HB 1065 (Parking Lot Bill)

[IndyGunSafety]

I called today as well.

 

[Clay]

One thing to consider about all this is that Indiana has always been a state where you are employed (or not) "at will", which boils down to a company has the authority to "hire/fire/let-you-go/reallocate" or whatever they want to call it (carefully done of course) to you any time they feel like it. You would have to spend all your own resources to fight it. So if they don't like guns they can still fire you "at will" if they even suspect something. Of course they may have to make up, er give another reason now... no problem. Any legal beagles around here that can correct or expound on this?

Unless........ your in............a Union

 

[rmcrob]

Unless........ your in............a Union

Now you've done it. IBTL.

 

[Expat]

Now you've done it. IBTL.

I googled this and found what it means, but what is the purpose of posting it. I have seen it in a couple of other threads.

 

[mk2ja]

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.

Exactly. I figured the more accessible we make it, the more likely people will take action on it. There was always the chance that people wouldn't realize they could get to the contact link by clicking the other one first.


Anyway... here's the email I sent to Governor Daniels.

Governor Daniels,

Last May I had the privilege of hearing you speak at my graduation from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. One thing you emphasized that really stuck with me was the importance for the engineers, scientists, and other educated people to really get involved. I've taken your message to heart and have been paying more attention to state and federal legislation since then, even contacting my representatives about how I want to be represented.

You have received, or will receive soon, a bill for your approval that has been passed in both houses of the Indiana General Assembly regarding Emergency Powers & Workplace Protection, HB 1065. I have been following this bill since its introduction and have worked with my representatives to ensure the bill's passage. Today I want to encourage you to sign the bill into law without delay.

As I'm sure you already know, this bill prevents state or local authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during declared states of emergency, such as unfortunately occurred in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. It was horrible that law-abiding citizens were disarmed, stripped of their most effective means of self-defense, in such a disastrous time when they most needed to protect their property, persons, and posterity. By signing HB 1065 into law, you would be making sure that it cannot be done to Hoosiers when we face our next emergency.

Additionally, HB 1065 addresses the right of a person to keep his means of self-defense with him on his way to and from a workplace that does not want guns on its property. I do find this issue to be touchy, as it pits the owner's property rights against the citizen's right to bear arms for his own defense as defined by Indiana's Constitution. After much research, reasoning, and rediscussion with other concerned citizens, I realized that the best option would be for business owners to simply decide on their own to allow employees to store these tools of self-defense in locked vehicles even while on company property. However, so many companies will not. So, the best recourse is for the citizens at large to enact legislation that would protect their freedom to defend themselves; that is what the General Assembly has done on behalf of the People of Indiana. Furthermore, the HB 1065 provides adequate protections for the property owner against absurd legal action. In sum, this bill presents an acceptable meeting point between the conflicting rights aforementioned.

With these considerations in mind, I again encourage you to support the People of Indiana, not just the politicians, who have worked to get these protections put into place for all Hoosiers by signing HB 1065 into law.


Thank you.

 

[mk2ja]

I googled this and found what it means, but what is the purpose of posting it. I have seen it in a couple of other threads.

It is an indication, oft in jest, of the belief that a thread will soon be locked due to the content of the posts or the "direction" the discussion is taking. It may even become a sort of game to see who can get the last "IBTL" post.

 

[Clay]

Now you've done it. IBTL.

 

[HICKMAN]

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.

good to know, but the Law still won't help me then.

 

[dburkhead]

good to know, but the Law still won't help me then.

Won't "help" me either since my office is in an industrial park and no one business sets policies for parking. Thus there is no restriction nor ever likely to be.

Supported it anyway because if it helps gun owners who are not me, it helps gun owners in general and helps build the "momentum" that strengthens our overall case and can lead to things down the road that do help me.

My touchstone is not whether it helps me personally but whether it furthers the cause of freedom as I see it.

 

[ATM]

My touchstone is not whether it helps me personally but whether it furthers the cause of freedom as I see it.

Good point, and conversely, how many didn't stand against the "assault weapon ban" because it wouldn't hurt them personally (or have any impact on their favorite hunting rifle or shotgun.)

The cause of freedom still took a 10-year hit and could have lead to even tighter restrictions.

 

[HICKMAN]

My touchstone is not whether it helps me personally but whether it furthers the cause of freedom as I see it.

amen there brother, my fear was this bill might create criminals out of law abiding citizens who didn't know what was excluded.

as for me....

 

[Indy317]

..., not because I agree that you have the right to disarm them.

This is the problem. I am not against this law because I want to disarm anyone, I am against it because large and small business owners put their blood, sweat, and money on the line, and they should have the RIGHT to say what is and isn't allow on their property. If individuals have the RIGHT to have a firearm on another person's property, then by default they have the right to free speech, religion, etc.. So where does it end? Will I eventually have to install foot baths for my Muslim workers? Will I eventually have to allow various people time off given their religious beliefs? Will I have to allow an employee to use my lot for political stuff? Unionizing? Etc.? This bill, smoking bans, etc. show one thing: The continued assault on _PRIVATE_ property rights.

Yes, not everyone may have what it takes to own their own business, but the minimum we should require out of folks is that if you don't like the rules, go elsewhere. I will never, ever own a business, as every year it is something new, more intrusion. If the government wants to payout my legal fees, great. If the government wants to payout my insurance, great. If the government will take over my loans when their rules and regulations finally force me to close the door, great. The thing is, the government does none of this. The government in this case passes a laughable one sentence immunity clause. Such clauses have been attacked throughout the years. Cops get immunity, but lawyers have made it so that certain actions are not covered under this law. The same can easily happen with this law. I don't care what the law says about how I can't be held responsible. If the attorney general and state of Indiana offer no costs legal service, _and_ pay me money for any rulings as a result of this law, then I have no problem with it. This won't happen. If some judge rules some business owner negligent for whatever reason, the state will toss up their arms and say "Oh well, we tried. Sorry about your luck."

I know how I would handle this as a business owner. It is exactly what was told to me by a practicing civil law lawyer: Buy more insurance. To pay for this, either workers would get a pay cut, or I would charge for parking, or someone would lose their job, or I would sell the business and be done with an over reaching government. I get sick of jacking prices for customers, so this time the state can deal with this law. They can deal with another unemployed person as a result of them running my business for me. Either way, I flat out _refuse_ to spend one additional dime from my personal bank accounts to buy this insurance when someone else is telling me how to run MY PROPERTY. I view business property no different than my home. A business owner took out a loan, took on this risk, and now year after year more and more employees who don't want to take the risk, don't want to put in the hours, do the hard work...demand government come in and tell the owner what they can and can't do with their property. It makes me sick, and again is exactly why I would never go in business on my own.

Paranoid?

I really don't want to respond to this, but the lack of logic in this post has given me an opportunity to educate some. Most of the states writing these laws are including immunity clauses. Now, if you contact your elected representative on this, would you ask them: "Why are you including this silly immunity clause in this law? Are you paranoid?" There is a reason these immunity clauses are making their way into almost _all_ these bills/laws. It has nothing to do with paranoia, it has to do with reality. Only someone with no assets to lose, with nothing in savings, with nothing on the line would have a hard time seeing this from the business owners perspective.

Look at the Georgia bill:

HB 89 specifies that it creates no "new duty on the part of the employer" or property owner, and that employers or property owners have no obligation to implement any new security measures. New security measures couldn't be held against the company in court. And if an employer or property owner was sued over criminal use of firearms in the workplace, and won the suit, the losing plaintiff would have to pay all of the defendant's legal expenses. Corporations and insurers should welcome these provisions, not oppose them.

#1: They obviously see that some employers would want additional security. That is a costs to the employer, but hey, government won't pay for it. That means someone loses a job in my book. So the business has additional security, someone is unemployed, and if someone does file some sort of lawsuit, they can't use the fact I hired some security, or put in metal detectors in court.

#2: If the owner gets sued, and "won the suit"...WHAT? Why on Earth would this even be a question of winning or losing? I thought these immunity clauses were written in stone? I guess they aren't, as even the GA legislature thought that some cases might go against the land owner/business owner. Again, buy more insurance, pay cut across the board to pay for the insurance.

Clearly my thoughts are not paranoia. They are real concerns that you are truing to trivialize. If they weren't concerns, there would be no immunity clauses in these laws.

 

[indykid]

So according to post 172 if my employer decided to ban red cars from their parking lot... never mind. I will just sue them for the right to park my red car on their lot... never mind.

When they allow me to carry my personal policeman to and from work, I will not mind parking my car in my company provided lot knowing that if some jerk doesn't like my red car and follows me into the lot, I have a cop to protect me.

Since that will never happen, it is nice to know that I can protect myself if someone decides he/she doesn't like red cars and follows me into my company parking lot, which just happens to be unguarded and open to anyone who wants to enter.

 

[antsi]

I am against it because large and small business owners put their blood, sweat, and money on the line, and they should have the RIGHT to say what is and isn't allow on their property.

If you are talking about sole proprietorships, where the owner is operating his own personal business on his own personal property at his own risk, I can see where you are coming from and I would not object if there were an exception written in to the law for this situation.

However, I do not think sole proprietorship businesses are really the core of the problem here. A lot of sole proprietorships function without formalized, written employee policies in any case. I know some small private business owners who don't even have a policy about whether an employee has a gun locked in his/her car.

The problem I have is with corporate businesses that effectively disarm their employees not just at work, but on their way to and from work. Corporations these days are essentially hand-in-glove with the government. When a big corporation is planning to build a plant or a facility, governments will build infrastructure just to serve the corporation's needs. They get special tax breaks. The .gov sells them land for pennies on the dollar. They get all kinds of grants and bailouts. For many of them, the government is their biggest customer.

And I'm sorry, but your "businessman putting his own money on the line" story is a total joke in the case of modern corporations. Every time one of them starts to totter, the government comes and bails them out to the tune of millions or billions of taxpayer dollars - money out of my pocket, that goes straight in to the pockets of the same dad-blasted corporate executives who happily disarm me.

They take high risk gambles with other people's money. If they win, they keep the winnings and make literally millions.
If they lose, the government bails them out and they still get their millions in bonuses and perks - and take the money out of my pocket to pay them.
And these same @$$-clowns are the ones who tell me I can't have a gun in the car on my way to and from work.

So you tell me whose "personal property rights" are being violated here.

You tell me whose freedoms are at stake.

You say you believe in the 2nd amendment. You won't have the government disarm the people, but you are perfectly happy to have the government farm that job out to corporations.

My employer's parking lot was built on government land with government money and gifted to the corporate entity because they are providing "a necessary public service." So, whose exactly "personal private property" are we talking about here?

 

[sporter]

I support HB1065. Thanks to all who have contacted their reps and got this through and those that support the NRA and this website.
(I did contact several reps and the state gov on this issue).

I swear I think some of the members here are anti-gun (makes no sense).

 

[WaltherFan]

Sporter,
I agree with you on both points!!

 

[Titanium Man]

I guarantee you that every public official in this State that represents me, knows my name. I'm proud to have never earned my wages off the public t**ty, and by God, all the money I've paid towards their salaries, their going to hear what I have to say.

 

[elaw555]

You say you believe in the 2nd amendment. You won't have the government disarm the people, but you are perfectly happy to have the government farm that job out to corporations.

Best. Line. Evar!

 

[GregD]

Sporter, you've got that one right.
This bill may not be perfict but it's a step in the right direction. Be happy for what we got.

 

[glockpatriot]

Sporter, you've got that one right.
This bill may not be perfict but it's a step in the right direction. Be happy for what we got.

AMEN, to both Sporter and GregD. Also we have the protection that the state can not confiscate our weapons or stop the sale of ammunition during a state of emergencies. It is a WIN for all of us. Now for the years to come, maybe we'll be able to remove some these exemptions one at a time, it can happen.

Stay Strong.