Indiana law bans asking workers about their guns

[Bill of Rights]

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.

How is it an erosion of personal rights? The property owner no longer has the right to say what is and is not allowed on his property. Case in point: Free speech, yes? OK, so walk into Pizza Hut and start loudly denouncing their pizza and offering everyone coupons for free Little Caesars and see how long it is before you're kicked out. But how is it that you can be denied the right to be on their property and saying what crappy pizza they have and offering people a way to take business away from them?

When the government steps in and tells a property owner they can or cannot do _______ on their own property or worse, cannot allow others to do so, it is an example of governmental overreach... and yes, I'd even extend this to Health Department inspections. So how could we be assured the food we were being fed was not unsanitary? The same way we can be assured that our electronic gizmos and gadgets are safe to use, courtesy of that little circled "UL" on the back of them. Underwriters' Laboratories is a non-governmental, third-party entity that each company pays for its products to be inspected and listed. It's important enough to them to ensure that their product is certified safe and it's important enough to some people to look and ensure that products they buy are listed. UL has no authority over the product, can't pull it off the market, can't do anything but refuse to list it if it's unsafe, and if you don't check for their listing, it's not their fault if you get a nasty shock. If you get that shock and it IS listed, they might be liable for claiming it was safe for use.

Similarly, the businesses could voluntarily pay "tnek's Restaurant Inspectors" to come in and certify that they meet safe criteria for food service. If a restaurant didn't rate "safe" or didn't pay to be inspected recently or at all, I might choose not to eat there. If I do and get sick, I might have recourse against the restaurant and against tnek's Restaurant Inspectors.

Back on topic, the employer, who you CHOOSE to work for, has no right to tell you what you can and cannot have in your car that no one else has access to. They DO have a right to tell you you cannot park your car on their land.

As to malls and stores with "no firearm" policies....a purist would refuse to patronize them, including not buying Levi's jeans, etc., etc. Said purist would probably have a difficult time finding products he or she used and finding places to shop. Most of us choose to go about our day, doing what we do, and only make an issue of it if it's noticed and challenged that we carry. It's not the pure ideal that's at stake for most of us, we just want to not be helpless and vulnerable. The difference between that and an employer is that the employer has far more to offer you than you do him; There are LOTS of people looking for work. A customer has more to offer a business than the business does the customer; There are LOTS of businesses that sell various products from whom he can buy.

Does that help explain the other perspective? The problem is that the government is taking away the employers' liberties and property rights. It so happens that this decision seems to go in our favor, but it sets an ugly precedent: What happens when government comes after different rights, and we've already allowed them to do so? We have little ground on which to stand to argue against them doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[tnek]

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.

So, again,, presuming you carry concealed do you not go to any simon owned mall or any other place of business that has a no guns on property position?

 

[tnek]

How is it an erosion of personal rights? The property owner no longer has the right to say what is and is not allowed on his property. Case in point: Free speech, yes? OK, so walk into Pizza Hut and start loudly denouncing their pizza and offering everyone coupons for free Little Caesars and see how long it is before you're kicked out. But how is it that you can be denied the right to be on their property and saying what crappy pizza they have and offering people a way to take business away from them?

When the government steps in and tells a property owner they can or cannot do _______ on their own property or worse, cannot allow others to do so, it is an example of governmental overreach... and yes, I'd even extend this to Health Department inspections. So how could we be assured the food we were being fed was not unsanitary? The same way we can be assured that our electronic gizmos and gadgets are safe to use, courtesy of that little circled "UL" on the back of them. Underwriters' Laboratories is a non-governmental, third-party entity that each company pays for its products to be inspected and listed. It's important enough to them to ensure that their product is certified safe and it's important enough to some people to look and ensure that products they buy are listed. UL has no authority over the product, can't pull it off the market, can't do anything but refuse to list it if it's unsafe, and if you don't check for their listing, it's not their fault if you get a nasty shock. If you get that shock and it IS listed, they might be liable for claiming it was safe for use.

Similarly, the businesses could voluntarily pay "tnek's Restaurant Inspectors" to come in and certify that they meet safe criteria for food service. If a restaurant didn't rate "safe" or didn't pay to be inspected recently or at all, I might choose not to eat there. If I do and get sick, I might have recourse against the restaurant and against tnek's Restaurant Inspectors.

Back on topic, the employer, who you CHOOSE to work for, has no right to tell you what you can and cannot have in your car that no one else has access to. They DO have a right to tell you you cannot park your car on their land.

As to malls and stores with "no firearm" policies....a purist would refuse to patronize them, including not buying Levi's jeans, etc., etc. Said purist would probably have a difficult time finding products he or she used and finding places to shop. Most of us choose to go about our day, doing what we do, and only make an issue of it if it's noticed and challenged that we carry. It's not the pure ideal that's at stake for most of us, we just want to not be helpless and vulnerable. The difference between that and an employer is that the employer has far more to offer you than you do him; There are LOTS of people looking for work. A customer has more to offer a business than the business does the customer; There are LOTS of businesses that sell various products from whom he can buy.

Does that help explain the other perspective? The problem is that the government is taking away the employers' liberties and property rights. It so happens that this decision seems to go in our favor, but it sets an ugly precedent: What happens when government comes after different rights, and we've already allowed them to do so? We have little ground on which to stand to argue against them doing so.

Blessings,
Bill

Type away all you want. Your still wrong.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Type away all you want. Your still wrong.

You are welcome to think so.

Edit: Do explain, though, please, how in your mind this is wrong:

...Back on topic, the employer, who you CHOOSE to work for, has no right to tell you what you can and cannot have in your car that no one else has access to. They DO have a right to tell you you cannot park your car on their land....

 

[grimor]

So, again,, presuming you carry concealed do you not go to any simon owned mall or any other place of business that has a no guns on property position?

I tend to OC actually, I don't go to malls because I don't feel they have anything to offer really. If I am CC or OC I go wherever, if asked to leave, I leave and let other people know that I was asked to leave. If I feel like I still need to do business with that establishment, I either CC or don't have my gun on me at the time, if I CC and get caught, they are well within their rights to ask me to never come back. Their property, their rules. My property, my rules.

As I've said before, how is this any different than making a law that says people can setup camp on your property and you can't ask them to leave. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; who are you to deny them the liberty to camp on your land...

 

[rmoore911]

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 completely agree with just about everything you've stated in this thread so far. By no means do I want anyone to have their personal rights taken away from them, but I also do not want the government telling me how to run shop. Though I personally wouldn't restrict the access of my employees to leave a firearm in a locked vehicle, if an owner did not want that on his property, and clearly states none are allowed on the property, it is the prospective employees decision to make on whether or not he wants to concede to those terms of employment. If not, he/she needs to find a place of employment who will cater to their wants.

 

[dross]

Own a Wal-Mart, lol
I do not own a wal-mart. If I did, I would also own a GE mini gun and it would be all over INGO.

Back to my question, do you own any real property? I am trying to gain insight into where you're coming from.

To give you an idea of where I am coming from, I do own real property. Some of it is commercial and I do place restrictions upon what can be done on the property. I prohibit some things from being brought onto the property and I specify the uses which I allow and which uses I prohibit. I also reserve the right to inspect the property for prohibited materials/uses and have specified my recourse should I find prohibited materials/uses.

I am not forcing my will upon the parties using my real property, they entered into a contract of their own free will agreeing to abide by the terms of the contract.

I view employment contracts in the same light. If the employment contract prohibits pro-life literature on the property and allows for the inspection of vehicles to verify compliance, then I stand that the employer has the right to search and terminate employment if they find it.

Also, I disagree that employment gives the employee "vested interest" in the "real property" or the company. As I understand it, "Vested Interest" is an interest that cannot be taken away by a third party. I do not think that is applicable in most employment situations, excepting becoming "vested" in retirement funds and the like.

Please do not get me wrong, I personally think we should not do business with employers which disarm their employees. I do not however, think that the law should be used as some type of crude club to serve my views.

In the interest of disclosure, I am not a lawyer.

Quoted for excellence and repped.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Pretty easy to see those who don't 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 erosions 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.

Lol, I am one of the recipients of one of those "negative" reps. Now, I'm going to take you to task on your idea of "freedom," because it is fairly obvious that you are not clear on exactly what that is.
You fail to look at the big picture. Your only concern is that of your personal gun rights. Sorry, but there are in infinite amount of "rights." Do not disregard the others simply because you are "pro-gun."

I will ask you a very simple question:
"if a private citizen invites you to his home, doe he have the right to ask you if you have a gun in your car? "

OF COURSE HE DOES! Why shouldn't he? It's his property. Now let's extend that premise to a private business rather than a home. Now you believe that because it's a business, the owner shouldn't have the right to ask any question he chooses? You believe that the govt should dictate what I can say and do on my own property? There's a word for that... fascism.

There are some here that believe that gun rights trump every other right. Being that this is a "pro gun" site, I can understand that many of those individuals frequent this place. However, gun rights should have EQUAL footing with all our other rights.

It saddens me that some don't have even the most basic concept of freedom, or are so blinded by what they want to do, that they seek to infringe upon my, and others, rights. I have repeatedly seen people cite the Constitution in relation to how they express their rights when dealing with a private citizen/owner.... the problem is that the Constitution doesn't apply to them; it's a limitation on govt, NOT individuals (and by extension businesses). The reason the limitation does not apply to business is because people freely enter into contracts with the people they work for; it only applies to govt because one cannot chose to NOT be subject to its laws.

The fact remains, if it is a private interest, I can/should be able to ask whatever the heck I want. I can't force anyone to do anything, but leave.

If someone was told not to bring a bible, a pepsi, or chevy on someone else's property, guess what? It's their property, their rules. If you don't like it, it's your right to leave or quit. It is certainly NOT your right to tell them what they can or cannot say one their own property.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

Yes. An employer should be able to ask if your gay, if you like minorities, if you drink 3 days a week, if you a Catholic, or whatever he feels like. I should clarify and say a private employer. I am a big proponent of the free market. If a business owner doesn't want to hire a certain type of individual, and asks questions to find out who those individuals are, he should be able to do so. Your only option when dealing with those businesses is not to use their services and to pass along your opinion of them. Sure, the actions of the employer are distasteful, but if the free market were left unchecked, many of these businesses would have a "limited shelf life." I certainly wouldn't frequent a place that refused to hire people based on their religion, sex, race, or orientation, and I assure you that I would make sure none of my friends did as well.

 

[IndyBeerman]

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.

If they had the right before passage of this law, go ahead and tell your employer that you choose to not answer that question and to pound sand.

Regardless of if you choose to bring your defensive weapon to work or not, OR if you do not own a firearm, it will be assumed that you do carry one and another reason to dismiss or terminate will be thought of.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If they had the right before passage of this law, go ahead and tell your employer that you choose to not answer that question and to pound sand.

Regardless of if you choose to bring your defensive weapon to work or not, OR if you do not own a firearm, it will be assumed that you do carry one and another reason to dismiss or terminate will be thought of.

Employers shouldn't have to have a reason to terminate anyone at any time.

 

[SmileDocHill]

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


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

This summs up the confusion perfectly, you nailed it. It is like people are saying "It is none of my employers business"...well, actually this is the very essence of that phrase. IT IS THEIR BUSINESS, they own it. It is a personal, individual (if it is a corp. then it is an entity treated like a person) but it isn't the law or government. When you take away someones ability to chose, because YOU know they are choosing poorly, you are still taking away their freedom to chose. The employer isn't requiring anyone to be unarmed, they are just saying don't come on my property if you are. Especially if it is part of the process by which you are both deciding if it is in your best interest (pre employment contract). If it is a rule that becomes enacted after you are already there, well unfortunately you work for someone who changed their mind, about how they want to run their business on their property. I feel that is a poor choice but unlike many on here I don't feel I should push my beliefs on how someone conducts their business on their property. And I really don't like the common observation that people are OK with letting the Gov. assume the power to handle this through laws. If you are an employee you are hired to help them run their business.
OK rant off, flame suit on.

 

[tnek]

Lol, I am one of the recipients of one of those "negative" reps. Now, I'm going to take you to task on your idea of "freedom," because it is fairly obvious that you are not clear on exactly what that is.
You fail to look at the big picture. Your only concern is that of your personal gun rights. Sorry, but there are in infinite amount of "rights." Do not disregard the others simply because you are "pro-gun."

I will ask you a very simple question:
"if a private citizen invites you to his home, doe he have the right to ask you if you have a gun in your car? "

OF COURSE HE DOES! Why shouldn't he? It's his property. Now let's extend that premise to a private business rather than a home. Now you believe that because it's a business, the owner shouldn't have the right to ask any question he chooses? You believe that the govt should dictate what I can say and do on my own property? There's a word for that... fascism.

There are some here that believe that gun rights trump every other right. Being that this is a "pro gun" site, I can understand that many of those individuals frequent this place. However, gun rights should have EQUAL footing with all our other rights.

It saddens me that some don't have even the most basic concept of freedom, or are so blinded by what they want to do, that they seek to infringe upon my, and others, rights. I have repeatedly seen people cite the Constitution in relation to how they express their rights when dealing with a private citizen/owner.... the problem is that the Constitution doesn't apply to them; it's a limitation on govt, NOT individuals (and by extension businesses). The reason the limitation does not apply to business is because people freely enter into contracts with the people they work for; it only applies to govt because one cannot chose to NOT be subject to its laws.

The fact remains, if it is a private interest, I can/should be able to ask whatever the heck I want. I can't force anyone to do anything, but leave.

If someone was told not to bring a bible, a pepsi, or chevy on someone else's property, guess what? It's their property, their rules. If you don't like it, it's your right to leave or quit. It is certainly NOT your right to tell them what they can or cannot say one their own property.

Im not going to waste more time on this after I reply and I have asked several times and have not seen (maybe I missed it) a real reply.
Presuming you carry a firearm do you or do you not go places that you know have policies about no firearms on site such as Simon malls, Lowes, and many more locations that have that stand?

I still do not understand why anyone would not support more rights for gun owners and its obviously not going to be solved. I do know that most if not all of the opposed to this are privatly or self employed and dont have to deal with this issue firsthand. Walk a mile in the shoes of someone who does. Any employer has a right to hire and fire at their discretion. They provide a parking area where no other choice is available in most cases where this is an issue.
When you try to count the angles on a pin head by bringing the the totally irrelivent argument about being on someone private residence. Apples and oranges.
Im done debating this on either thread.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Tnek,
You've gotten several answers, just none with which you agree. I can only translate this to mean," My mind is made up- stop trying to confuse me with other views!"

You're correct that this won't convince you of the point of view others hold, nor does it have to. For that matter, it wasn't expected to. You did ask, though, so we answered.

FWIW, I used to argue this from your point of view as well... And I'm neither self employed nor privately employed at my full time job ( though my part time is a private employer)

You do not have to agree, but unlike you, we're not telling you you're wrong, just answering the question you asked.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

The fascinating thing about issues like this is that they expose those whose views are aligned as a matter of accident and those whose views are aligned as a matter of principle.

tnek keeps saying he "doesn't understand." I don't understand either. I don't understand how some folks don't realize that a government willing to trample on one person's rights to extend priveleges to another person, can be wheeled around in an instante to take rights from the first person.

This weakens the protections of everyone. Some would say, and I have sympathy for this view, "Hey, so many of our rights have been abused by government, what's wrong with one going our way?"

It's easy to fall into that trap, but by doing so we give the other side a great victory, because they prove that we hold our own priveleges higher than others' rights. They prove that the good guys are only good guys as long as it benefits them.

Like the famous Churchill story, don't know if it's true, but it makes the point:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?
Woman: Well, I suppose, we'd have to discuss the terms..
Churchill: How about for 5 pounds?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that, now we're just haggling over price.

 

[BigGuyinMuncie]

Glad to hear it. My boss is one of the ones that is a gun owner also. I carry at work alot because we do maintenance and alot of our properties are in "questionable" areas.

 

[grimor]

Presuming you carry a firearm do you or do you not go places that you know have policies about no firearms on site such as Simon malls, Lowes, and many more locations that have that stand?

While I already answered this for you, I regularly OC in Lowes and have never had a problem. I was just there Friday for about half an hour OC.

here's my reply to you again

I tend to OC actually, I don't go to malls because I don't feel they have anything to offer really. If I am CC or OC I go wherever, if asked to leave, I leave and let other people know that I was asked to leave. If I feel like I still need to do business with that establishment, I either CC or don't have my gun on me at the time, if I CC and get caught, they are well within their rights to ask me to never come back. Their property, their rules. My property, my rules.

As I've said before, how is this any different than making a law that says people can setup camp on your property and you can't ask them to leave. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; who are you to deny them the liberty to camp on your land...

 

[IndianaGTI]

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.

The only problem I see with this statement is that the poster is taking the side of the "state" instead of he individual. The poster is in favor of the state prohibiting an individual employer from freely contracting.

You are siding on the side of the state in taking away a person's right to freely contract.

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

 

[IndyBeerman]

The problem is all what's my property is mine, what's yours is mine.....

While I see the business property rights, I feel that they need to see our rights also to protect ourselves to and from work because a lot of us do not work in the most gracious of areas that leads us wonderful times of gumdrops and lollipops on green grassy hills.

Very few companies take the extra step to protect employees once they get on the property, sure there maybe security inside the workplace, but very few have outside security other than a simple chain link fence that outsiders can still drive in or walk in unobstructed.

I'm fortunate to work for a company that employees off duty IMPD and Lawrence LEO's around the clock 24/7 and to gain access to the lot and building you have to have a key card. But I will tell you this, my drive from the interstate to my place of employment in the dark hours of the morning is no bowl of fun, my head is on a swivel the entire time I pull up to lights.

I think it's time for logic to start to prevail, business need to realize that a parking lot provided for employees to park should not encompass them putting limits on what can or can not be in the vehicle, because after all a vehicle is personal private property and the parking lot is property that they built for the employee to park THEIR OWN personal private property on it.

So I think that if a company wants skirt around the issue and not face up to it, they should do one of two things.....


Eliminate the employee lot, no one and I mean NO ONE is allowed to park in it other than the owner him/herself and force all employees to park off site.

Or allow unrestricted parking on the lot with NO questions asked.

Option one will kill your work force and company, option two eliminates the problem.

I'm not a Nostradamus forecaster, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I feel it's time for society as a whole to realize that today's world is becoming a hole and it's not 1895 anymore where we can sleep with the doors unlocked and windows open. Their are people who will kill you for a dollar and not think twice about it. I do not plan on becoming worm food, nor due I plan on being a lemming and following everyone off a cliff.

 

[Sticky]

The scenario: Someone invites me, and my car, onto their property and invites me into their house.

As long as what is in my car complies with state and federal law, then I don't think it's content is their business since anything in the car is contained inside my property, and locked up. I don't expect to be asked if it contains a gun, a baseball bat, or a cd player. They might not like music or baseball, but maybe I do.

If the property owner wants to search my car for safety reasons, then I would want to search their house for my safety. Or they could just invite me over, but demand that I use off-site parking. Or I could probably just park on the public street out front? Not always possible in all areas.

At the same time, it's a tough call. At what point does my rights interfere with the other parties?