Indiana law bans asking workers about their guns

[mcolford]

If your employer asked you if you had a firearm, and you knew it would get you fired if you answered yes, wouldn't you just lie?

Maybe Im splitting hairs here.... But IF an employer asked if you had a firearm in your personal vehicle, and IF you decided to NOT answer this question, utilizing your 5th amendment right..... Wouldnt that pretty much give him a good assumption that you do in fact own/possess one??

On the flip side of this coin, if you lied on the application or in the interview, most of these have a clause that if you lie, and they find out, you can be terminated at any point.

So, in conclusion, I do feel it would be for the best if the employer cant ask. Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it.


-MColford

 

[Mr. Habib]

Question

This law makes employers asking questions about an employee's guns and if they carry, ect illegal. Does that prohibition apply to all employers or are the ones that are exempt, universities, power plants, ect still allowed to ask?

 

[Gareth]

1. Employers should not be allowed to restrict personal property belonging to an employee, or visitor, as long as that property is kept inside a vehicle parked on their property.
2. Employers should be able to restrict personal property belonging to employees or visitors being carried on them outside a vehicle parked on their property.
3. Employers should not be allowed to inflict their personal opinions on their employees or visitors regarding any matter not pertaining to the business itself.
4. Employers should not be allowed to play the twenty-question game with employees or visitors about matters not pertaining to the business itself.

Employers should not be allowed to abuse their positions of limited authority anymore than LEOs, judges, prosecutors, teachers, professors, politicians, etc. should be allowed to abuse their positions of authority.

I don't object to laws being enacted to punish those who refuse to respect the personal rights of others, because I've had to deal with too many little tin gods in my life.

 

[tnek]

Pretty easy to see those who dont have to deal with working for a company that forbids firearms in cars from those who are self employed, or park where there is no issue.
For a rather large percentage of citizens we have to park our cars on company owned lots. If a company told you you could not bring a bible into work or have one in your car how would you feel? Or if you could not bring in a newspaper of a certain type? Cant bring in a Coke but pepsi is OK.
If you drive in a Chevy it against the policy. Walk in or drive a Ford on our lot.
It never ceases to amaze and sadden me how many supposed gun owners and supporters just have to try to justify errosions of gun rights.

I also think there are closet anti gun rights types here trying to undermine while posing as gun owners.
I gave more (2) red beans on this thread than I have in the last couple years total.

Not sorry cause when someone takes the side of the "state" instead of the individual on this issue when the individual is not a criminal you are wrong.

 

[PatriotPride]

Pretty easy to see those who dont have to deal with working for a company that forbids firearms in cars from those who are self employed, or park where there is no issue.
For a rather large percentage of citizens we have to park our cars on company owned lots. If a company told you you could not bring a bible into work or have one in your car how would you feel? Or if you could not bring in a newspaper of a certain type? Cant bring in a Coke but pepsi is OK.
If you drive in a Chevy it against the policy. Walk in or drive a Ford on our lot.
It never ceases to amaze and sadden me how many supposed gun owners and supporters just have to try to justify errosions of gun rights.

I also think there are closet anti gun rights types here trying to undermine while posing as gun owners.
I gave more (2) red beans on this thread than I have in the last couple years total.

Not sorry cause when someone takes the side of the "state" instead of the individual on this issue when the individual is not a criminal you are wrong.

I agree. +1. Sadly, some people just do not get it.

 

[Sticky]

I would think that the constitutional rights of the individual should always trump an employers' property rights. Even more so, if the employee has to leave the weapon locked in a vehicle.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Now if we could just get it so they could stop asking: "Are you a gun enthusiast?" at job interviews.

 

[Indy317]

I actually know of one entity that has certain employees sign an actual contract that is somehow related to the carrying of their personally owned handguns off the clock. It is wrong. If you can't trust what an employee will do on their own time, why even employ them to do whatever job it is they do.

As such, I still believe in the rights of business owners to hire and fire anyone they want. However, if this county either protects the civil rights of everyone, or no one. If we are going to say people are special because of their sex organ, skin color, or religion, then we may as well include other things that are touched on in the Constitution: Politics/voting, firearms, etc..

I don't trust the government to ever have my back if someone bad happens with an employee owned firearm on my property. While they claim some kind of liability shield law would protect me, there is no law that states the state will pick up the tab for my lawyers to argue the shield law should protect me, nor does it say what will happen if some judge rules that part of the law invalid.

Given the above, if I were a business owner, I would take steps to limit my liability given employees are bring firearms upon my property. The following would be some things I would look into:

-Hire armed security during times of elevated risk (ie: Layoffs, employee gets fired, etc).
-Secure the parking lot with a good fence and barb wire
-Help off-set the costs of additional insurance protection.

This would cost me money. Funds would be raised in one or more of the following ways:
-Start charging all employees a parking fee
-Don't charge employees parking fees, but cut wages/benefits in an amount needed to cover the newly incurred costs.
-Don't hit all employee, just cut one or two positions to cover the costs.
-Pass on the additional costs to my customers. If that causes a loss of business, then layoffs or wage deductions would have to occur.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

As such, I still believe in the rights of business owners to hire and fire anyone they want. However, if this county either protects the civil rights of everyone, or no one. If we are going to say people are special because of their sex organ, skin color, or religion, then we may as well include other things that are touched on in the Constitution: Politics/voting, firearms, etc..

That's a good point. Since I am making myself Mr unpopular, I'll chime in that as well as being against laws prohibiting employers from asking if their employees have firearms in their locked vehicles, I am also against laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against their employees based on the employee's race, gender, sex, religion, political affiliation, disabilities, whatever.

I believe that two adults should be able to freely enter into contracts of their own choosing without government interference.

I believe in small government, the smaller the better. I don't want to see .gov sticking its fat but into private contracts even when .gov is supporting the party in the contract that I support.

 

[DragonGunner]

In the purest sense, and I know I'm going to take heat for this one, it shouldn't be against the law for an employer to ask, only that there shouldnt be a requirement for an answer. An employer should have the ability to ask, but the employee should be able to tell them to pound sand.

Should they have the right to ask if your gay? Or if you like going to the bars?
Or the right to ask if your the same relgion as theirs? Or the right to ask if your a (R) or (D).....? Tell them to pound sand, an you do know they can fire you for no reason at all in Indiana. This keeps anti gun employers from finding out who they want to get rid of or not hire. If your not breaking the law then they have no reason to ask questions......not flaming here, just my thoughts.

 

[sporter]

Pretty easy to see those who dont have to deal with working for a company that forbids firearms in cars from those who are self employed, or park where there is no issue.
For a rather large percentage of citizens we have to park our cars on company owned lots. If a company told you you could not bring a bible into work or have one in your car how would you feel? Or if you could not bring in a newspaper of a certain type? Cant bring in a Coke but pepsi is OK.
If you drive in a Chevy it against the policy. Walk in or drive a Ford on our lot.
It never ceases to amaze and sadden me how many supposed gun owners and supporters just have to try to justify errosions of gun rights.

I also think there are closet anti gun rights types here trying to undermine while posing as gun owners.
I gave more (2) red beans on this thread than I have in the last couple years total.

Not sorry cause when someone takes the side of the "state" instead of the individual on this issue when the individual is not a criminal you are wrong.

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[hunter_47443]

Pretty easy to see those who dont have to deal with working for a company that forbids firearms in cars from those who are self employed, or park where there is no issue.
For a rather large percentage of citizens we have to park our cars on company owned lots. If a company told you you could not bring a bible into work or have one in your car how would you feel? Or if you could not bring in a newspaper of a certain type? Cant bring in a Coke but pepsi is OK.
If you drive in a Chevy it against the policy. Walk in or drive a Ford on our lot.
It never ceases to amaze and sadden me how many supposed gun owners and supporters just have to try to justify errosions of gun rights.

I also think there are closet anti gun rights types here trying to undermine while posing as gun owners.
I gave more (2) red beans on this thread than I have in the last couple years total.

Not sorry cause when someone takes the side of the "state" instead of the individual on this issue when the individual is not a criminal you are wrong.

Rep inbound!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now if we could just get it so they could stop asking: "Are you a gun enthusiast?" at job interviews.

That's what this law does, in theory.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's a good point. Since I am making myself Mr unpopular, I'll chime in that as well as being against laws prohibiting employers from asking if their employees have firearms in their locked vehicles, I am also against laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against their employees based on the employee's race, gender, sex, religion, political affiliation, disabilities, whatever.

I believe that two adults should be able to freely enter into contracts of their own choosing without government interference.

I believe in small government, the smaller the better. I don't want to see .gov sticking its fat but into private contracts even when .gov is supporting the party in the contract that I support.

^^This. It's not about supporting the .gov, its that ALL rights(not just gun rights) are important. (and I'd say more, but after the post in the other thread, my poor little iPod and my thumbs aren't up to another novel! )

Blessings,
Bill

 

[grimor]

Pretty easy to see those who dont have to deal with working for a company that forbids firearms in cars from those who are self employed, or park where there is no issue.
For a rather large percentage of citizens we have to park our cars on company owned lots. If a company told you you could not bring a bible into work or have one in your car how would you feel? Or if you could not bring in a newspaper of a certain type? Cant bring in a Coke but pepsi is OK.
If you drive in a Chevy it against the policy. Walk in or drive a Ford on our lot.

It's funny you say that, try parking a toyota in a UAW lot..

It never ceases to amaze and sadden me how many supposed gun owners and supporters just have to try to justify errosions of gun rights.

I also think there are closet anti gun rights types here trying to undermine while posing as gun owners.
I gave more (2) red beans on this thread than I have in the last couple years total.

Not sorry cause when someone takes the side of the "state" instead of the individual on this issue when the individual is not a criminal you are wrong.

taking rights away from someone to give to someone else still leaves one person with less rights. You are clearly the one taking the side of the state in this case as you are supporting the law that the STATE is imposing on Individuals. The law is restricting what employers can do on their property. This is no different than a law saying you can't stop people from camping in your yard. So what if you don't want them there, they are in their personal property (tent) what gives you the right to say where they can go? Just because you own your property, do you think that means you should be able to say how it's used?

It is clear that many people here consider their employers to be just another arm of the government, a big "us vs them" battle. It amazes me the number of people that are celebrating the erosion of personal rights, just because it just happens to be in their favor..... this time

 

[grimor]

That's a good point. Since I am making myself Mr unpopular, I'll chime in that as well as being against laws prohibiting employers from asking if their employees have firearms in their locked vehicles, I am also against laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against their employees based on the employee's race, gender, sex, religion, political affiliation, disabilities, whatever.

I believe that two adults should be able to freely enter into contracts of their own choosing without government interference.

I believe in small government, the smaller the better. I don't want to see .gov sticking its fat but into private contracts even when .gov is supporting the party in the contract that I support.

I agree, any company that doesn't receive any money or favor from the government should be able to hire/fire and run it's business in any way it wants. As an owner if you don't like midget albino mexicans, you should be able to say it and not hire them. It's a private company, keep the government out of it. Don't want guns on your property, then your employees have a choice to make. No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere. If they can't find anyone to work under their terms then they won't make it or will have to change, but it's their choice.

I'm against the government regulating morality (yes I know blah blah blah but murder/theft/etc is regulated morality) even if the regulation happens to benefit me at the time.

Not to mention, by banning guns in cars they are not affecting you just while on their property, they are affecting you TO and FROM work as well.

Bottom line? Personal rights trump property rights, every time.

nothing is requiring you to park on their property. You choose to do so as a matter of convenience. If this convenience is worth more to you than being armed to and from work, that is your choice.

TBE has it right

"Real Property" rights trump "Personal Property" rights

My house ( my real property) is my castle. My car (my personal property) parked on your front yard (your real property) is not my castle. It's a car parked in the yard of your castle.

Wal-Mart can sell goods on their real property (the land they own/lease and things attached to the land). They can prohibit you from selling things out of your car on land they lease or own (their real property), even though you are selling them from your car (your personal property).

 

[LP1]

Now if we could just get it so they could stop asking: "Are you a gun enthusiast?" at job interviews.

Quite often, the purpose of a question is to see how the person answers it, not the answer itself.

If I was asked this question as an applicant...

Answer #1: "How is that relevant to the position?" (High risk / high reward - shows that you have the guts to push back, which may or may not be what the employer is looking for.)

Answer #2: "No." (Owning a gun for self protection does not necessarily make you an "enthusiast".)

Answer #3: "Guns have their place." (Wishy washy, but maybe that's what they are looking for.)

Answer #4: "Yes." (High risk / high reward - Depending on who you are talking to, it might just get you the job.)

Answer #5: "Yes. I've got 20 of 'em and go shooting every weekend." (Better make sure that there are clues in the interviewer's office that he/she is into guns, or that you are applying for a job as a roadie for Ted Nugent.)

#5a: "Yes. Love 'em." followed by whipping out your carry gun, backup, and knife. (Security will be called.)

Employers should be free to ask the question, and applicants are free to respond as we see fit. I think I'm going to start asking this in interviews to see how people handle it.

 

[tnek]

It's funny you say that, try parking a toyota in a UAW lot..

Actually its not the issue it used to be. As a former Chrysler emp I saw it. You will be keyed most likely depending on which plant you work at but and given grief at work.

Not saying one way or another if its the right thing but its the way it is now. Lots of emps are starting to understand there is no real loyalty in the workplace either way.

Non union car plants are even more likely to have a wide mix of brands on the lot.

 

[tnek]

It is clear that many people here consider their employers to be just another arm of the government, a big "us vs them" battle. It amazes me the number of people that are celebrating the erosion of personal rights, just because it just happens to be in their favor..... this time

My using the word "state" was not the proper term. But I think we understand the intent.

How is it an erosion of personal rights when someone can no longer tell me what to keep in MY personal property that no one else has access to?

There are numerous public places like malls and stores that have a no firearms policy, so do you not set foot or park on any of them?

Its a ongoing debate that I just cant understand how anyone does not support the individuals rights to keep and bear arms.
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint and I see no need to continue.

 

[grimor]

My using the word "state" was not the proper term. But I think we understand the intent.

How is it an erosion of personal rights when someone can no longer tell me what to keep in MY personal property that no one else has access to?

There are numerous public places like malls and stores that have a no firearms policy, so do you not set foot or park on any of them?

Its a ongoing debate that I just cant understand how anyone does not support the individuals rights to keep and bear arms.
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint and I see no need to continue.

Again, keep and bear arms all you want, on your property, public property, and others property that allow it. I can't understand how anyone does not support the individuals rights to regulate their property and how it's used.