Parking Lot Bill Senate Bill 25

[360]

Self-Defense Bill Heads to Senate Floor in the Hoosier State!
Please Contact Your State Senator!

On Tuesday, January 12, Senate Bill 25 passed out of the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters by a vote of 8 to 3. SB 25, sponsored by NRA Board Member and State Senator Johnny Nugent (R-43), will now head to the full Senate for a floor vote.
This legislation would prevent a business from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's private vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the business’ property. Twelve states have already enacted similar legislation to protect their law-abiding citizens from being wrongfully terminated for exercising their Second Amendment rights, and its time Indiana did the same.

Please contact your State Senator and urge him or her to support Senate Bill 25.

 

[Glock32j]

I hope it pulls through!!!!!

 

[360]

My question is, does it cover company owned vehicles? I doubt it.

 

[level.eleven]

I don't know how I feel about legislation that imposes regulations such as this on property owners. I feel that, ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow firearms on a piece of property should be left to the property owner. When topics like this are legislated you will wind up with a property owner who doesn't want firearms on his property being forced, with firearms ultimately, to allow for something he/she doesn't want.

Instead of legislation, I would rather push for a philosophical change of firearms in general. Legislation breeds contempt and can often open a pandora's box for more rules. If property owners are forced to allow firearms on property they own, I wouldn't be surprised if they also took steps to document who exactly was bringing guns to work. I can envision a form you have to complete with your employer. How much info are you willing to divulge on that form? Model, make, caliber, serial number? LTCH number? As a CYA messure I could see business doing something to that effect. This would create overhead for the organization and decrease personal privacy. I don't really want Nancy Nosey over in human resources pooring over information about my firearm. Will it be legal to ask about firearms now in a pre-employment interview or application? Maybe a little checkbox, "I intend to bring firearms to work."

Maybe this topic is covered in the legislation and my concerns are simply all wet.

I know how I react to smoking bans. My property, my rules, government out. This is sort of a reverse smoking ban, but one we can get on board with because idelogicaly its something we value.

After that ramble, I still don't know how to digest this. It is also easy for me to play devil's advocate because my current employer has board members who also sit on the board of the NRA....so needless to say we embrace a pro-2A atmosphere. But, that could change easily when we have our next board of advisor elections.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I don't know how I feel about legislation that imposes regulations such as this on property owners. I feel that, ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow firearms on a piece of property should be left to the property owner.

I agree, to a point. I believe that a higher burden of the cost of law enforcement should be placed upon property owners who neither allow carry nor provide armed security (including homes w/out firearms). It's akin to not having a fire extinguisher or sprinkler system. You're more likely to need the fire services, so you should bear a higher burden of the costs.

Just as we have laws enforcing fire-protection in a place of business, we should have laws enforcing armed security in a place of business. That armed security could be LTCH-carrying employees who pull double-duty as safety-officers or it could be specific guards.

In any case, it would be the property-owner's decision whether visitors could carry their own firearms.

It's in nobody's interest, except criminals, to create gun-free homes, workplaces, stores, etc.

the munchkin wrangler.: why the gun is civilization.

 

[R3ydium]

Email Sent . . .

 

[cce1302]

I don't know how I feel about legislation that imposes regulations such as this on property owners. I feel that, ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow firearms on a piece of property should be left to the property owner. When topics like this are legislated you will wind up with a property owner who doesn't want firearms on his property being forced, with firearms ultimately, to allow for something he/she doesn't want.

Instead of legislation, I would rather push for a philosophical change of firearms in general. Legislation breeds contempt and can often open a pandora's box for more rules. If property owners are forced to allow firearms on property they own, I wouldn't be surprised if they also took steps to document who exactly was bringing guns to work. I can envision a form you have to complete with your employer. How much info are you willing to divulge on that form? Model, make, caliber, serial number? LTCH number? As a CYA messure I could see business doing something to that effect. This would create overhead for the organization and decrease personal privacy. I don't really want Nancy Nosey over in human resources pooring over information about my firearm. Will it be legal to ask about firearms now in a pre-employment interview or application? Maybe a little checkbox, "I intend to bring firearms to work."

Maybe this topic is covered in the legislation and my concerns are simply all wet.

I know how I react to smoking bans. My property, my rules, government out. This is sort of a reverse smoking ban, but one we can get on board with because idelogicaly its something we value.

After that ramble, I still don't know how to digest this. It is also easy for me to play devil's advocate because my current employer has board members who also sit on the board of the NRA....so needless to say we embrace a pro-2A atmosphere. But, that could change easily when we have our next board of advisor elections.

This doesn't really parallel smoking bans, unless there are smoking bans that prevent you from having any tobacco products in your car.

A firearm in your vehicle (or even in a holster on your person) does as little harm as an unlit cigarette.

Why don't employers/property owners write rules that would work, for instance, "No indiscriminately firing weapons on the premises" or even "No murdering people on company property." That would certainly keep people from coming on their property and murdering their employees.

 

[Roadie]

I don't know how I feel about legislation that imposes regulations such as this on property owners. I feel that, ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow firearms on a piece of property should be left to the property owner. When topics like this are legislated you will wind up with a property owner who doesn't want firearms on his property being forced, with firearms ultimately, to allow for something he/she doesn't want.

Instead of legislation, I would rather push for a philosophical change of firearms in general. Legislation breeds contempt and can often open a pandora's box for more rules. If property owners are forced to allow firearms on property they own, I wouldn't be surprised if they also took steps to document who exactly was bringing guns to work. I can envision a form you have to complete with your employer. How much info are you willing to divulge on that form? Model, make, caliber, serial number? LTCH number? As a CYA messure I could see business doing something to that effect. This would create overhead for the organization and decrease personal privacy. I don't really want Nancy Nosey over in human resources pooring over information about my firearm. Will it be legal to ask about firearms now in a pre-employment interview or application? Maybe a little checkbox, "I intend to bring firearms to work."

Maybe this topic is covered in the legislation and my concerns are simply all wet.

I know how I react to smoking bans. My property, my rules, government out. This is sort of a reverse smoking ban, but one we can get on board with because idelogicaly its something we value.

After that ramble, I still don't know how to digest this. It is also easy for me to play devil's advocate because my current employer has board members who also sit on the board of the NRA....so needless to say we embrace a pro-2A atmosphere. But, that could change easily when we have our next board of advisor elections.

While I see your point, I have to disagree. My car is MY property too. If my employer disarms me in their building, fine, I can understand that even if I do not agree with it. If they do not allow me a gun in my car, they disarm me both to, and form, work as well. THIS affects MY rights more than it does theirs, because it affects me off of their property as well.

If they want to make a caveat to the Bill that says employers can insist on the gun being locked, either by trigger lock, or small gun safe, I could agree with that, but telling me I have to give up my rights on the way to work, at work, and on the way home?

 

[Roadie]

FYI, you can find your State Senators here:

Who Are Your Legislators?

 

[drillsgt]

While I see your point, I have to disagree. My car is MY property too. If my employer disarms me in their building, fine, I can understand that even if I do not agree with it. If they do not allow me a gun in my car, they disarm me both to, and form, work as well. THIS affects MY rights more than it does theirs, because it affects me off of their property as well.

Excellent point. I had to contact my Senator and ask them to not go along with this current committee version. There is a specific exemption for post-secondary institutions so working at IUPUI I would be out of luck. There is no logical reason to exclude colleges from these provisions, we are all adults there. It's not like they are being asked to allow campus carry.

 

[level.eleven]

While I see your point, I have to disagree. My car is MY property too. If my employer disarms me in their building, fine, I can understand that even if I do not agree with it. If they do not allow me a gun in my car, they disarm me both to, and form, work as well. THIS affects MY rights more than it does theirs, because it affects me off of their property as well.

If they want to make a caveat to the Bill that says employers can insist on the gun being locked, either by trigger lock, or small gun safe, I could agree with that, but telling me I have to give up my rights on the way to work, at work, and on the way home?

Well, in the case you laid out, you voluntarily contracted with an employer that doesn't allow firearms on his/her property. Assuming this issue is of importance to you, I would consult with the property owner about regulations regarding firearms before you agree to exchange your labor for federal reserve notes. I would also recommend situations like this get handled voluntarily, on a personal level. Legislation turns the voluntary into the involuntary and introduces force into the equation. Force trumps all. If you do not like the terms of the contract, no one is coercing you into signing it. You are free to exchange your labor elsewhere. If you are a believer in the free market, a business model will develop that is firearm friendly, and most importantly, voluntary.

I will admit, the travel counter point is quite a strong stance. You offered a great solution as well. I simply state that I would prefer those interactions remain voluntary, as opposed to legislating the rights of private property owners.

 

[Cygnus]

My question is, does it cover company owned vehicles? I doubt it.

Answer:

Self-Defense Bill Heads to Senate Floor in the Hoosier State!
Please Contact Your State Senator!

On Tuesday, January 12, Senate Bill 25 passed out of the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters by a vote of 8 to 3. SB 25, sponsored by NRA Board Member and State Senator Johnny Nugent (R-43), will now head to the full Senate for a floor vote.
This legislation would prevent a business from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's private vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the business’ property. Twelve states have already enacted similar legislation to protect their law-abiding citizens from being wrongfully terminated for exercising their Second Amendment rights, and its time Indiana did the same.

 

[AGarbers]

It has been my contention...

It has been my contention that by denying my ability to defend myself, my employer is taking on that responsibility. So, if someone does shoot, stab, or otherwise harm me, the company has failed in their protection and could be open to litigation. I would also wager that most nuts that have used guns in the workplace have brought them in regardless of the company policy. They committed the act of harming someone in violation of the law so why would they worry about the little speed bump of violating company policy? As far as that goes I remember more problems of people getting mad and trying to run people over as they left work. By that thinking all vehicles should be left at home or parked off site.

 

[mk2ja]

You can also send the email to your senator by using the form provided on the link Roadie posted previously. That is probably the simplest way to go about contacting your senator.

FYI, you can find your State Senators here:

Who Are Your Legislators?

Here is the email I sent to my state Senator. Feel free to use it, too.

Dear Senator [NAME]:

I am contacting you, as my representative in the Indiana Senate, to encourage you to vote in support of, and to work with all diligence to otherwise lend your support to, Senate Bill 25.

Senate Bill 25 would prevent a business from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's private vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the business’ property. Twelve states have already enacted similar legislation to protect their law-abiding citizens from being wrongfully terminated for exercising their Second Amendment rights, and it is time Indiana did the same.

This is extremely important to Hoosiers who legally own and transport a firearm from their residence to place of business where said firearm may not be welcome due to company policy. Citizens concerned for their safety while in transit to and from their place of employ are then forced either to break company policy, at risk of job loss, or to forfeit their inherent right to bear arms recognized and protected by the constitutions of the State of Indiana and of the United States of America, at risk of life, limb, and/or property loss.

With these considerations in mind, please remember to vote in SUPPORT of SB 25.

Thank you.


Sincerely,
Your Name
Your City, IN

Caleb

 

[Roadie]

Here is the email I sent to my state Senator. Feel free to use it, too. If you don't know who your senator is, remember to use the link Roadie posted previously.






Caleb

Nice! Mine made similar points, but yours was worded better.

 

[chachi73]

emailed my legislator for the first time ever! good lookin' out! thanks for the heads up.

 

[Joe Williams]

I don't know how I feel about legislation that imposes regulations such as this on property owners. I feel that, ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow firearms on a piece of property should be left to the property owner. snip.

As I just said in another thread, the property owner loses no control over their property. They have the option to control their property simply by choosing to eliminate employee parking. Even in today's climate, they would have monstrous difficulty attracting and retaining quality employees, but the property owner does retain control of their property.

As it stands now, business are the ones exercising control over property that is not their own. Those vehicles are the private property of the employees, and the businesses have no legitimate claim to control that property, or it's contents. Again, if they are so negligent as to want to continue the policy of victim disarmament that even today claimed more lives in the workplace in a Georgia incident, they have the ability to do so by simply eliminating the presence of privately owned vehicles on their property.

 

[Locke]

I am in favour of this.

 

[360]

Senator Vi Simpson has been contacted.

 

[wag1911]

You can also send the email to your senator by using the form provided
Caleb

Outstanding letter Caleb!