Must Read! [Patriots] True story (Evansville)

[Andre46996]

I have to chime in...

If this is private property that this happen on am I too understand that everyone here who is for smaller and less intrusive government really wants a new law saying what employers can and can not allow on their private property? Does this mean if I don't want you to carry in my home or on my property that the government could overrule my wants and desires on my own private property?

Please no flames I a asking a real question.

How could you back a law that would dictate what an employer could do on their private property.

As far a carrying a gun to work my vehicle is my private property and without a search warrant you will NOT be searching it. If part of the employers rules say they have that right then they do I will just terminate my employment with them if it would come down to that.

When you are hired you agree to the employers rules if you do not like them you have other options.

 

[in_betts]

While I understand your point about the employer's private property rights, the issue here involves a Constitutionally protected God created right that doesn't actually INVOLVE the employer. You could make the analogy that that if the employer is given no limitations concerning basic rights, they could limit your speach, what radio you listen to, what you eat for lunch, what you drink, your personal space (like inside your clothing) and on and on.

 

[Roadie]

What similar situation is that? Working somewhere for 23 years and not knowing your employer's policy on firearms? Or was there a policy at all? Did the unknown former employee know about the policy and willfully ignore it? Was this the first time he violated the policy, and got a warning the first time? Or maybe there wasn't a policy and his employer went nuts over a rifle in his car, and way overreacted (that's an understatement). There's just a few of my questions about this situation that will never be answered.

Jim Tomes might be a sterling guy, but like everyone running for political office, he's got to raise money. I haven't gotten fundraising literature from any politician or cause, right, left or in the middle, that didn't try to scare the ***t out of me with egregious (but factually vague) horror stories so I'd donate. Just sayin that with all those details missing, and the subject person and employer remaining anonymous, I'm taking the story with a grain of salt.

As for my opinion on the bill, it's a good principle, but a bad law, to the extent it would require employers to allow employees to keep firearms on company parking lots. Indiana's employment at will (which means you can be fired for no reason, but not a bad reason) and employers, like everyone else, have property rights. However, maybe a law that would prohibit employers from firing someone for having a firearm on company property, without a clear, prior existing policy, would make better sense.

It's a bad law to allow a free citizen to exercise his/her 2nd Amendment rights in their own car??

Many states are passing laws allowing a gun owner to keep a gun in their car on company property. The car being the gun owner's private property. If a company wants to stop an employee from carrying in the building, I can understand that, while I don't agree. However, saying I can't have my gun in my car doesn't affect me just while i am at work. It disarms me for my entire trip, to and from work.

Ad for the so called "factually vague" comment...apparently you ahven't heard that this is going on all over the country. I posted an excerpt showing how this first came to prominence in 2002 with the mass firings [SIZE=-1]in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser corporation fired employees for having guns in personal vehicles on company property.[/SIZE]

Why does it seem so many gun owners on here lately, are actually against the 2nd Amendment?

 

[EdC]

You could make the analogy that that if the employer is given no limitations concerning basic rights, they could limit your speach, what radio you listen to, what you eat for lunch, what you drink, your personal space (like inside your clothing) and on and on.

Slippery slope again. No rights are absolute. I think employers can limit speech, to a point, such as having policies about no political posters/campaigning at work, etc. Limited, but there.

Best analogy I can think of is whether or not an employer could have a say about political or other bumper stickers on an employee's vehicle parked on company property. As I think about, though, even then, a company could have a better argument to ban bumper stickers (a passerby could infer that the ideas on the bumper stickers were those of, or approved by the company) than banning firearms locked in someone's vehicle, even though it's on company property.

 

[Roadie]

I have to chime in...

If this is private property that this happen on am I too understand that everyone here who is for smaller and less intrusive government really wants a new law saying what employers can and can not allow on their private property? Does this mean if I don't want you to carry in my home or on my property that the government could overrule my wants and desires on my own private property?

Please no flames I a asking a real question.

How could you back a law that would dictate what an employer could do on their private property.

As far a carrying a gun to work my vehicle is my private property and without a search warrant you will NOT be searching it. If part of the employers rules say they have that right then they do I will just terminate my employment with them if it would come down to that.

When you are hired you agree to the employers rules if you do not like them you have other options.

As I said in my other post, I think the biggest issue here is that if you take away my rights, in MY car, then I am disarmed not only on company property, but to and from work as well.

How would those of you on both sides of this issue feel if a caveat was added to a law allowing guns in cars, on business property, BUT they had to be secured? Lock box, trigger lock, etc.

 

[Andre46996]

As I said in my other post, I think the biggest issue here is that if you take away my rights, in MY car, then I am disarmed not only on company property, but to and from work as well.

How would those of you on both sides of this issue feel if a caveat was added to a law allowing guns in cars, on business property, BUT they had to be secured? Lock box, trigger lock, etc.

Roadie reread my post I support their right to not want firearms on their property, BUT..... No one will violate my rights or my personal property!!!

As I stated rules are rules some can be bent and others are meant to be broken, I will NOT disarm myself because of somebodies rules. If my EDC is locked in my truck it is none of anyones business. If they request to search my vehicle I will simply have to find work elsewhere. I might have agreed to their rules but I will not allow a search of my private property. By quitting I would not have to explain a termination to my next employer.

If he agreed to employment with the company he agreed with the rules if he was not smart enough to CONCEAL his range bag it is only his fault.

I have carried many places where somebody thought their rules trumped state law and have never had an issue.... Concealed means CONCEALED..

 

[in_betts]

Slippery slope again. No rights are absolute.

Actually they are. Just because idiots filed lawsuits with no legal claim and then Congress made laws or Judges interpreted them to be other than absolute doesn't really change the rights. If you say they come from God, the Creator, the God of Nature, however you choose to pen the name, then until God rescinds the rights, they are absolute.

If you say "you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater" (when there is no fire), again that would be wrong in the sense that it isn't the type of speech protected in the First Amendment. That is just stupid and I suppose if you can be charged with stupid, then that would be the charge. The speech protected in the First Amendment IS political and religious speech, and even speaking ill of your gov't. So the bumper sticker analogy doesn't fly, IMHO. That doesn't mean that somebody wouldn't try it and win the suit, but it wouldn't affect my behavior.

I know my position then leads us in to the area of "LEO's have to enforce the law as it is, not what it SHOULD be", but that is the chance one takes and sometimed you have to pick your battles if you want to be around for the next one.

(a passerby could infer that the ideas on the bumper stickers were those of, or approved by the company)

See IMHO that is the kind of thinking that took us down this slippery slope. The passerby can be angry, offended, upset, shocked, whatever but that is THEIR reaction, which is not connected to MY freedom to say "the gov't sucks" or whatever I choose on my vehicle. STOP thinking like "how can we protect ourselves from a stupid lawsuit", and START thinking "people need to grow up". You can try to idiot proof everything, but they just keep making better idiots.

 

[IronHorseman]

I`m on my way to work so I don`t have time to explain my position on the property rights issue , I`ll do that later. But what I wan`t to know is did this man violate his employers written policy?

 

[DemolitionMan]

It sure seems like a heavy-handed response by the company. A model 23 year employee not only fired but banned from the property for life because he had an unloaded .22 locked in his vehicle? It sounds like a zero tolerance policy to me, and that means zero judgement involved.

I`m on my way to work so I don`t have time to explain my position on the property rights issue , I`ll do that later. But what I wan`t to know is did this man violate his employers written policy?

I'm curious about that too. If there was a policy and the person knowingly violated it I have less sympathy for him. The company still over-reacted but if that was the policy then he either should have obeyed it, kept the range bag out of sight, or worked somewhere else.

I can understand some of scheesman's skepticism. There are some important facts left out here, such as what company is involved and what their policies were. I don't know anything at all about the politician involved. He may be honest as the day is long. On the other hand, if a politician told me the sky was blue I would look up to make sure, no matter what their political persuasion might be.

As for the proposed law allowing you to carry to your place of work, I'm on the fence. People have a right to defend themselves while going to and from work, but property owners' rights have to be respected as well. I think it all hinges on whether your car is considered a little island of personal property, the contents of which cannot be governed by other people. IANAL so I have no idea what the law currently says about such things...is there anything in the Indiana code that talks about the car as personal property?

 

[EdC]

In betts, as far as rights being absolute, you're right. I said it poorly. What I should have said was that a person's rights can end when they encroach upon another's rights. That's what I meant to say.

Also, SB 25 will apply to all persons, including individuals, and doesn't specify that they have to be an employer.

As I think more about it, DemolitionMan may have the right idea. The Indiana Code does apply the "Castle Doctrine" to motor vehicles, as long as you're in it, so in that sense, an vehicle is as inviolate as a person's home. And then, of course, there's search and seizure laws, as well.

So, there's a very good argument that SB 25 won't violate the rights of the person to set policies about their real estate, regarding firearms in locked vehicles on their property. It also provides the person immunity from any actions that would result from the firearm being on their property.

And, it will allow folks to at least bring their guns with them who would otherwise have to leave their guns at home. Actually, a policy banning guns in the parking lot really does infringe on someone's Indiana's explicit Constitutional right to have a firearm for self defense. I'm convinced, and will write my rep to support the bill. I'm not reading this thread any more, so I don't change my mind again. Bye!

 

[longbow]

The company I work for has a sporting clays site, and this year will have a pistol range.

We don't leave them laying around, but a few of us have had more than a few guns in our cars or company cars....

I while back I got looked over real hard when I walked into the common area of my office building with a range bag and a rifle case...........

 

[Bill of Rights]

What similar situation is that? Working somewhere for 23 years and not knowing your employer's policy on firearms? Or was there a policy at all? Did the unknown former employee know about the policy and willfully ignore it? Was this the first time he violated the policy, and got a warning the first time? Or maybe there wasn't a policy and his employer went nuts over a rifle in his car, and way overreacted (that's an understatement). There's just a few of my questions about this situation that will never be answered.

Jim Tomes might be a sterling guy, but like everyone running for political office, he's got to raise money. I haven't gotten fundraising literature from any politician or cause, right, left or in the middle, that didn't try to scare the ***t out of me with egregious (but factually vague) horror stories so I'd donate. Just sayin that with all those details missing, and the subject person and employer remaining anonymous, I'm taking the story with a grain of salt.

As for my opinion on the bill, it's a good principle, but a bad law, to the extent it would require employers to allow employees to keep firearms on company parking lots. Indiana's employment at will (which means you can be fired for no reason, but not a bad reason) and employers, like everyone else, have property rights. However, maybe a law that would prohibit employers from firing someone for having a firearm on company property, without a clear, prior existing policy, would make better sense.

Had Jim not been sending notes like this out for years prior to his candidacy, that is, was it not his pattern to do so to make members of the 2nd Amendment Patriots aware of issues, I might agree with you. It is because of his pattern that I do not. Sure, he wants the financial support for his campaign, no question, but there is more than enough factual information out there; he doesn't have to make stuff up to generate that support.

While I understand your point about the employer's private property rights, the issue here involves a Constitutionally protected God created right that doesn't actually INVOLVE the employer. You could make the analogy that that if the employer is given no limitations concerning basic rights, they could limit your speach, what radio you listen to, what you eat for lunch, what you drink, your personal space (like inside your clothing) and on and on.

They DO have the right to limit those things? Don't believe me? Go in to your workplace (or elsewhere) and publicly begin promoting the competition? (i.e. if you work for McDonalds, on your lunch break, go next door to Burger King and come back to the McD's dining room to eat your meal.) They are not restricting your rights. You do not have a right to work for them.

It's a bad law to allow a free citizen to exercise his/her 2nd Amendment rights in their own car??

Many states are passing laws allowing a gun owner to keep a gun in their car on company property. The car being the gun owner's private property. If a company wants to stop an employee from carrying in the building, I can understand that, while I don't agree. However, saying I can't have my gun in my car doesn't affect me just while i am at work. It disarms me for my entire trip, to and from work.

Ad for the so called "factually vague" comment...apparently you ahven't heard that this is going on all over the country. I posted an excerpt showing how this first came to prominence in 2002 with the mass firings [SIZE=-1]in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser corporation fired employees for having guns in personal vehicles on company property.[/SIZE]

Why does it seem so many gun owners on here lately, are actually against the 2nd Amendment?

Speaking for myself, I don't think I need to tell you that I'm pro-2A. I postwhore enough here that that should be obvious. The issue here is that yes, you have a right to keep and bear arms, but no, you do not have a right to be on your employer's privately owned (but publicly accessible) property. If it is such an issue for you, park off-site or if it's really an issue for you, stop supporting and making money for an employer who does not respect your rights. Start your own business where you can allow or disallow anything you see fit. You DO have a right (though not necessarily the startup capital) to do that.

It sure seems like a heavy-handed response by the company. A model 23 year employee not only fired but banned from the property for life because he had an unloaded .22 locked in his vehicle? It sounds like a zero tolerance policy to me, and that means zero judgement involved.



I'm curious about that too. If there was a policy and the person knowingly violated it I have less sympathy for him. The company still over-reacted but if that was the policy then he either should have obeyed it, kept the range bag out of sight, or worked somewhere else.

I can understand some of scheesman's skepticism. There are some important facts left out here, such as what company is involved and what their policies were. I don't know anything at all about the politician involved. He may be honest as the day is long. On the other hand, if a politician told me the sky was blue I would look up to make sure, no matter what their political persuasion might be.

As for the proposed law allowing you to carry to your place of work, I'm on the fence. People have a right to defend themselves while going to and from work, but property owners' rights have to be respected as well. I think it all hinges on whether your car is considered a little island of personal property, the contents of which cannot be governed by other people. IANAL so I have no idea what the law currently says about such things...is there anything in the Indiana code that talks about the car as personal property?

on the "zero tolerance = zero judgment". I also like your analogy re: the little island of personal property. If you own every grain of sand on an island and every building, every EVERYTHING on that island and the island sits in US waters, you're still subject to US law.

The crux of this whole thing is, "Do you have a right to be on that property or are privileged to be there?" The owner of the property or someone who leases it has paid for the right to be there. Whether you are there as an employee, vendor, or customer, you are there at the pleasure of the property owner and can be as quickly and easily removed from it. As long as that is the case, that property owner MUST retain the right of control of his property, and the responsibility for what occurs on it. Someone needs to win a case against an employer when he is injured because one of those policies prevented him from being able to effectively defend himself. This, I think, would start the ball rolling toward expanded ability to exercise firearm rights.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Had Jim not been sending notes like this out for years prior to his candidacy, that is, was it not his pattern to do so to make members of the 2nd Amendment Patriots aware of issues, I might agree with you. It is because of his pattern that I do not. Sure, he wants the financial support for his campaign, no question, but there is more than enough factual information out there; he doesn't have to make stuff up to generate that support.

Bill, I request a bit of slack here. I had never heard of Jim before, here or anywhere else. I do not know what or who he stands for. I don't know if he is honest as a person or a politician or not. I have heard of the 2A Patriots thru INGO but I don't know for sure if they have hitched their political wagon to someone that just appears to be pro-2A.

I get lots of email from relatives that do not research what they get in email, they hear of a situation like described in the OP and forward it to all of their friends/family because "we have to stop situations like these! Do you know how many people face situations like these every day?!?!?"

I said in my first post in this thread that I needed more information, and now I do have more based on what members here have thrown into the thread.

EdC asked some of the same questions in the thread that i was asking myself when I first read this thread. Not knowing the ins-and-outs of the characters involved, I need a chance to be brought up to speed. I've said it before, said it again to my wife a few minutes ago and I'm writing it here now, I don't trust anybody that I don't know. I don't know Jim, but I do know that I have been lied to by Congressman Pence, Congressman Burton, Senator Lugar and Congressman Souder so I have a hard time believing any politician regardless of political persuasion.

My state Senator is Travis Holdman. If you don't know him, I don't expect you to trust him. I have found him to be honest and honorable but I don't expect you to believe that unless you deal with him directly.

 

[Joe2010]