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!
  • IndyBeerman

    Was a real life Beerman.....
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jun 2, 2008
    7,700
    113
    Plainfield
    Saving space to cut down on multiple post.....

    HB 1065 just passed the Senate 41-9.

    Heh. Scooped! Fast fingers, guys!

    [snipped for space]

    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

    To scoop BoR is like hitting the lottery!:D

    Was trying to figure out where the dissenting Senators lived, with the exception of Vi Simpson (:noway:) I think the most of the other 8 was from the northern part of the state.

    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:
    [snipped for space]


    We must ascendthe mountain one step at a time, fight the battles that we can win now and return later to further regain these rights just as they was taken away from us. One step at a time.

    We need to stop and realize that over the years that liberal Democrats have used this ploy time and time again to erode and take away from us.

    Only now I think that the tables are starting to turn and this ploy is being used against them, in the same way it was waged against us.

    Think of this from a 4 year old's perspective, they learn real quick that raiding the cookie jar all at once gets them busted and maybe no cookie at all because they was to busy trying to carry the jar to eat. But the same kid 6 months later has realized that he can make a mad dash for 1 cookie, and eat it before anyone is wise to it, and all of a sudden before the parents are able to comprehend, dad goes to get a cookie and he opens the jar, does a "WTH" no cookies, puts the lid one and walks away.

    One step at a time grasshopper, for it is the hop of grasshopper that draws attention to his enemies who want to eat him, not the stealth mode that gets him to where he wants.
     

    pinhead56

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2008
    370
    18
    Indianapolis
    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?
     

    E5RANGER375

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Feb 22, 2010
    11,507
    38
    BOATS n' HO's, Indy East
    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?


    sorry but i think your idea on charging employees to park, to provide reembursement to a business for stuff they dont even need is rediculous. also hiring off duty police?? do you just assume that 90% of employees cars will have guns?? i can promise you that right now the majority of people who will leave guns in their car are already doing it. this law changes nothing except keeps employers noses out of where they dont belong. IN MY PROPERTY!!!! if you have a break in or violence problem at your business now then you should have already taken extra security measures before now. the people who will now be bringing guns to work in their car are law abiding citizens. the criminals will carry theirs anywhere they want anyways even in federal buildings etc, they dont care about the law, and those are the ones you have to wory about and just be more selective on who you hire. employers think just because now they can tell a employee "dont bring a gun in your car to work and park on our property" it makes it illegal??? well NO it doesnt. business owners can request all they want but legaly they have no leg to stand on, except to fire the employee if they find a gun on his property at work. but they can fire employees for anything anyways so what does it change??
     

    HICKMAN

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    16,762
    48
    Lawrence Co.
    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!
     
    Last edited:

    mk2ja

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 20, 2009
    3,615
    48
    North Carolina
    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! :p)

    IANAL, IDPOOTV, IDSIAHIELN

    Blessings,
    Bill


    I Am Not A Lawyer
    I Don't Play One On TV
    IDSIAHIELN = ????????
    Your Mileage May Vary

    I Googled it, and I'm pretty sure you're the only one who uses IDSIAHIELN. And it isn't in the FAQ. So spill the beans! I'm usually pretty good at figuring out acronyms (in fact my old roommates and I used to just make up acronyms on the fly and we'd understand each other while everybody else looked at us like we were retards), but that one has me stumped. :xmad:
     

    BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!
    I Am Not A Lawyer
    I Don't Play One On TV
    IDSIAHIELN = ????????
    Your Mileage May Vary

    I Googled it, and I'm pretty sure you're the only one who uses IDSIAHIELN. And it isn't in the FAQ. So spill the beans! I'm usually pretty good at figuring out acronyms (in fact my old roommates and I used to just make up acronyms on the fly and we'd understand each other while everybody else looked at us like we were retards), but that one has me stumped. :xmad:
    I Did stay in a Holiday inn E? last night
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    ...To scoop BoR is like hitting the lottery!:D

    Was trying to figure out where the dissenting Senators lived, with the exception of Vi Simpson (:noway:) I think the most of the other 8 was from the northern part of the state....

    Apparently not... Several of you did it!

    The list of senators who voted against it is not yet on the website, but I know I saw Simpson, Randolph, Lanane, and Wyss. Fairly certain I saw Broden and possibly Tallian as well, though not sure of those.

    None are a real surprise. Wyss never met an anti-gun law he didn't love unless it wasn't restrictive enough. He made the statements a couple of years ago in the debate over SB 356 that
    a) if that bill passed, Tom Wyss (yes, he referred to himself in third person) would never have another young person page for him in the Senate. (That bill would have removed authority from the state or any political subdivision of the state to bar LTCH holders from any state owned or managed property)
    b) announced that he had a Lifetime LTCH in his pocket, but that if someone in the gallery was to start taking potshots at him, he did not trust himself to shoot back.

    Analysis: he is an elitist who believes in carry for himself or those of his station, but not for us lowly peasants... and note the similarity between that last word and "pissants".

    His was the only name I recognized in the dissenters that was a member of the GOP. RINO, in other words.

    Lanane is a piece of work... He actually had the audacity to challenge Sen. Nugent's integrity on the Senate floor during the above-mentioned debate. He's another who just doesn't get it.

    The other.. Their work speaks for itself.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I Am Not A Lawyer
    I Don't Play One On TV
    IDSIAHIELN = ????????
    Your Mileage May Vary

    I Googled it, and I'm pretty sure you're the only one who uses IDSIAHIELN. And it isn't in the FAQ. So spill the beans! I'm usually pretty good at figuring out acronyms (in fact my old roommates and I used to just make up acronyms on the fly and we'd understand each other while everybody else looked at us like we were retards), but that one has me stumped. :xmad:

    Yep, that's it. I didn't think it was right to put it in the acronyms list here, but I have typed it out a time or two. One time esrice offered to solve that problem for me. :lmfao:

    Sorry to confuse!

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    The senators who voted against HB 1065 are:

    Jean Breaux............Indianapolis
    Lonnie Randolph......East Chicago
    Karen Tallian...........Portage
    John Broden............South Bend
    Earline Rogers.........Gary
    Greg Taylor............Indianapolis
    Tim Lanane............Anderson
    Vi Simpson.............Elletsville
    Tom Wyss.............Ft. Wayne

    Again... no real surprises as to who is in that list... I was kind of surprised to see who wasn't until I remembered this is an election year.
     

    Indy317

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 27, 2008
    2,495
    38
    I'm confused, Indy317. How is the language vague?

    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.

    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.

    sorry but i think your idea on charging employees to park, to provide reembursement to a business for stuff they dont even need is rediculous.

    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.

    this law changes nothing except keeps employers noses out of where they dont belong. IN MY PROPERTY!!!!

    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.

    the people who will now be bringing guns to work in their car are law abiding citizens.

    :rolleyes: 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.
     

    HICKMAN

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    16,762
    48
    Lawrence Co.
    Sorry, this is a state law, so it would be Mitch Daniels and not Ballard that signs.

    Ummm... Fail! ;)

    yes, it was late and I was tired, I obviously had Ballard in mind with the city parks bill.

    Read up and you'll notice I called Murphy and Waltz....

    this still SUCKS!
     

    360

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 7, 2009
    3,626
    38
    The senators who voted against HB 1065 are:

    Jean Breaux............Indianapolis
    Lonnie Randolph......East Chicago
    Karen Tallian...........Portage
    John Broden............South Bend
    Earline Rogers.........Gary
    Greg Taylor............Indianapolis
    Tim Lanane............Anderson
    Vi Simpson.............Elletsville
    Tom Wyss.............Ft. Wayne

    Again... no real surprises as to who is in that list... I was kind of surprised to see who wasn't until I remembered this is an election year.
    ...I think I have an email from Vi Simpson telling me she supported it.
     
    Top Bottom