringing were at danger of being stolen, so the business should have taken steps to better protect the cars (ie: Install a fence/gate, hire security, off-duty cops, etc.)

Or

An employee will be terminated for whatever reason.
The employee is very upset, but doesn't do anything illegal while inside the business.
The employee has from the front door to his vehicle to cool off before he/she now has ready access to a weapon. No drive home to cool off, just that short walk to the vehicle.
Employee grabs guns, goes back into work and makes everyone else feel their pain.
Ambulance chaser says business owners now know that employees are bringing guns to work, and that they need to take extra steps to protect their employees in times of firings, layoffs, etc.. No security was added by a business, so a lawyer paints them as negligent and thus _somewhat_ responsible for the deaths/injuries in the workplace shooting.

_or_

The same employee decides to end it all as soon as he/she gets their hand on a gun. That would be in the parking lot. The family sues the business stating they failed to have things in place to help those who just got notified they are out of work in this economy.

The fact is anyone can sue anyone. Any lawyer looking to make a buck can sue that this immunity clause is too broad. Judges rule the country, and no one can guess how judges will rule these cases. The best case scenario would be that a judge immediately dismiss such a lawsuit. That would likely be the fewest billable hours of legals fees. Even that would likely costs thousands to defend. The only way the business owner gets his/her money back is if the judge orders the plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of the defendant. Even with that though, the business would likely have been on the news. The business owner may suffer undue stress and loss of free time dealing with the lawsuit, etc.. Are you going to pay for my legal fees if I am sued under this law? The state passed this law, so is the state going to pay for me legal defense? Will the Attorney General take my case and defend me under this law? I support the immunity clause. I think it should be broad, but that doesn't stop a few lawyers from trying something down the road. So those business owners are now out of money due to this law where before these things weren't even issues. Always count on ambulance chasers to make an issue out of something that is new. I am not saying my examples are going to be happen every other week, or every other year, but I do believe they _will_ happen at some time in the future, and the business owner _will_ be blamed by someone as having some negligence.



To each their own. I have personal assets I want to protect. I have had dealings with enough ambulance chasers to know damn well they will test this immunity clause. As such, I am going to protect me, my personal assets, and my business assets. You don't want to buy a parking permit to park on my property, park elsewhere.



Well, keep YOUR property on YOUR property and their wouldn't be an issue. This law changes everything, as now property/business owners are now "on notice" that their could be guns on their property. Before, an owner could claim they banned guns, but the person who did whatever violated their policy, which would help the owners defense. However, now the property owner has lost rights, and is also "on notice" that employees who have a license to carry likely have guns in their cars.



Are you serious? Did you see the article in the Indy Star? Plenty of thugs, criminals, etc. get licenses. There is absolutely nothing, nothing that could prevent a person who has a license from doing something stupid. It happens, I have _seen_ it happen.

Every business owner here can embrace guns as much as they want. They can have their employees even OC if they work out in the community. I am worried about me and mine. I would like control of MY PROPERTY, but it seems folks who don't want to quit do to my polices would rather run to a statist and have them control MY PROPERTY. As such, I will react as needed. In this, I foresee possible situations which while unlikely to occur, may occur. I feel that I need to make business decisions based upon this. Of course when I start charging for parking, I am sure the same folks who just want to be worker bees and not start their own company, with their own money, at their own risk will run to those same statist and demand a law which prevents employers from charging employees to park on the property. This is the current trend of this "free" country: Go run to elected officials and get them to violate the rights of others.

For the life of me, I can't see how business owners do it. Constant taxation, constant worries about discrimination lawsuits, injury lawsuits, and now this.

Indy317,

Thanks for the reply. I have to admit, I'm surprised. I'm seeing anti-gunner arguments coming from you, and from what I've seen of your posts, that's not where you stand on the issue. "cooling off period"? "suicide in the lot"? The Indy Star article? We're talking about the same article, where they cherry-picked the two worst counties in terms of population demographics and then cherry picked a very few who slipped through ISP's cracks? I expect to see that on the Brady site, not here.

The simple fact is that the law specifies that no court has jurisdiction. Unless I'm misreading, that means that if you don't have a "no guns" policy, you cannot be sued. I don't see how you could be better protected.

As for your employees, no, you won't be able to be within the law and still have a "no guns" policy, however, that does not stop you from making it clear you would prefer they not be on premises. I know that if my boss came to my coworkers and me and said, "I'd really appreciate if you guys ________.", as opposed to "It's policy. You WILL (or will NOT) ________."
I would be far more willing to follow the policy if I was asked than if I was told.
I suppose a business owner might feel like it's his right to command his employees and they have the choice of "my way or the highway", and I suppose he would be correct. I just know that I'm more willing to do what I'm asked to do without looking for ways to skirt the letter of the rule rather than obey the intent of it. People will probably still have their guns, just like they did before. If you've stated that you prefer they not have them but you cannot forbid them, and if there is no pattern of people you knew had guns in the vehicle being terminated for unknown or manufactured reasons, it seems to me your liability is zero.
The simple answer is the same one Starbucks is giving now. "We operate in accordance with applicable laws."

Once again, I like eating without breathing cigarette smoke, but I do not in any form agree with mandatory bans. I like being able to carry on my way to and from work and maintain my vehicle in a safe location while there, but I do not agree with it being legislated.
Not everyone is able to start their own business. That's the fact of this. It's not that everyone is content to be an employee without risking anything. Some of us have nothing to risk and others have no business model or "niche". Some have both problems. That you had money available to use to start a business, or a business already off the ground and able to sustain you is wonderful for you, but I don't think you're trying to say that that should "buy" you more rights than anyone else. Put another way, it could be argued that you're saying you, by virtue of having income available to sustain you while you grew your business or having a business that was already built, now use that position and "groundwork", if you will, to protect yourself as you see fit while denying those who work for you the same ability to exercise that right with your blessing, on your property.

Is that the position you're defending? See, the reason I don't agree with the law is that I think employers should come to the point of recognizing and encouraging their employees' self-reliance without being forced to do so by law, not because I agree that you have the right to disarm them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

you know, I hope [strike]Ballard[/strike] Mitch vetoes this...

right now, I can choose to ignore my company's policy on keeping a handgun in my car and it's not a crime.

If this gets signed in to law, I will be BREAKING the law by continuing to do so.

FAIL!

Nope. No law forbidding you from doing so. The only thing you'll be breaking is your employer's policy and only if they are in one of the exempted classes.

 

[Bill of Rights]

FYI. Possession, any kind and for any reason, is 3 years in prison here in China. Selling or making 5+ years...

Thanks for the perspective, garlic. Do you keep your Glock, your Mossberg, and your AR(to be) back here in the States or somewhere else?

 

[Expat]

See, the reason I don't agree with the law is that I think employers should come to the point of recognizing and encouraging their employees' self-reliance without being forced to do so by law, not because I agree that you have the right to disarm them.

Doesn't the law just balance out the employer's private property rights with the employee's right of privacy rights (and to some extent his private property rights as well)?

 

[E5RANGER375]

yeah just the fact that employers think they have the right to search my car is BS. maybe the only reason i dont want them to search my car is because its dirty inside and i dont want them to think thats a reflection of how i keep my work too. or maybe i keep my wifes thongs in there and dont wanna share it with the world. same thing with a gun. plus if an employer is stupid enough to think that just because now they have a policy that says no guns on company property, even in your vehicle, that people dont have guns out in their cars right now, then it makes me wonder how they are running a successful business being so nieve. its like countries like darfur saying, if we dont see the genocide then it isnt happening. wow, thats realy a un-wise way of thinking

 

[Bill of Rights]

Doesn't the law just balance out the employer's private property rights with the employee's right of privacy rights (and to some extent his private property rights as well)?

IMHO, no, because the employee does not have a RIGHT to be on the employer's property. He is invited there to work and to be paid for his labor, but he has no contractual interest in nor ownership of the property. His vehicle does remain his property, of course, though, and this is what I've referred to as the intersection of two Constitutionally protected rights. The problem comes with the issue re: smoking bans, in that many of our members did not like the idea when we had the big push for them in recent years. The short version of the argument was that smoking is legal, but businesses are being told they CANNOT allow it even if they want to (like bars, etc.) This is the same thing done from the opposite angle: the guns in question are legally possessed, but the employer is being told he MUST allow them on the property even if he does not want to. Both represent the state taking more control over property than they are entitled to take.
Member dburkhead has made the point that none of those smoking bans purported to disallow smoking materials in locked vehicles on the employer's property, however, anecdotally, I can report that I used to be employed somewhere that did indeed disallow smoking in one's own vehicle if it was parked on company land.

I despise this issue because I can see both sides of it and in discussion I sound like a da*n politician. The answer, as I see it, is to remove as many laws as possible and get government the hell out of peoples' way. The majority of the complaint I see from Indy317 is financial concern; He doesn't want to be sued. I think the law has just removed that concern, but he doesn't see it that way. Our litigious society is what's created this attitude, and if we want our freedoms back, I think we're going to have to find a way to remove employers' worries. I'm not sure how else we can respect everyone's rights.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

yeah just the fact that employers think they have the right to search my car is BS. maybe the only reason i dont want them to search my car is because its dirty inside and i dont want them to think thats a reflection of how i keep my work too. or maybe i keep my wifes thongs in there and dont wanna share it with the world. same thing with a gun. plus if an employer is stupid enough to think that just because now they have a policy that says no guns on company property, even in your vehicle, that people dont have guns out in their cars right now, then it makes me wonder how they are running a successful business being so nieve. its like countries like darfur saying, if we dont see the genocide then it isnt happening. wow, thats realy a un-wise way of thinking

Let's put that misconception to rest here and now. Unless your employer has your permission, they cannot lawfully search your car. To do so requires a warrant. Now, you might have signed some form at hiring that granted that permission or you might be bullied into giving it on threat of termination, but if you refuse, they're stopped at your door until they convince a judge to issue a warrant to search and for what. (typically, this would only be granted if, for example, there was evidence you'd stolen something from your employer and put it in your vehicle.)

They CAN terminate you, but they cannot otherwise force you to allow a search. The choice remains yours until there's a cop in front of you.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[E5RANGER375]

Let's put that misconception to rest here and now. Unless your employer has your permission, they cannot lawfully search your car. To do so requires a warrant. Now, you might have signed some form at hiring that granted that permission or you might be bullied into giving it on threat of termination, but if you refuse, they're stopped at your door until they convince a judge to issue a warrant to search and for what. (typically, this would only be granted if, for example, there was evidence you'd stolen something from your employer and put it in your vehicle.)

They CAN terminate you, but they cannot otherwise force you to allow a search. The choice remains yours until there's a cop in front of you.

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks Bill. Sorry i didnt make that more clear. thats what i was meaning, that they assume the right or they will fire you.

i would lose my job and gladly let them try to get a warrant. what I meant was i think it should be illegal for them to even put that policy in writing.

 

[Robert Richardson]

The problem is that laws are always tested. Here is what will happen in the future:
An employee will have his/her gun stolen.
That gun will be used in a crime, causing some sort of harm to someone.
It will be known by the business owner his/her employees were bringing guns to work.
It will be proved by police records there was a history of break-ins to vehicles at the business/general area, known by the owner.
Some ambulance chaser will sue the business saying that they knew the guns their employees were bringing were at danger of being stolen, so the business should have taken steps to better protect the cars (ie: Install a fence/gate, hire security, off-duty cops, etc.)

Or

An employee will be terminated for whatever reason.
The employee is very upset, but doesn't do anything illegal while inside the business.
The employee has from the front door to his vehicle to cool off before he/she now has ready access to a weapon. No drive home to cool off, just that short walk to the vehicle.
Employee grabs guns, goes back into work and makes everyone else feel their pain.
Ambulance chaser says business owners now know that employees are bringing guns to work, and that they need to take extra steps to protect their employees in times of firings, layoffs, etc.. No security was added by a business, so a lawyer paints them as negligent and thus _somewhat_ responsible for the deaths/injuries in the workplace shooting.

_or_

The same employee decides to end it all as soon as he/she gets their hand on a gun. That would be in the parking lot. The family sues the business stating they failed to have things in place to help those who just got notified they are out of work in this economy.

The fact is anyone can sue anyone. Any lawyer looking to make a buck can sue that this immunity clause is too broad. Judges rule the country, and no one can guess how judges will rule these cases. The best case scenario would be that a judge immediately dismiss such a lawsuit. That would likely be the fewest billable hours of legals fees. Even that would likely costs thousands to defend. The only way the business owner gets his/her money back is if the judge orders the plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of the defendant. Even with that though, the business would likely have been on the news. The business owner may suffer undue stress and loss of free time dealing with the lawsuit, etc.. Are you going to pay for my legal fees if I am sued under this law? The state passed this law, so is the state going to pay for me legal defense? Will the Attorney General take my case and defend me under this law? I support the immunity clause. I think it should be broad, but that doesn't stop a few lawyers from trying something down the road. So those business owners are now out of money due to this law where before these things weren't even issues. Always count on ambulance chasers to make an issue out of something that is new. I am not saying my examples are going to be happen every other week, or every other year, but I do believe they _will_ happen at some time in the future, and the business owner _will_ be blamed by someone as having some negligence.



To each their own. I have personal assets I want to protect. I have had dealings with enough ambulance chasers to know damn well they will test this immunity clause. As such, I am going to protect me, my personal assets, and my business assets. You don't want to buy a parking permit to park on my property, park elsewhere.



Well, keep YOUR property on YOUR property and their wouldn't be an issue. This law changes everything, as now property/business owners are now "on notice" that their could be guns on their property. Before, an owner could claim they banned guns, but the person who did whatever violated their policy, which would help the owners defense. However, now the property owner has lost rights, and is also "on notice" that employees who have a license to carry likely have guns in their cars.



Are you serious? Did you see the article in the Indy Star? Plenty of thugs, criminals, etc. get licenses. There is absolutely nothing, nothing that could prevent a person who has a license from doing something stupid. It happens, I have _seen_ it happen.

Every business owner here can embrace guns as much as they want. They can have their employees even OC if they work out in the community. I am worried about me and mine. I would like control of MY PROPERTY, but it seems folks who don't want to quit do to my polices would rather run to a statist and have them control MY PROPERTY. As such, I will react as needed. In this, I foresee possible situations which while unlikely to occur, may occur. I feel that I need to make business decisions based upon this. Of course when I start charging for parking, I am sure the same folks who just want to be worker bees and not start their own company, with their own money, at their own risk will run to those same statist and demand a law which prevents employers from charging employees to park on the property. This is the current trend of this "free" country: Go run to elected officials and get them to violate the rights of others.

For the life of me, I can't see how business owners do it. Constant taxation, constant worries about discrimination lawsuits, injury lawsuits, and now this.

Paranoid?

 

[FSquareSKS]

society has made business that way..... look at MCD's as a case in point.... Some lady won a million dollars because she stuck a cup of hot coffee in the crotch pocket... who didnt know that hot coffee was hot... Till society stops dictating to business and just lets business produce, or sell or spy or what ever it is they do; business is still gonna have to operate on the premise of what are they coming after us for next.....

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

Should we begin e-mails & phone calls to the Governor?

I already called today and asked him to sign it.

 

[Roadie]

Are you serious? Did you see the article in the Indy Star? Plenty of thugs, criminals, etc. get licenses. There is absolutely nothing, nothing that could prevent a person who has a license from doing something stupid. It happens, I have _seen_ it happen.

Allow me to address just this part of your post. No law, no licensing procedure, etc is perfect. Some mistakes are made, sure, but the percentage is small. By your logic, tighter restrictions should be placed on all Drivers because of errors made at the BMV. Punishing all, for the acts of a few is unfair, and pure laziness.

Licensed gun owners are still among the most law abiding citizens in the US, a statistically proven fact. Let me give you an example I have posted before:

The State of Texas did a cross reference of criminal convictions, and Permit holders for 2007. They found that that year, only 0.26% of ALL criminals convicted that year, also had a permit.

This trend can be documented all across the US. Targeting law abiding licensed gun owners is ludicrous, and I am surprised by your stance.

Don't believe the hype from the other side, look at the statistics, and the facts.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

His vehicle does remain his property, of course, though, and this is what I've referred to as the intersection of two Constitutionally protected rights. The problem comes with the issue re: smoking bans, in that many of our members did not like the idea when we had the big push for them in recent years. The short version of the argument was that smoking is legal, but businesses are being told they CANNOT allow it even if they want to (like bars, etc.) This is the same thing done from the opposite angle: the guns in question are legally possessed, but the employer is being told he MUST allow them on the property even if he does not want to. Both represent the state taking more control over property than they are entitled to take.
Member dburkhead has made the point that none of those smoking bans purported to disallow smoking materials in locked vehicles on the employer's property, however, anecdotally, I can report that I used to be employed somewhere that did indeed disallow smoking in one's own vehicle if it was parked on company land.

I despise this issue because I can see both sides of it and in discussion I sound like a da*n politician.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill I agree that your or mine or anyone elses vehicle is their own private property, but then again so is my lunchbox if just because it is in MY private property do I have the right to keep anything legal in it on someone else property? That is one of the problems I have with this. I and the clothes I wear are my own private property. By the reasoning that it is in my property, therfor it has to be allowed on the companies property, they should be forced to allow me to carry concealed.

And I have you beat, I did work for a company that prohibited tobacco products in cars. Not smoking or using but possessing. They were sued in another state for firing workers who were smoking while not at work. They did urine screens that detected nicotine and the employees were fired for it.
Off-the-job smoker sues over firing - The Boston Globe


And Dburkhead was incorrect there have been smoking ordinances put in place that prohibit smoking in cars. Monroe Co, and the City of Lafayette come to mind, and there are several states that have at least considered it IN included.
County bans smoking in cars with kids

Bill would prohibit smoking in cars with kids

And I agree I can see both sides of it and can come off sounding like a politician myself

 

[level.eleven]

Paranoid?

Yes. Paranoid would be the appropriate word for small business owners. The steps necessary to operate a business now days are completely out of hand. It has outright discouraged me from opening a business of my own. Capital wasn't an issue at all. Really, that's the easy part. Regulation on the type of business, accounting, legal cya mumbo jumbo, tax law, employee law, OSHA, local ordinances, state ordinances, federal law, licensing...the majority of your effort will be put towards accounting and compliance. Less of your time will be devoted to what you actually like and are good at - the reason you opened the business in the first place.

This bill is unfortunate because it strikes at the most fundamental issue of a free society, property rights. This bill strips a property owner's control over what he owns and adds even more confusion to existing gun law. Big government at its finest.

Minds aren't changed through legislation. Minds are changed through education and experience. Is that CEO at Lily going to become pro-2a now? Or, is he going to seek to regain control of his property by hassling his employees? I can't see two sides of this issue. I only see one. The one where men and women calling themselves government are pointing a gun at my head demanding what happens on my private property.

I think it would be awesome for a private property owner to strike back.

"Well, big gov says I have to allow you to bring guns onto my property now. I will just need to cover my bases. So, no one will get a raise this year since we have to implement new security measures. We need metal detectors to make sure you don't "accidentaly forget" and bring your gun into work in your holster of lunchbox. Of course, I will also need you to complete this form detailing make and serial number of each firearm you wish to bring onto my property. As part of our new contracts, employees must sign a search consent form if they wish to remain employed. This is to make sure you aren't bringing any unregistered weapons onto the site. As part of a tracking system, employees wishing to bring firearms onto the property will also, per our new contract, need to be entered into our biometric fingerprint database. This will allow us to tie together any incidents that may occurr with firearms while on site."

 

[level.eleven]

Funny aside about smoking on company property. There is/was a firework's packaging plant in Gas City that strictly forbid smoking anywhere on property, for obvious reasons. No warning either, you would be fired first offense. The employees, during their breaks, would all walk off property, across the street to smoke on breaks. Then the magic that is the free market kicked in and someone set up a little snack shop across the way that catered to the employees/smokers. It was beautiful.

 

[mk2ja]

Paranoid?

Why do you carry a gun so often? You paranoid, too?



This was just a reminder that the "paranoid?" argument isn't one we should really use. Prudence and preparedness dictate that a responsible business owner at least considers all possibilities, especially ones that could very well take place.

 

[360]

NRA announcement

Indiana: Emergency Powers/Workplace Protection Headed to the Governor!

Friday, March 05, 2010

On Thursday, March 4, House Bill 1065 passed in the Indiana State House by a margin of 74 to 20 and in the State Senate by a vote of 41 to 9. HB1065 now heads to Governor Mitch Daniels (R) desk for his consideration.

HB1065, authored by State Representative Bob Bischoff (D-68) and sponsored by State Senator Johnny Nugent (R-43) and State Senator Brent Steele (R-44), 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 their firearms in their privately-owned locked vehicles while on an employer’s property.

Please contact Governor Daniels and respectfully request he sign House Bill 1065 into law. Contact information can be found here.

 

[mk2ja]

NRA announcement

Contact information can be found here.

Added the link for ya.

 

[360]

Added the link for ya.

Thanks. I didn't bother, because I posted the link at the top in the announcement part.

But there ARE the lazy ones that would rather read it in a post then click on the original link.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i called the governeors office yesterday and today. here is a more "personal" number to one of his higher up staffers if you wanna get the message to the Governor instead of just an intern who wont even pass it on:

317-232-0668