Parking Lot Bill Senate Bill 25

[Paco Bedejo]

Why not just go right to the source, then, and ban workplace violence? I mean, really ban it. Not just vague laws about assault and battery, and murder. Real laws that say things like "No hurting or killing people on the property of an employer." Surely that'll do more than just allowing companies to make rules about guns on their property.

^^This (btw, I fixed the shade of purple, 7th column, 3rd row )

 

[cce1302]

^^This (btw, I fixed the shade of purple, 7th column, 3rd row )

Thanks; I couldn't find it.

 

[Indy317]

Laws like this are no different than smoking bans. As a property owner, I should have the right to ban firearms from my property. As an employee, you have the right to quit, or park elsewhere.

If you think zero tolerance is bad in schools, just wait till it creeps its way into factory jobs, construction jobs, etc.. There are some industries where two guys sometimes blow up at each other. Even in more formal businesses places, we likely have all seen a situation where two folks exchanged words, or maybe even were almost to exchanging blows. In some of these places, the work place violence policies may or may not be set in stone and the managers/supervisor/assistant manager/etc. might give a pass/warning in some incidents. If I knew my employees were keeping guns in their cars, and there was _nothing_ I could do about it, I would be firing everyone who showed even a speck of unjustified violence or anger. Watch for zero tolerance to become more prevalent once employers know a person who just snaps (for whatever reason) brings a gun to work. I also would have a policy against _any_ talk of firearms. The last thing I need is for loose lip employees to be bragging on and on about how they are bringing their $500.00 handguns to work, but leaving them in their cars. There are plenty of co-workers who might be spreading this news to others, who will then target my lot for vehicle break-ins.

If this law passes, I would immediately take action to raise additional funds. My costs would go up with insurance and the hiring of off-duty officers to stand-bye during days I am firing someone (or laying them off). If I thought I could pass this costs onto consumers w/o losing business, that would be my first choice. However, if I couldn't raise my prices, I would either fire whatever amount of folks it took to cover these costs, or just charge for parking. Sorry, but I don't trust government to back me. Yea, I read in the law that businesses are immune, but to what extent? Just because it is in the law doesn't mean a law firm won't try to file suit anyways. Last I read, nothing in the bill says I would get taxpayer sponsored legal defense. This means I would _still_ have to hire lawyers to try and use this law to get any such lawsuit dismissed.

I personally would careless, but I worry more about the liability (if some of you argue I am liable for your safety, then it isn't a stretch for others to then argue I am also liable if your gun gets stolen from your car. This means hiring security to patrol the lot, security gates, etc..) and costs from such a law.

 

[Indy317]

Agreed. Post secondary education should NOT be exempted and especially STATE schools. At Indiana University, staff with a LTCH could CARRY at work/on campus up to the mid '90s (when the policy was changed). I have no problem w/private property restrictions, but the Constitution is in place to limit STATE/gov't restrictions.

Funny how the government has no problem telling private business what they can and can't do with their property, w/o providing _any_ monetary assistance for any additional costs, yet they have no problem exempting their own properties from this law.

 

[Joe Williams]

Laws like this are no different than smoking bans. As a property owner, I should have the right to ban firearms from my property. As an employee, you have the right to quit, or park elsewhere.

If you think zero tolerance is bad in schools, just wait till it creeps its way into factory jobs, construction jobs, etc.. There are some industries where two guys sometimes blow up at each other. Even in more formal businesses places, we likely have all seen a situation where two folks exchanged words, or maybe even were almost to exchanging blows. In some of these places, the work place violence policies may or may not be set in stone and the managers/supervisor/assistant manager/etc. might give a pass/warning in some incidents. If I knew my employees were keeping guns in their cars, and there was _nothing_ I could do about it, I would be firing everyone who showed even a speck of unjustified violence or anger. Watch for zero tolerance to become more prevalent once employers know a person who just snaps (for whatever reason) brings a gun to work. I also would have a policy against _any_ talk of firearms. The last thing I need is for loose lip employees to be bragging on and on about how they are bringing their $500.00 handguns to work, but leaving them in their cars. There are plenty of co-workers who might be spreading this news to others, who will then target my lot for vehicle break-ins.

If this law passes, I would immediately take action to raise additional funds. My costs would go up with insurance and the hiring of off-duty officers to stand-bye during days I am firing someone (or laying them off). If I thought I could pass this costs onto consumers w/o losing business, that would be my first choice. However, if I couldn't raise my prices, I would either fire whatever amount of folks it took to cover these costs, or just charge for parking. Sorry, but I don't trust government to back me. Yea, I read in the law that businesses are immune, but to what extent? Just because it is in the law doesn't mean a law firm won't try to file suit anyways. Last I read, nothing in the bill says I would get taxpayer sponsored legal defense. This means I would _still_ have to hire lawyers to try and use this law to get any such lawsuit dismissed.

I personally would careless, but I worry more about the liability (if some of you argue I am liable for your safety, then it isn't a stretch for others to then argue I am also liable if your gun gets stolen from your car. This means hiring security to patrol the lot, security gates, etc..) and costs from such a law.

Wow... you just completely distrust armed citizens, don't you?

I am curious about one particular part of your post. You say if employees had guns in their car, you'd have to hire extra security for days you planned to fire someone. Why wouldn't you do that now, given the fact that having disarmed victims in the workplaces has already resulted in mass casualties?

 

[dburkhead]

Laws like this are no different than smoking bans. As a property owner, I should have the right to ban firearms from my property. As an employee, you have the right to quit, or park elsewhere.

Do you also believe that business owner should have the right to ignore fire codes? Occupational safety regulations? Should a food-service vendor have the right to ignore health codes? How do you feel about zoning ordinances? Should a private property owner be allowed to emplace landmines? How about planting invasive species that propagate by air? How about have "clothing optional" events and not bother to put up any pesky fences or other visual obstructions?

As an employee or a customer one would certainly have the right to quit, to park elsewhere. If you don't like living next to someone who is running a tannery from his home (using traditional methods), why you always have the right to move.

For the most part I believe that people have the right to do what they want on their own property. That right, however, is not unlimited. I don't believe that private property rights, nor the 1st Amendment, gives one the right to perform human sacrifices, even consensual ones, on ones own property (or anywhere else for that matter).

There are certain restrictions on what is or is not permitted even on ones own property. When one runs a business other restrictions come into play. (I could, if I so chose, refuse to allow people of certain religious or ethnic persuasions into my home or curtilage; try doing that in a retail business.)

The question really is where the line between what is permitted and what is not permitted is to be drawn. It has to be drawn somewhere and what this bill is about is where that line is to be drawn.

In such discussions, when someone says effectively that they think the line should be drawn "here" (business owners should have no say over whether employees have legally owned and carried firearms in their locked vehicles) it is no response to say that it would be bad to draw the line "over there" (whatever "over there" one has in mind).

Unless one takes the position that the line will always, inevitably, move to one extreme or the other (either any parcel of private property is effectively a sovereign nation without even treaty obligations restricting what the owner can do thereon or a "that which is not forbidden by the state is compulsory by the state" level of control) then the line will be somewhere in the middle and exactly where the line should be drawn will be subject to reevaluation and change. There's nothing magical about the current placement of the line. And if we make a change now and folk want to make a further change later, well then we deal with that then.

 

[mk2ja]

Laws like this are no different than smoking bans. As a property owner, I should have the right to ban firearms from my property. As an employee, you have the right to quit, or park elsewhere.

Whoo excellent observation. I hadn't thought of that. I have never smoked — I don't really intend to — but I fully support the personal choice of an individual to do so. More importantly, I support the right of a property owner to ban or to allow smoking on his property. Fort Wayne passed a smoking ban not too long ago that even prohibits smoking in bars, bowling alleys, and other places it would reasonably be allowed by the owner; I whole-heartedly oppose that ban because I believe that that decision belongs to the property owner.

So why would I still support a bill which would prohibit a property owner from banning employees from keeping firearms in locked cars on the property?

Hmmm... I can't answer that question yet. But here's where I stand: I have already instructed my rep to support SB25, and I'll stand by that until I hear logical, reasoned arguments to change my stance. I'm not sure it can be done, but I'd sure welcome anybody's attempt to answer that question (about how I can oppose Fort Wayne's smoking ban while supporting SB25).

If you think zero tolerance is bad in schools, just wait till it creeps its way into factory jobs, construction jobs, etc.. There are some industries where two guys sometimes blow up at each other. Even in more formal businesses places, we likely have all seen a situation where two folks exchanged words, or maybe even were almost to exchanging blows. In some of these places, the work place violence policies may or may not be set in stone and the managers/supervisor/assistant manager/etc. might give a pass/warning in some incidents. If I knew my employees were keeping guns in their cars, and there was _nothing_ I could do about it, I would be firing everyone who showed even a speck of unjustified violence or anger. Watch for zero tolerance to become more prevalent once employers know a person who just snaps (for whatever reason) brings a gun to work. I also would have a policy against _any_ talk of firearms. The last thing I need is for loose lip employees to be bragging on and on about how they are bringing their $500.00 handguns to work, but leaving them in their cars. There are plenty of co-workers who might be spreading this news to others, who will then target my lot for vehicle break-ins.

If this law passes, I would immediately take action to raise additional funds. My costs would go up with insurance and the hiring of off-duty officers to stand-bye during days I am firing someone (or laying them off). If I thought I could pass this costs onto consumers w/o losing business, that would be my first choice. However, if I couldn't raise my prices, I would either fire whatever amount of folks it took to cover these costs, or just charge for parking. Sorry, but I don't trust government to back me. Yea, I read in the law that businesses are immune, but to what extent? Just because it is in the law doesn't mean a law firm won't try to file suit anyways. Last I read, nothing in the bill says I would get taxpayer sponsored legal defense. This means I would _still_ have to hire lawyers to try and use this law to get any such lawsuit dismissed.

I personally would careless, but I worry more about the liability (if some of you argue I am liable for your safety, then it isn't a stretch for others to then argue I am also liable if your gun gets stolen from your car. This means hiring security to patrol the lot, security gates, etc..) and costs from such a law.

These are all good points, too. It sounds like you are somebody this bill would affect, so I'm glad to hear your side of it. However, I'm still stuck on the dilemma I mentioned above so I can't even form any responses to these points.

Rep for being thought-provoking.

 

[cce1302]

Laws like this are no different than smoking bans. As a property owner, I should have the right to ban firearms from my property. As an employee, you have the right to quit, or park elsewhere.

If you think zero tolerance is bad in schools, just wait till it creeps its way into factory jobs, construction jobs, etc.. There are some industries where two guys sometimes blow up at each other. Even in more formal businesses places, we likely have all seen a situation where two folks exchanged words, or maybe even were almost to exchanging blows. In some of these places, the work place violence policies may or may not be set in stone and the managers/supervisor/assistant manager/etc. might give a pass/warning in some incidents. If I knew my employees were keeping guns in their cars, and there was _nothing_ I could do about it, I would be firing everyone who showed even a speck of unjustified violence or anger. Watch for zero tolerance to become more prevalent once employers know a person who just snaps (for whatever reason) brings a gun to work. I also would have a policy against _any_ talk of firearms. The last thing I need is for loose lip employees to be bragging on and on about how they are bringing their $500.00 handguns to work, but leaving them in their cars. There are plenty of co-workers who might be spreading this news to others, who will then target my lot for vehicle break-ins.

If this law passes, I would immediately take action to raise additional funds. My costs would go up with insurance and the hiring of off-duty officers to stand-bye during days I am firing someone (or laying them off). If I thought I could pass this costs onto consumers w/o losing business, that would be my first choice. However, if I couldn't raise my prices, I would either fire whatever amount of folks it took to cover these costs, or just charge for parking. Sorry, but I don't trust government to back me. Yea, I read in the law that businesses are immune, but to what extent? Just because it is in the law doesn't mean a law firm won't try to file suit anyways. Last I read, nothing in the bill says I would get taxpayer sponsored legal defense. This means I would _still_ have to hire lawyers to try and use this law to get any such lawsuit dismissed.

I personally would careless, but I worry more about the liability (if some of you argue I am liable for your safety, then it isn't a stretch for others to then argue I am also liable if your gun gets stolen from your car. This means hiring security to patrol the lot, security gates, etc..) and costs from such a law.

I hope that this is one of your "devil's advocate" posts that you are so proud of. It is so full of horrible ideas and just plain head-buried-in-the-sand-if-I-make-a-rule-then-nothing-bad-will-happen sheeple-ism I can't believe someone would post it sincerely.

 

[Indy317]

Do you also believe that business owner should have the right to ignore fire codes? Occupational safety regulations? Should a food-service vendor have the right to ignore health codes? How do you feel about zoning ordinances? Should a private property owner be allowed to emplace landmines? How about planting invasive species that propagate by air? How about have "clothing optional" events and not bother to put up any pesky fences or other visual obstructions?

You have good points, but _where_ do it end? We are paying for all the above, in one way or another. Why is it that government gets to keep heaping on more and more costs/liabilities, but they never have to provide monetary assistance to those businesses? If this law passes, fine, but government should at least be providing some sort of monetary help. Government is forcing property owners to allow a known dangerous item onto their property, yet they give _one_, just _one_ sentence about businesses not be liable. That just isn't right. Why not a mandate to the AG to provide any and all legal services to any business facing _any_ sort of lawsuit based upon a gun that came from an employees car? Is that too much to ask?

Also, when you go down this path, you really can't complain when the various government restrictions start coming into play. You also can't complain when businesses have to raise prices or cut labor to off-set additional costs. Oh, and don't complain about the zero tolerance that is sure to get even more ridiculous in some cases. If it is discovered that a business owner gave some guy a couple passes over the years for getting in screaming matches and stuff, and that guy ends up retrieving that gun and kills someone, get ready for a lawsuit. The people suing will argue how the employer knew that his employee could have had a gun (will be even worse if there is proof the employer actually _knew_ the guy took a gun to work) and did nothing about the employees past behavior. Even if these incidents are just two guys blowing off steam, it won't surprise me to see immediate dismissals over the most trivial of offenses. Business owners just can't take the chance with certain folks running to their car one day, grabbing their gun, and causing harm. Oh, the braggers will be another story as well. We all know that as soon as this is law, the braggers will start non-stop, making sure _everyone_ knows they have a gun in their car. That will open up even more issues (theft of the gun, employees who know fear their co-worker, etc..), which is why I would mandate a zero talking about firearms policy. No reason to let employees go around the office or work area bragging about their guns in their cars. Then again, as soon as the first person gets fired for doing just that, we will need to run to government and beg them to "DO SOMETHING!!"

Again, if you beg government to strip someone's rights from them, don't be surprised if you lose that person's support when it is now _your_ rights being stripped away from _you_.

 

[cce1302]

Wow... you just completely distrust armed citizens, don't you?

I am curious about one particular part of your post. You say if employees had guns in their car, you'd have to hire extra security for days you planned to fire someone. Why wouldn't you do that now, given the fact that having disarmed victims in the workplaces has already resulted in mass casualties?

Oh no, people coming back and shooting up workplaces they've been fired from only happens where guns are allowed! Don't you read the news?

 

[Indy317]

These are all good points, too. It sounds like you are somebody this bill would affect, so I'm glad to hear your side of it. However, I'm still stuck on the dilemma I mentioned above so I can't even form any responses to these points.

Rep for being thought-provoking.

Actually, I am not one who will be affected. That being said, I know people who will be. I don't like it that my good friends could have employees bragging about bringing guns to work, upon their property, and they could do nothing about it. If it is so important to protect the 2nd, why are we stopping there? We should have a law that allows people to proselytize from their car while not on the clock. And why only protect the employees rights? I mean shouldn't customers be able to bring their guns? Their Islamic or Christian materials to handout? Etc.?

All I can say is that when any group runs to government and begs government to interfere with the rights of others, don't get upset when government turns around and says "No, No." to you later on. Don't be surprised when you find out that you also have lost the support of the others that you supported the losing of their rights.

Overall, this intrusion isn't that big, but the government needs to provide more, lots more, to the business side. I would like to see mandates where the state pays for any businesses additional insurance, legal fees, etc.. Eventually, we will see an issue where a permit/license holder goes out to their car, gets their gun, and people get hurt and/or killed. That will be the test case. Everything will go under the microscope: "Did the killer have a history of acting out while at work? If so, what did the company do?" Will the company get a pass in a civil suit due to the way the law is written? If they choose to settle, shouldn't the state pay for this? Shouldn't the state pay for any and all costs associated with this mandate? That is essentially what this is, another unfunded mandate. When I was in school, I took a business class that dealt with the legal aspects of business. It was taught by a practicing lawyer, and it wasn't a law school setting, so I think his style of teaching was different. He was a good guy, and he said when it comes down to it, if a business owner client comes to him with concerns over liability, he tells them one thing: Buy more insurance. That is all there is to do.

If I am a business owner, and I discover that five or ten of my employees are bringing guns to work, I am buying more insurance. I buy insurance in case one of them goes off the deep end. I am buying more insurance in case someone breaks into their car, takes their gun, walks into my place and starts shooting up the joint. I am buying more insurance in case someone steals the gun, then shoots an employee walking through the lot who stumbles upon the theft in progress. Why? Because the lawsuit _will_ come. There is always some lawyer out there that will take the case. Why not? If it isn't found frivolous, even if they lose, they will not have to pay for my legal fees. What happens when they start to argue that owners who know employees are bringing guns to work now have a responsibility to protect those guns? For me, it just goes to the costs of this law, and the government not covering a dime and being extremely weak with their immunity language.

 

[Indy317]

I hope that this is one of your "devil's advocate" posts that you are so proud of. It is so full of horrible ideas and just plain head-buried-in-the-sand-if-I-make-a-rule-then-nothing-bad-will-happen sheeple-ism I can't believe someone would post it sincerely.

Welcome to reality. A lady got a fat payout for spilling hot (gasp!) coffee on her leg. We have all heard the horror stories that come from our civil courts. Do you honestly think that a one sentence immunity clause is going to prevent a business from incurring any costs if an employees gun is obtained from a car and used to harm others? This is exactly why they have these polices in the first place, our legal system.

Are you telling us that if you own a business, your life's work, and you didn't have guns before, and now you do, that civil liability wouldn't even cross your mind? I guess for some folks, maybe it wouldn't be a thought. For me it would. If I owned a gun store and my employees were armed, that would factor in big time in my liability/insurance assessment. However, if I had a plumbing company with 40 people working for me, and I banned guns, and suddenly the state tells me I have to now allow guns, and I discover 20 of my employees bring guns onto my property....things in the liability department have changed.

Maybe you don't have to deal with liability. Some of us do, on a daily basis. Liability is why I actually don't work certain jobs on the side. Liability is why I have a ton of insurance. It is very easy to sit there and mock these issues, when you aren't in a position to have to deal with them. If this wasn't a huge issue, business organizations wouldn't care.

 

[cce1302]

Welcome to reality. A lady got a fat payout for spilling hot (gasp!) coffee on her leg. We have all heard the horror stories that come from our civil courts. Do you honestly think that a one sentence immunity clause is going to prevent a business from incurring any costs if an employees gun is obtained from a car and used to harm others? This is exactly why they have these polices in the first place, our legal system.

Are you telling us that if you own a business, your life's work, and you didn't have guns before, and now you do, that civil liability wouldn't even cross your mind? I guess for some folks, maybe it wouldn't be a thought. For me it would. If I owned a gun store and my employees were armed, that would factor in big time in my liability/insurance assessment. However, if I had a plumbing company with 40 people working for me, and I banned guns, and suddenly the state tells me I have to now allow guns, and I discover 20 of my employees bring guns onto my property....things in the liability department have changed.

Maybe you don't have to deal with liability. Some of us do, on a daily basis. Liability is why I actually don't work certain jobs on the side. Liability is why I have a ton of insurance. It is very easy to sit there and mock these issues, when you aren't in a position to have to deal with them. If this wasn't a huge issue, business organizations wouldn't care.

Do you honestly think that a victim of a workplace murder is going to care whether the shooter went out to his car to get the gun, or whether he went home to get it, or whether the murderer was carrying it against company policy? He's dead either way. How many mass shootings have occurred in places where guns were "allowed" compared with those that occurred where guns were "not allowed"?

Have you ever watched the movie Along came Polly?

 

[Roadie]

Welcome to reality. A lady got a fat payout for spilling hot (gasp!) coffee on her leg. We have all heard the horror stories that come from our civil courts. Do you honestly think that a one sentence immunity clause is going to prevent a business from incurring any costs if an employees gun is obtained from a car and used to harm others? This is exactly why they have these polices in the first place, our legal system.

Are you telling us that if you own a business, your life's work, and you didn't have guns before, and now you do, that civil liability wouldn't even cross your mind? I guess for some folks, maybe it wouldn't be a thought. For me it would. If I owned a gun store and my employees were armed, that would factor in big time in my liability/insurance assessment. However, if I had a plumbing company with 40 people working for me, and I banned guns, and suddenly the state tells me I have to now allow guns, and I discover 20 of my employees bring guns onto my property....things in the liability department have changed.

Maybe you don't have to deal with liability. Some of us do, on a daily basis. Liability is why I actually don't work certain jobs on the side. Liability is why I have a ton of insurance. It is very easy to sit there and mock these issues, when you aren't in a position to have to deal with them. If this wasn't a huge issue, business organizations wouldn't care.

So, you honestly think that before this Bill, NOBODY carries guns to work illegally? I suppose you think "Gun Free Zones" are always free of guns too?
If someone has the propensity to go out to their car and get their gun, then come back in and shoot you, they also would go all the way home, get their gun, and come back and shoot you. The law isnt going to change that either way, no more than it keeps criminals from carrying guns, and committing gun crimes into Gun Free Zones.

If said lunatic did come back into your business to shoot you, wouldn't you rather be able to run to YOUR car and get YOUR gun in defense of you, your coworkers, and your business? Or, would you prefer he was the only person armed because he is already of a criminal mindset, and you and your employees are unarmed due to the "rules"?

I understand the points you have made, I just don't agree with them. My car IS my private property. Disarming me in my car, at work, disarms me on my way to work, and home from work as well.

If I worked for you and got car jacked on the way to work, shot and paralyzed because I wasn't armed, would you be willing to accept the law suit since your rules affected me not only on YOUR property, but as I made my way to work as well?

 

[Roadie]

Do you honestly think that a victim of a workplace murder is going to care whether the shooter went out to his car to get the gun, or whether he went home to get it, or whether the murderer was carrying it against company policy? He's dead either way. How many mass shootings have occurred in places where guns were "allowed" compared with those that occurred where guns were "not allowed"?

Have you ever watched the movie Along came Polly?

HAH! We posted similar points within a minute of each other. GMTA

 

[Roadie]

Welcome to reality. A lady got a fat payout for spilling hot (gasp!) coffee on her leg. We have all heard the horror stories that come from our civil courts. Do you honestly think that a one sentence immunity clause is going to prevent a business from incurring any costs if an employees gun is obtained from a car and used to harm others? This is exactly why they have these polices in the first place, our legal system.

Are you telling us that if you own a business, your life's work, and you didn't have guns before, and now you do, that civil liability wouldn't even cross your mind? I guess for some folks, maybe it wouldn't be a thought. For me it would. If I owned a gun store and my employees were armed, that would factor in big time in my liability/insurance assessment. However, if I had a plumbing company with 40 people working for me, and I banned guns, and suddenly the state tells me I have to now allow guns, and I discover 20 of my employees bring guns onto my property....things in the liability department have changed.

Maybe you don't have to deal with liability. Some of us do, on a daily basis. Liability is why I actually don't work certain jobs on the side. Liability is why I have a ton of insurance. It is very easy to sit there and mock these issues, when you aren't in a position to have to deal with them. If this wasn't a huge issue, business organizations wouldn't care.

On that point, in Indiana a gun owner that uses his weapon to protect himself in a legally justified manner, is exempt from civil suits. Does that "one sentence immunity clause" work in this case? I haven't heard of any such lawsuits in Indiana myself, have you?

 

[elaw555]

Have you ever watched the movie Along came Polly?

Yes, but not for any reason that belongs in this thread.

The question that arises here is one of rights. Employers certainly have the right to prevent whatever they want in their workplaces. But they don't have the right to curtail my 2nd amendment rights during the 20 minute drive to or from work. Some spoke of the "line" and where it needs to be drawn. A reasonable point would be an entrance that separates a parking facility from the interior of the building. You need to buy insurance, too bad. It will pale in comparison to the legal cost of defending your rights as an employer against the family of a victim shot in a carjacking on the way home from work because he had to legally leave his gun at home. Even if you win.

 

[dburkhead]

You have good points, but _where_ do it end?

It ends where we, as a people, decide it ends. Unless you are really arguing for the every piece of property is sovereign with the owner absolute monarch position it's already a matter of deciding where it will end.

We are paying for all the above, in one way or another.

Are you honestly arguing that we're paying more for things like health codes and the like than we would if we didn't have health codes, building and fire codes, etc?

Why is it that government gets to keep heaping on more and more costs/liabilities, but they never have to provide monetary assistance to those businesses?

You keep bringing up these theoretical costs/liabilities yet if this passes Indiana wouldn't be the first to pass such a law. Where are the actual figures for real increases in costs/liabilities? You claimed uptopic that you, as a business owner, would have to get more security when firing someone if they were allowed to keep guns in their cars. Where is the evidence of any increase in workplace shootings where similar laws have passed?

You can "prove" anything if you're allowed to make up your data which, as far as I can see, is what you're doing here. It's nothing more than a rehash of the "blood will run in the streets" argument that Helmke and his ilk are so enamored with and it's no more valid here than there.

If this law passes, fine, but government should at least be providing some sort of monetary help. Government is forcing property owners to allow a known dangerous item onto their property, yet they give _one_, just _one_ sentence about businesses not be liable.

The employers are already allowing a "known dangerous object" (and, once again with the blaming inanimate objects again) onto their property. They allow cars. If they don't allow cars then this bill won't apply to them, will it?

That just isn't right. Why not a mandate to the AG to provide any and all legal services to any business facing _any_ sort of lawsuit based upon a gun that came from an employees car? Is that too much to ask?

Yes. It is too much to ask. Why not insist on a mandate fo the AG to provide any and all legal services to any business facing any sort of lawsuit based on getting food poisoning from items purchased at that building?
Or how about make the employer liable if they have a "no guns" policy and someone is hurt because they weren't able to defend themselves.

Also, when you go down this path, you really can't complain when the various government restrictions start coming into play.

Yes, you can. The whole discussion is about where that line is to be drawn. If you are really arguing for the "every piece of property is sovereign and no writ runs their but the property owners" position then come right out and say so. Otherwise the whole discussion is about where that line is and if one has one position they think is "good" they most certainly can complain about a different position that they think is bad.

You also can't complain when businesses have to raise prices or cut labor to off-set additional costs.

Sure you can. Just if you're going to make them liable on one side, then make them liable on both sides. If that Quickie Mart has a "no guns" policy and even one employee present at the time of a robbery had a LTCH then that Quickie Mart had better be liable for the damages that might have occurred had that someone been carrying.

Oh, and don't complain about the zero tolerance that is sure to get even more ridiculous in some cases.

Non-sequitor. That's like arguing that taking vitamin C is bad because excesses of saturated fats can cause aggravate high blood pressure. You don't argue--not effectively anyway--that one shouldn't do one thing because someone might do something else that is bad.

If it is discovered that a business owner gave some guy a couple passes over the years for getting in screaming matches and stuff, and that guy ends up retrieving that gun and kills someone, get ready for a lawsuit.

Which should have exactly the standing of the lawsuit regarding the quickie mart above.

The people suing will argue how the employer knew that his employee could have had a gun (will be even worse if there is proof the employer actually _knew_ the guy took a gun to work) and did nothing about the employees past behavior.

If. If. If. If. If. You can "prove" anything if you're allowed to make up your data.

How is "knew that his employee could have had a gun" any different from the situation now? My employer knows that I own firearms; I've taken him shooting. He knows that I have a LTCH. Whether this law passes or not I could have a gun. Something between 8 and 10% of the adult population of Indiana have LTCH. A far larger percentage own firearms. Unless an employer searches cars on a regular basis they could have a gun in their car, employer rules or no employer rules. The only way that an employer could avoid "knowing that the employee could have a gun" is if they perform rather thorough searches of the employees and their vehicles every single day. How many employers do that or anything close to it?

Even if these incidents are just two guys blowing off steam, it won't surprise me to see immediate dismissals over the most trivial of offenses.

Considering the amount of supposition and speculation you've put forth, all in one direction, it doesn't surprise me that it wouldn't surprise you. Says nothing about the situation and everything about the biases from which you are arguing (whether truly held or in a "devils advocate" mode).

Business owners just can't take the chance with certain folks running to their car one day, grabbing their gun, and causing harm.

Since very few business owners have procedures in place to actually prevent that (regardless of what policies they may have on paper) that's not really any different from the situation today.

Once again you are just speculating from a set of biases rather than from any real evidence.

Oh, the braggers will be another story as well. We all know that as soon as this is law, the braggers will start non-stop, making sure _everyone_ knows they have a gun in their car. That will open up even more issues (theft of the gun, employees who know fear their co-worker, etc..), which is why I would mandate a zero talking about firearms policy.

You know, the first Amendment, even if it's talking about the second, is one of the things that's pretty good about getting the ACLU and other organizations involved. And yet more speculation with no actual data in support. More close kin of the "blood will run in the streets" mantra.

No reason to let employees go around the office or work area bragging about their guns in their cars. Then again, as soon as the first person gets fired for doing just that, we will need to run to government and beg them to "DO SOMETHING!!"

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Founding Fathers recognized that there were cases where it was legitimate to insist the government "do something" (secure these rights).

Again, if you beg government to strip someone's rights from them, don't be surprised if you lose that person's support when it is now _your_ rights being stripped away from _you_.

And if you insist government grant people license to strip others of their rights don't be surprised when it's your rights in turn that are stripped, not by government but by your "neighbors." You see, it's not just that the employers are forbidding people from having firearms on their property but that such policies effectively deprive people of their RKBA from the time they leave home until the time they return home. Yes, yes, you'll say that the person could park off site. Well, first off, that's not always practical. Different job? Also not always practical. One could chose to starve instead I supposed but that's hardly an effective way to exercise ones rights. But lets say that there is handy parking where one can leave the gun in the car. So now you have an employee regularly parking off the property of a company and going out of his way to walk to work. What exactly is some criminal seeing this going to think? Company has a no-guns policy. Guy parks off site, rain, snow, or shine and walks in, whether there's space in the employee parking or not.

Congratulations you have just:
1) Identified a time and place that a particular target is unarmed if the criminal is interested in a a little "crime against the person."
2) Identified a car that's empty and unattended and very likely has a firearm in it if someone is looking for a five-finger discount.

I could be misremembering but haven't you been one of the folk who have opposed OC on the grounds that it identifies one for having a firearm to steal? And yet here we have a situation where one is either denied RKBA off company property, not just on it, or one is identified as not only having a firearm but having it left in a car which, if it's like most cars, is remarkably easy to break into. If I'm not misremembering, how do you reconcile those two positions?

 

[dburkhead]

Welcome to reality. A lady got a fat payout for spilling hot (gasp!) coffee on her leg. We have all heard the horror stories that come from our civil courts. Do you honestly think that a one sentence immunity clause is going to prevent a business from incurring any costs if an employees gun is obtained from a car and used to harm others? This is exactly why they have these polices in the first place, our legal system.

I'll worry about that when employers have to worry about a lawsuit from me or my heirs because I got robbed on the way to work and wasn't carrying a gun because of their policy.

 

[dburkhead]

Do you honestly think that a victim of a workplace murder is going to care whether the shooter went out to his car to get the gun, or whether he went home to get it, or whether the murderer was carrying it against company policy? He's dead either way. How many mass shootings have occurred in places where guns were "allowed" compared with those that occurred where guns were "not allowed"?

Funny you should ask:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...1125-update_on_history_of_mass_shootings.html

Have you ever watched the movie Along came Polly?

I haven't? Should I?