Parking Lot Bill Senate Bill 25

[Roadie]

Is this adding more government, or a step to getting the Government back out of our inherent 2nd Amend Rights?

 

[dburkhead]

Two paths exist to solving the problem. The addition of more government, adding additional firearm legislation - this time that effects private property or, allowing voluntary interaction to occur with incentive from the free market. That's why I said its one of those "principled" litmus type situations. Nothing wrong with them. They can often lead to some great thinking scenarios.

So do you support abolishing health codes for restaurants? Building and fire codes for construction? Zoning ordinances? Laws against just dumping raw sewage on ones lawn? All of these are restrictions on "private property rights." Few would consider abolishing all of them a good thing. The question really isn't about whether there will be restrictions on private property rights; the question is about what form and shape those restrictions will be.

People talk about "private property rights" but there's private property and private property and even on the most "private" of property ones rights have never been unlimited in any society ever. So that argument is simply invalid.

It is not a litmus test since for the vast majority the "test" has already been scored and the grade is "private property 'rights' are not unlimited and never have been."

Oh, and the absolutist "two paths exist" is the fallacy of insufficient options.

 

[freehoosiertim]

Similar bill made it through Senate last year but died in House committee. That's where the real battle for this bill will be. One good thing - It is moving through Senate much faster this year, so more time to work on getting it through the House.

 

[drillsgt]

So you are going to oppose a bill, that is a step in the right direction for the rest of us, just because YOU work on campus?

Gee, thanks for the support brother.

I oppose that provision but support the intent of the bill and I told my reps that. I figured someone would take my post that way and I didn't have to wait long. There are many shooters who work on the various campus's across the state, not just me. The academic institutions across the state are some of our largest employers and the employees are not all liberal professors (and some of them shoot too). If somewhere you worked was being targeted in this bill I would support your right to fight against something that was going to negatively effect you.

 

[rmabrey]

I wish I could figure out where I read this today, but I saw an article that an NRA spokesperson said they were working on back dating this bill as well. Apparently to help the man from this story
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...must_read_patriots_true_story_evansville.html

 

[level.eleven]

So do you support abolishing health codes for restaurants? Building and fire codes for construction? Zoning ordinances? Laws against just dumping raw sewage on ones lawn? All of these are restrictions on "private property rights." Few would consider abolishing all of them a good thing. The question really isn't about whether there will be restrictions on private property rights; the question is about what form and shape those restrictions will be.

People talk about "private property rights" but there's private property and private property and even on the most "private" of property ones rights have never been unlimited in any society ever. So that argument is simply invalid.

It is not a litmus test since for the vast majority the "test" has already been scored and the grade is "private property 'rights' are not unlimited and never have been."

Oh, and the absolutist "two paths exist" is the fallacy of insufficient options.

All of those bureaucracies listed could be handled by the free market. We rely on the free market to qualify the safety of all electrical appliances, gadgets, and pretty much anything you plug into the wall - Underwriters Laboratory. How many organizations regulate and establish standards in the technology world? IEEE comes to mind. Angie's List, Consumer Reports...there are many we rely on daily, often with a higher level of trust than is possible in a government bureaucracy. However, to keep the topic of the thread on track, we probably shouldn't go into the virtues and shortfalls of the voluntary free market vs. involuntary government action. I probably already went a little to far with the capitalist/voluntary approach for many.

Private properties rights have been involved in a constant war with government throughout the history of man. We can both certainly agree with that. The fact is though, property rights have steadily decreased since the founding of this country. If you have to kick up a portion of the wealth you generated from working your land to the King, do you really own the land? I guess you are right, we don't own property (land) anymore so we might as well allow the bureaucrats to make decisions effecting it.

Another interesting observation I noticed was the "gun made it through TSA" thread a few threads up. It seems the consensus in that thread is to eliminate the bureaucracy and allow airlines to handle security themselves. How do you think that position sits compared to this legislation? There we have people saying, allow the free market to provide security and allow passangers to choose airlines they feel safe using. Here, we have people saying, hey government, we don't want the free market to pioneer a solution it would be much easier for you to simply legislate away property rights.

I'm surprised no one has taken a stab at these yet...what if an employer wants to register people who decide to carry to work? What if they want some info on the firearm? Some employers may opt for metal detectors just make sure those firearms don't "accidentally" make it in. Hey, I just forgot to unholster!

On a more comical note, how long do you think it will take Donnie Baker to load up the trunk of his primered gray Camaro with every long gun in his trailer, drive to work, then pop the trunk in the parking lot to show all his buddies his tactical foregrip? I could see some blue hair pitching a fit if she caught wind of that.

Thanks for the replies and conversation, heck I'll even send a note of support the way of my representatives. This is one where I won't feel as dirty by simply saying "If you can't beat them (statists), join 'em"

 

[dburkhead]

All of those bureaucracies listed could be handled by the free market.

That's an assertion. Where it fails is that those various regulations are the result of the "free market" failing to handle the matter.

We rely on the free market to qualify the safety of all electrical appliances, gadgets, and pretty much anything you plug into the wall - Underwriters Laboratory.

UL is one, and it has its failures as well. (Some years back I remember a big stink when UL's test for fire resistance for insulation led to things being passed that shouldn't have been. The test didn't match reality.)

How many organizations regulate and establish standards in the technology world? IEEE comes to mind. Angie's List, Consumer Reports...there are many we rely on daily, often with a higher level of trust than is possible in a government bureaucracy.

Angies list is Reactionary and very limited in scope. "Did we get good price/service or not." Consumer reports? Well, every single time (every time) they've done a report on something I've had actual knowledge about the report has been severely flawed. Every. Single. Time. "Trust" and whether that trust is justified are two entirely different things.

However, to keep the topic of the thread on track, we probably shouldn't go into the virtues and shortfalls of the voluntary free market vs. involuntary government action. I probably already went a little to far with the capitalist/voluntary approach for many.

The thing is, I probably mostly agree with you in terms of a free society (which isn't quite the same thing as a "free market") vs. government control but one has to start with the situation we have now. If one could wave a magic wand and simply abolish all these fire codes, building codes, health codes, zoning ordinances, etc. the result would be disaster.

And, in fact, unless you really think that every single parcel of private property is sovereign unto itself with the owner being absolute monarch with total control even to life and death of everything and everyone that comes within it, then it's still a matter of where the line is to be drawn--and the exact position of that line is subject for debate.

Private properties rights have been involved in a constant war with government throughout the history of man. We can both certainly agree with that. The fact is though, property rights have steadily decreased since the founding of this country.

You're right. You can't own other human beings as chattel property any more. Drat those politicians and their interference with property rights.

While generally I agree with you that there has been an overall loss of freedom it is not as one-sided as you present it.

The problem with the extreme anarchist position is that one has to deal with other people. One's "rights" affect others in ways that affect their rights. Finding a balance is an ongoing process. That's every bit as true of property rights as any other. If a stream runs across your property do you have the right to dam it, thus depriving your neighbor of the water he relied on? Or do you have the right to just dump gook from whatever industrial process you happen to be running into the stream thereby poisoning said neighbor's cattle? The "property rights" argument being raised against SB25 would say "yes, you do."

I chose that example water rights, and how they interact with a landowners property rights, has a long and complicated history. And it's just one example that shows that the whole "property rights" argument is simplistic to the point of fallacy.

Ones "right" to do something on or with their own property ends when it starts affecting the rights of people not on the property. After that it becomes a matter of negotiation between the parties involved. One means of said negotiation is this little thing we call "government."

By forbidding me to have firearms on their property even locked in my vehicle a business owner is also forbidding me from having firearms while I'm not on their property if I'm on my way to or from their property. Their decision affects me even when I'm not on their property. And the current legal system in reality (whether the actual wording of the law says so or not) puts a bias in that direction. If they forbid, they are not liable for that decision. Indy 317 (at least) seems to think that if they permit they will be liable for the decision (even if the decision is mandated). Given that situation--inflicted by government via how the courts treat cases--the vast majority of businesses are going to forbid and, as a result, the vast majority of people are going to be denied their rights when off that private property at least some of the time.

If you have to kick up a portion of the wealth you generated from working your land to the King, do you really own the land?

Ah, so now we go to the complete abolishment of taxes.

I guess you are right, we don't own property (land) anymore so we might as well allow the bureaucrats to make decisions effecting it.

I'll return your hyperbole with some of my own: If you can't kill anyone out of hand on "your" land do you really have the right to say you own it? By the standard you are setting from the first time people organized into tribes nobody has ever owned land so you are talking about a myth.

Another interesting observation I noticed was the "gun made it through TSA" thread a few threads up. It seems the consensus in that thread is to eliminate the bureaucracy and allow airlines to handle security themselves. How do you think that position sits compared to this legislation?

No inconsistency at all. Both positions move, overall, in the direction of greater individual liberty. In the SB25 issue the government would be countering an effect that is largely the effect of government in the first place (and passing SB25 is more doable than trying to overhaul the entire civil legal system). In the latter, one is asking for removal of a government system that has failed to do what it was supposed to do let alone that it was overkill for the actual situation it faced.

There we have people saying, allow the free market to provide security and allow passangers to choose airlines they feel safe using. Here, we have people saying, hey government, we don't want the free market to pioneer a solution it would be much easier for you to simply legislate away property rights.

Since the business owner can be held liable on one side but not on the other the government is already interfering in those property rights. When was the last time anybody had been successfully sued because they didn't allow firearms and someone was hurt by someone ignoring the "gun free signs", or on the way to or from such a place?

As things stand there is no downside for a company to forbid weapons but there is a downside to permitting it. That bias is caused by government via the civil courts. There is no free market solution to that problem without completely reworking the civil courts--and good luck with that.

Instead we might get a fix, not a perfect fix, but at least something that tends to counter the current very strong government bias against companies that allow people to have guns on company property even in locked vehicles.

I'm surprised no one has taken a stab at these yet...what if an employer wants to register people who decide to carry to work? What if they want some info on the firearm? Some employers may opt for metal detectors just make sure those firearms don't "accidentally" make it in. Hey, I just forgot to unholster!

What if they decide that only green-eyed redheads are to be allowed into management positions?

You're making stuff up. Deal with what's actually on the table. If any of those actually show up on the table, I'll deal with them then.

On a more comical note, how long do you think it will take Donnie Baker to load up the trunk of his primered gray Camaro with every long gun in his trailer, drive to work, then pop the trunk in the parking lot to show all his buddies his tactical foregrip? I could see some blue hair pitching a fit if she caught wind of that.

Let her pitch a fit. If she's going to pitch a fit over that, she's going to find something to pitch a fit over anyway.

Trying to keep this hypothetical "blue hair" is like trying to be nice to a sociopath so he'll care about you. He's not going to because of what he is, not because of what you do.

Thanks for the replies and conversation, heck I'll even send a note of support the way of my representatives. This is one where I won't feel as dirty by simply saying "If you can't beat them (statists), join 'em"

 

[purd002]

To those that are defending the employers rights over the employee do you feel comfortable giving your employer the right to search the contents of your vehicle whenever they feel necessary?

I'm strong in my belief in personal rights, but I also believe a business can choose to run itself the way it chooses. I personally couldn't work for a company that felt it had any right to search my vehicle. Unless I've signed a contract giving up specific rights there is no way my boss, management or private security is going through my vehicle. And when I refuse, I believe they have the right to fire me and ask me to leave THEIR property.

 

[level.eleven]

Bear with me here, I think I have a script disabled so the multi quote button is borked.

You mentioned the UL insulation issue. Well, the FDA has approved medication that makes people's hearts explode. Who is easier to hold accountable? If a settlement is reached, who pays? In one instance an organizations reputation is on the line. If the private organization is found at fault, they pay, and their competitors could step in to provide a better product if the market dictates. If the FDA is found at fault, the taxpayers foot the bill. They have no incentive to improve, there is no competition. Throw in force, the constant gun in the room, and you have a monopoly.

As far as murdering someone on your property, that is aggression initiated towards my property, the most important piece of property I own, my body. You allowed that piece of property to be carried on to your property, or else I would be trespassing. Incidentally, yes taxes are aggression.

You're making stuff up. Deal with what's actually on the table. If any of those actually show up on the table, I'll deal with them then.

This is the same argument I am hearing from the progressives about Health Care. Ram it though! Deal with the fallout later. I was genuinely interested in how you would deal with it. We have already seen business punish individuals through living unhealthy lifestyles by instituting higher insurance premiums. We have also already seen a mindset develop that the proximity to firearms or firearms in the home get the "high risK" stamp. Pediatricians are passing out "firearms in the home pamphlets" to new parents. I'm just curious how people would react if a company wants to document who is carrying and what they are carrying on their property.

As far as everything else, you've hit most of the common scenarios that get thrown in the faces of an-caps. You got murder, the river scenario/pollution, the only three I don't think you hit up was roads, courts, and private police. Those are the hardest for people to get on board with. And, for the sake of threadjaking and boring people to death, I will simply refer some much more elequent men to lay out some of those scenarios. I'm pretty sure you know who they are.

You think there are divisions in the 2 major parties, you should check out the Libertarians. Nothing is more frustrating than rallying libertarians. Personally I teeter....full an-cap to a minarchist. I don't know, its a lot of fun to think about.

 

[dburkhead]

Bear with me here, I think I have a script disabled so the multi quote button is borked.

You mentioned the UL insulation issue. Well, the FDA has approved medication that makes people's hearts explode. Who is easier to hold accountable? If a settlement is reached, who pays? In one instance an organizations reputation is on the line. If the private organization is found at fault, they pay, and their competitors could step in to provide a better product if the market dictates. If the FDA is found at fault, the taxpayers foot the bill. They have no incentive to improve, there is no competition. Throw in force, the constant gun in the room, and you have a monopoly.

How much did the UL pay?

The point wasn't to say that one was better than the other but that the situation is not so cut and dried as you put it.

As far as murdering someone on your property, that is aggression initiated towards my property, the most important piece of property I own, my body. You allowed that piece of property to be carried on to your property, or else I would be trespassing. Incidentally, yes taxes are aggression.

Ah, but my car is my property as well. Therefore, by the same logic they allowed my car to be on their property so "aggression" (such as searches) against it is what, exactly.

You're making stuff up. Deal with what's actually on the table. If any of those actually show up on the table, I'll deal with them then.

This is the same argument I am hearing from the progressives about Health Care. Ram it though! Deal with the fallout later.

No. It's not. It's what's in the bill that is the problem that they are wanting people to ignore.

What you are doing is inventing stuff not in the bill and using it as an attack on the bill. That is completely fallacious logic. No, that's not quite true. It's not logic at all.

I was genuinely interested in how you would deal with it. We have already seen business punish individuals through living unhealthy lifestyles by instituting higher insurance premiums.

Gee, charging somebody more when their actions are likely to cost them more is punishment? Why in the world shouldn't somebody who is more likely to draw more expenses be actually charged more for coverage for those expenses?

We have also already seen a mindset develop that the proximity to firearms or firearms in the home get the "high risK" stamp.

And how, exactly, do you propose to counter that? The only thing I can think of is more exposure that doesn't lead to utter disaster.

Pediatricians are passing out "firearms in the home pamphlets" to new parents.

And people are objecting to it. I was one of the folk involved in getting CVS to take down such a "health advice" piece from their web page.

I'm just curious how people would react if a company wants to document who is carrying and what they are carrying on their property.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. That's why the time to deal with it is when it's on the table.

As far as everything else, you've hit most of the common scenarios that get thrown in the faces of an-caps. You got murder, the river scenario/pollution, the only one I don't think you hit up was roads and private police.

Just because the antis use them as excuses for excesses does not make the issue go away. The antis use them because they are real issues. They remain real issues.

Those are the hardest for people to get on board with. And, for the sake of threadjaking and boring people to death, I will simply refer some much more elequent men to lay out some of those scenarios. I'm pretty sure you know who they are.

You think there are divisions in the 2 major parties, you should check out the Libertarians.

Three "it doesn't matter" items:

- It doesn't matter how great the gun you aren't carrying is.
- It doesn't matter how effective the ammo you are out of is.
- It doesn't matter how wonderful the politician who loses the election is.

That's the main problem with Libertarians at the national level.

Nothing is more frustrating than rallying libertarians. Personally I teeter....full an-cap to a minarchist. I don't know, its a lot of fun to think about.

Anarchy is very natural. In fact, it's very close to Hobbes' "Life in the State of Nature."

I tend toward minarchist (although there is considerable legitimate disagreement over how "min" is "min") but generally take the pragmatic approach of what is more likely to make a move in that direction or to limit the move the other way. I find nothing inconsistent with SB25 in that it uses one arm of government (legislature) to counter the effect of another arm of government (judicial via the civil courts).

 

[Indy317]

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?

So are people totally off the hook for their actions? Lets blame the business owner, not the carjacker? Lets blame the business owner, not the victim who knowingly choose to work for such an employer.

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.

Not "too bad" for me, as the business owner. Too bad for the guy(s)/girl(s) who I have to let go to off-set additional costs now tacked onto my business via government.

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.

More fear mongering. Who is "starving?" Show me one American who is starving? I have have dealings with many, many homeless folks...none are starving. The government will provide the safety net, they always do.

The simple fact is that we have folks here who are advocating the striping of rights away from property owners over practicality or "I shouldn't have to get another job!!" That last part really sounds like "I have a _right_ to this job!!" No, you don't.

I don't make a lot of money, but I am very good with my money. My home will be paid off in two years, if not sooner. There are many, many jobs I would rather do, but most pay jack and don't pay insurance. I guess it is OK for me to waive this same flag and demand that you and others get more of your money taken from you so I can go and get the job _I_ want? Folks would get upset if I advocated for a national healthcare plan for me, myself, and I, only because I have the financial picture to then go out and get any part-time/full-time job I would _want_. This is a very, very selfish attitude. It is exactly why a good % of this country wants welfare, government healthcare, etc.. We have folks out there demanding their "right" to work some $20K/year job, but never have to save a dime for healthcare, or retirement, etc.. So long as those out there busting their butts pulling in $50K/year+ get taxed more, who cares, these folks _never_ see themselves making over $25K/year in their lifetime.

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.

So we are back to blaming everyone _but_ the criminal? Nice. That is exactly the road the gun grabbers use: Blame objects, not the actual criminal. Oh, good luck with that lawsuit, as _you_ knowingly continued to work for a person who banned guns. Oh wait, personal responsibility is dead in this country, your lawsuit might actually have merit since we don't, and shouldn't, hold individuals accountable for their own actions.

This issue is just like any gun control issue. Gun laws don't affect the criminal, only the law abiding citizen. Finally we get a chance to the "good guy" to get some rights back, and we have gun owners that are against it?? Really??

I would love to go and work some park job at $8/hour, but I can't because I have to pay bills and need healthcare. I think my rights are being violated, so is it OK that I lobby for you to lose more rights, in terms of how much money you get to keep, so that the government can take that money and pay for my home and healthcare so I can go and do what _I_ want to do? You have a 2nd amendment right, on _your_ property, and on public property. Your 2nd amendment rights stop when you enter someone else's property. Where does it end? Should I have the right to enter your driveway, where only vehicles are, to put religious items on your car? If I am banned, my religious freedom rights are being denied.

If I want to stop somewhere after work, I either have to go unarmed, or go home first. It's a huge hassle. I'm on the side that my truck should be my property. I get other people's points. This is one of the few issues where both sides have logical arguments...doesn't happen too often.

If I didn't value my job, or thought I could switch to somewhere else quickly I would probably break the rules...at this point that isn't a possibility.

Working nights, weekends, holidays, etc. is a "huge hassle" for thousands of other workers, but they do it, for a variety of reasons. Trust me, there are people, many of them, who would _love_ to take another job but can't due to insurance issues. Is it OK for them to advocate government provide them insurance so they can take their dream job, because their current job is a "hassle?"

To say they are violating your rights would also infer that they have some authority over you while not at work/on the clock or during your travel between home or work.

Yup. Begging government to strip someone's rights away only means that government gets more power.

Barring any magical "make the gun vanish and reappear" capabilities, how exactly am I to exercise my RKBA during that approximately 3% of my lifetime?

Get another job? Don't park on company property? Start your own company? I mean come on, is this _really_ that hard? Who is forcing you, at gun point, to work this job?

And who do I, or my heirs, sue if I follow a no-guns company policy and get robbed on the way to or from work?

No. _You_ willingly choose to do this, no one forced you. Also, another person robbed you, not the business owner. Oh wait, I forgot, personal responsibility is dead in this country, which means everyone else but those truly responsible are actually responsible.

By the time I step foot on their property, I'd already be disarmed because my gun would stay locked inside the car.

I just don't think they should be able to regulate the contents of my vehicle simply because my tires touch their pavement.

Then don't let your tires touch their pavement. Also, why should you be forced to disarm to visit the jail? A court room? A person's home? Why should you have to disarm simple because your shoe touches ground in these places? Again, where do we draw the line? Can I carry on your property?

How, pray tell, do you propose I protect myself on the way to and from work, if I cannot have a handgun in my car AT work?

Seriously? How about getting another job? How about parking elsewhere?

I didn't know it was so great to beg the government into taking from others as long as one agrees with the proposition. I might actually start advocating _for_ national healthcare. I mean, I could work my current job for another five years, which would give me a ton of money in the bank. Then I could actually quit, and do whatever _I_ wanted, and not have to worry about money or having health care benefits. I mean what is _not_ to like about this?

So you are going to oppose a bill, that is a step in the right direction for the rest of us, just because YOU work on campus?

If I support _this_ bill, for my own personal gain, then I may as well support every other bill that I believes helps me, everyone else be damned. This means supporting national healthcare, because it would be a _huge_ benefit for me. It would allow me to quit my job in about five years, and just sit around on the computer and be a total 100% consumer/leech of the government. The rest of you all will be paying for my healthcare. Thanks!!

Is this adding more government, or a step to getting the Government back out of our inherent 2nd Amend Rights?

Individual rights _end_ at the property of another. If your second amendment rights extend to my property, then my first amendment rights extend to your property. Do this mean I have to allow folks to come and worship on my property? This is NO DIFFERENT, nada. You can't have it any other way. Either everyone has rights on other people's property, or the property owner reserves all rights themselves. How do you want it? Do you want it so that people can trespass on your property to exercise their right to assemble? To engage in free speech? To carry their guns?

These attitudes of striping the rights of property owners is exactly why I would never, ever own a small business in this "free" country. I have always felt that when it comes to my property, I should be able to have a say on who prays on it, who carries guns on it, who brings weapons onto my property, who parks on my property, who walks upon my property. It is not surprising to me that more and more of my friends just get totally fed up with government, politics, etc.. It is nothing more than a game of taking from others, depending on who is in power determines the losers and the winners. I don't think this is the kind of country our founders wanted, but that seems to be what we have.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Individual rights _end_ at the property of another.
snip

All that long post advocating stripping citizens of the right to be free of having their property searched. All those words about how citizens should be forced to make the choice between surrending the right to control their own property and feeding their family. All those words telling us how individuals should not be allowed the right to control their property, that only businesses should have such a right.

And then you have the gall to right that sentence. I understand why you think searches of private property should be foisted upon citizens. It would make your job so much easier if you could just search at will, and perpetuating the status quo that gets formerly free Americans to accept that they should not have control of their provate property will continue the ongoing extension of that to police searches. But you still had the gall to type that sentence. That is beyond hypocrisy.

 

[Roadie]

I don't have time to rebut everything said, but as for the repeated mantra of "get another job"...

Are you freaking kidding me? In this economy like I have a CHOICE between jobs? What fantasy world are you living in?

 

[ATM]

Originally Posted by ATM
By the time I step foot on their property, I'd already be disarmed because my gun would stay locked inside the car.

I just don't think they should be able to regulate the contents of my vehicle simply because my tires touch their pavement.

Then don't let your tires touch their pavement.

Taking the pains to avoid the issue wouldn't change my thoughts on this practice of regulating the contents of a vehicle based on tires touching pavement in any way.

Also, why should you be forced to disarm to visit the jail? A court room? A person's home? Why should you have to disarm simple because your shoe touches ground in these places? Again, where do we draw the line?

The line should fall somewhere between:
(a) Locked in my vehicle
(b) In my holster

I prefer (b) but not as a mandate everywhere. Where carry is not allowed, I want (a) to be the maximum enforceable alternative.

Can I carry on your property?

I would likely allow that. If I had reason to disallow carrying on my property I would ask that you lock it in your vehicle or leave.

Of course, call first if you are coming over after dark.

 

[Joe Williams]

Of course, call first if you are coming over after dark.

Can I carry on your property?

I would likely allow that. If I had reason to disallow carrying on my property I would ask that you lock it in your vehicle or leave.

If I knew a gun carrier that I wouldn't allow to carry on my property, quite frankly I don't think it's someone I'd allow on my property with or without a gun. If I can't trust them with a gun, I can't trust them around my wife, kid, or belongings.

 

[Indy317]

I don't have time to rebut everything said, but as for the repeated mantra of "get another job"...

Are you freaking kidding me? In this economy like I have a CHOICE between jobs? What fantasy world are you living in?

So I take it you support government healthcare? There are literally millions of people out there without any healthcare at all. Surely you don't expect them to be able to pay for healthcare costs in the tens of thousands in "this economy?"

 

[ATM]

If I knew a gun carrier that I wouldn't allow to carry on my property, quite frankly I don't think it's someone I'd allow on my property with or without a gun. If I can't trust them with a gun, I can't trust them around my wife, kid, or belongings.

Agreed, just leaving some hypothetical outs.

On this note, why would you employ someone at all that can't be trusted with a legal firearm locked in their car on your property?

 

[miguel]

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.

So do you mean, if I had a car (my property) and someone didn't let me have a firearm in it, that would be OK?

 

[dburkhead]

So are people totally off the hook for their actions? Lets blame the business owner, not the carjacker? Lets blame the business owner, not the victim who knowingly choose to work for such an employer.

But that's exactly what you are suggesting will happen in the case of the business owner allowing people to be armed when going to/from work.

And the "knowingly chose to work" is no different from "knowingly chose to provide parking." They can always choose not to provide parking at all just like the employee can always choose not to work for a company that forbids firearms--with much the same effect.

Not "too bad" for me, as the business owner. Too bad for the guy(s)/girl(s) who I have to let go to off-set additional costs now tacked onto my business via government.

Well, the costs you assert will be tacked onto the business. Do you have anything other than suppositions that say more about your biases: you know, things like actual evidence? Some businesses do allow firearms. Are their insurance rates actually higher?

More fear mongering. Who is "starving?" Show me one American who is starving? I have have dealings with many, many homeless folks...none are starving. The government will provide the safety net, they always do.

Not fear mongering, simply carrying your argument to it's conclusion:

How many businesses allow people to keep guns in their cars (or, worded another way, allow people to be armed when off their property but on the way too or from that property)? How many people do they employ? More than 5% of the adult population of Indiana has LTCH. Are there enough jobs at such companies to provide jobs to all of those people?

Now, suppose all those people who possess LTCH did as you suggest and not work at companies that forbid guns in cars? How many would suddenly be unemployed? What additional taxes would be needed to provide a "safety net" for those people? And would the "safety net" extend to people who are unemployed because they don't like that rule? "You have three good job offers. What do you mean you don't like their rule about guns in locked cars?"

And let's say it does cover those people? Where is the money for that additional number of people having to be provided for in that safety net going to come from? More taxes? Yet more expenses to tack onto businesses or consumers? So we either have more expenses on the businesses or more taxes on the consumers which reduces their disposable income so they spend less which reduces the revenue on the businesses, so what do the businesses do to recoup that loss? How many people do they lay off here. But that puts more people relying on the "safety net." Which requires more tax revenue. Which leads to....

The only way you can make the argument about "choose not to work there" is because in the real world people won't. In the end having to provide for their families means they'll suck up a lot that's just plain wrong.

You like to carry arguments through to absurd lengths, well try it with some of your own positions sometime.

The simple fact is that we have folks here who are advocating the striping of rights away from property owners over practicality or "I shouldn't have to get another job!!" That last part really sounds like "I have a _right_ to this job!!" No, you don't.

For most people it's not a matter of "another job" but "any job."

And the rather shrill "stripping rights" rhetoric is the logical fallacy of "appeal to emotion." Also, you use the more general "property owners" rather than the more specific "business owners" is the fallacy of equivocation.

Regulation of commerce has always been a power of government in the US. The Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce granted right there in the Constitution--explicitly. The States have always had power to regulate commerce within the states. Businesses have never had a right to be free of regulation to be stripped from them. One might argue, and should, whether a particular piece of regulation serves the public good (including the preservation of Constitutional and other Rights for the people of the United States) but objecting to regulation of business on a blind "stripping rights" argument is fallacious.

I don't make a lot of money, but I am very good with my money. My home will be paid off in two years, if not sooner. There are many, many jobs I would rather do, but most pay jack and don't pay insurance. I guess it is OK for me to waive this same flag and demand that you and others get more of your money taken from you so I can go and get the job _I_ want? Folks would get upset if I advocated for a national healthcare plan for me, myself, and I, only because I have the financial picture to then go out and get any part-time/full-time job I would _want_. This is a very, very selfish attitude. It is exactly why a good % of this country wants welfare, government healthcare, etc.. We have folks out there demanding their "right" to work some $20K/year job, but never have to save a dime for healthcare, or retirement, etc.. So long as those out there busting their butts pulling in $50K/year+ get taxed more, who cares, these folks _never_ see themselves making over $25K/year in their lifetime.

None of this is relevant to the topic at hand.

So we are back to blaming everyone _but_ the criminal? Nice. That is exactly the road the gun grabbers use: Blame objects, not the actual criminal. Oh, good luck with that lawsuit, as _you_ knowingly continued to work for a person who banned guns. Oh wait, personal responsibility is dead in this country, your lawsuit might actually have merit since we don't, and shouldn't, hold individuals accountable for their own actions.

You are engaging in a double standard. Your argument about costs, etc. is based on blaming the business owner if they allow people to be armed while going to/from work rather than the individual who actually commits the crime.

One way or the other please.

I would love to go and work some park job at $8/hour, but I can't because I have to pay bills and need healthcare. I think my rights are being violated, so is it OK that I lobby for you to lose more rights, in terms of how much money you get to keep, so that the government can take that money and pay for my home and healthcare so I can go and do what _I_ want to do? You have a 2nd amendment right, on _your_ property, and on public property. Your 2nd amendment rights stop when you enter someone else's property. Where does it end? Should I have the right to enter your driveway, where only vehicles are, to put religious items on your car? If I am banned, my religious freedom rights are being denied.[/quore]

More irrelevancies.

As for where 2nd Amendment rights stop, please show me where that is in the Constitution?

How about this: a businessman forbids anyone other than Lutherans from coming onto his place of business. That work for you? That even works better than the gun issue because it's theoretically possible for someone to "convert" right at the property line and then "lapse" as they leave. That's a little harder to do with something like the 2nd.

Working nights, weekends, holidays, etc. is a "huge hassle" for thousands of other workers, but they do it, for a variety of reasons. Trust me, there are people, many of them, who would _love_ to take another job but can't due to insurance issues. Is it OK for them to advocate government provide them insurance so they can take their dream job, because their current job is a "hassle?"

If you can show me what article in the Constitution, or in the writings of the Founding Fathers makes Health Care a right (or, rather, an entitlement) then this analogy might hold. Otherwise it's more irrelevancy.

Yup. Begging government to strip someone's rights away only means that government gets more power.

And more of the loaded-language appeal to emotion. You can't strip rights that never existed. Being free from regulation is a "right" that businesses have never had.

Get another job?

Not possible for everyone.

N = number of jobs where people are allowed to keep their guns in their locked cars (at a minimum).
M = number of people who want to exercise their RKBA.

N < M

Once all of the "N" are filled, there are still people left over from "M". I guess those people's rights don't matter.

Don't park on company property?

So I'm still disarmed off company property from wherever I do park back to comapny property.

Start your own company?

Not possible for everybody. Similar equation to the N and M above. And the simple truth is that most company startups--even well run ones--fail. And we're back to that whole expanding "safety net" problem again.

I mean come on, is this _really_ that hard? Who is forcing you, at gun point, to work this job?

Is "gun point" the only kind of forcing that you recognize?

For many people the only choice you are offering is Hobson's.

No. _You_ willingly choose to do this, no one forced you. Also, another person robbed you, not the business owner. Oh wait, I forgot, personal responsibility is dead in this country, which means everyone else but those truly responsible are actually responsible.

And once again you go with the double standard. If the business owner allows guns in locked cars they will be held liable if something bad happens as a result but if they forbid it and something bad happens as a result then you start talking about personal liability.

Either hold the individual who commited the crime solely liable in both cases or hold the business owner whose policies "contributed" liable in both cases. Doing it only on one side is why there are so many "no guns" policies in the first place.

Then don't let your tires touch their pavement.

Or how about since only my tires touch their payment, they can search the tires.

Also, why should you be forced to disarm to visit the jail?

Nobody is talking about requiring business owners to let people actually carry so this is another irrelevancy.

A court room?

Ditto.

A person's home?

Ditto. Also, the government has always had a power to regulate business that exceeds that to regulate peoples' control of their non-business property.

Why should you have to disarm simple because your shoe touches ground in these places? Again, where do we draw the line?

That's what we're deciding through the legislative system: where to draw the line.

I ask again: health codes for food vendors? Fire and building codes? Codes against dumping raw sewage in one's front yard? Zoning ordinances? Are you against all of these, and anything like them, things as well? If not then you tacitly recognize that there has to be a line somewhere and the decision is where that line is to be drawn? And, in that case the argument should be why this position of the line is better or worse than that position of the line. Just complaining "there's a line" is immaterial when there's going to be a line regardless.

Can I carry on your property?

Anyone I trust to be on my property at all, who is legally able to carry, I trust to carry. Whether they carry or not has nothing to do with whether they are permitted there.

Seriously? How about getting another job? How about parking elsewhere?

Again, not possible for everyone.

I didn't know it was so great to beg the government into taking from others as long as one agrees with the proposition.

More loaded language fallacious arguments and already dealt with repeated times.

I might actually start advocating _for_ national healthcare. I mean, I could work my current job for another five years, which would give me a ton of money in the bank. Then I could actually quit, and do whatever _I_ wanted, and not have to worry about money or having health care benefits. I mean what is _not_ to like about this?

And another attempt to argue against one thing by claiming (or infering sarcastically) that something else is bad.

The 2nd Amendment is not healthcare.

If I support _this_ bill, for my own personal gain, then I may as well support every other bill that I believes helps me, everyone else be damned.

You see, here's your mistake. I don't gain from this bill. The office where I work is in an industrial park with "communal" parking so there's no one company setting policy. Ergo I could have twin fifties mounted on my car for all the effect company policy will have.

Thus my personal gain doesn't enter into it. I support this bill because I think it's the right thing to do, because I think it will be a good, achievable (as opposed to tort reform which is not achievable in any meaningful way any time soon) way of countering the government bias against gun owners rights that has already crept into the system--the same bias that lets you present lawsuits and liability to the business owner if they allow people to keep guns in their cars while turning around and invoking personal responsibility if someone is hurt because they were obeying a policy against such.

The government is already pushing one way. If I can't get them to stop pushing maybe we can get them to push back the other way to compensate.

This means supporting national healthcare, because it would be a _huge_ benefit for me. It would allow me to quit my job in about five years, and just sit around on the computer and be a total 100% consumer/leech of the government. The rest of you all will be paying for my healthcare. Thanks!!

Are you just going to pretend that self interest is the only motive that people have to argue in support of this bill or are you going to deal with some of the other issues that I, at the very least (not going to scroll back to see who has said what), have brought up? That's called a "straw man" and is a logical fallacy.

Individual rights _end_ at the property of another. If your second amendment rights extend to my property, then my first amendment rights extend to your property. Do this mean I have to allow folks to come and worship on my property?

Does a business have a right to prevent an observant Jew from wearing a Yarmulke? Does a business have a right to strip search someone to see if they are a forbidden Mormon wearing a temple garment? Does a business have a right to forbid a Sikh from wearing his Turban? A Catholic his Crucifix? Does a restaurant have a right to forbid patrons from saying grace over their meals?

Does a business have a right to forbid employees from having certain kinds of reading matter in their cars? Would a rabid racist be allowed to check cars to make sure there's no hair or skin flakes from "those people" in them? Is a Mormon businessmen allowed to forbid employees from having a six-pack of Killians Red in the trunk of their car for a party they're going to after work?

Where do you draw the line?

This is NO DIFFERENT, nada. You can't have it any other way.

That you claim it's no different doesn't make it so. Differences have been pointed out repeatedly.

Either everyone has rights on other people's property, or the property owner reserves all rights themselves.

Fallacy of insufficient options. It's not an absolute all or nothing however much you paint it that way.

I notice how you keep refusing to man up to the logical conclusion of "the property owner reserves all rights themselves".

How do you want it? Do you want it so that people can trespass on your property to exercise their right to assemble? To engage in free speech? To carry their guns?

How about that the "answer" is somewhere between the two extremes and with the understanding that the exact location of that answer will always be subject to debate and possible adjustment.

These attitudes of striping the rights of property owners is exactly why I would never, ever own a small business in this "free" country.

And again with the loaded language substituting for reasoned debate.

I have always felt that when it comes to my property, I should be able to have a say on who prays on it, who carries guns on it, who brings weapons onto my property, who parks on my property, who walks upon my property.

Who lives and who dies? What gets dumped on it? Whether the building is a firetrap or not? Whether the yard is full of unprocessed fecal matter?

It is not surprising to me that more and more of my friends just get totally fed up with government, politics, etc.. It is nothing more than a game of taking from others, depending on who is in power determines the losers and the winners. I don't think this is the kind of country our founders wanted, but that seems to be what we have.

And the absolutist position you appear to be advocating is also not what they wanted.

From the US Constitution: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Regulating Interstate Commerce has been a power of the Federal Government from the day the Constitution was ratified. The States have had the power to regulate commerce within their borders even longer. This is what the Founding Fathers created and/or allowed to continue. Whether a particular aspect of regulation falls within "what the founding fathers wanted" or not is subject to debate, of course, but that some regulation can exist is not. It's there. They put it there. How could they put it there if they didn't want it there?

Businesses are subject to regulation. They have always been subject to regulation. The Founding Fathers wrote that into the Constitution and allowed existing State regulation to Stand. The conclusion is that they wanted business to be subject to at least some regulation.

That such regulation has gone overboard I do not dispute. That SB25 is an example of overboard legislation I do dispute.

 

[mk2ja]

Snip

Snip

Wow, this is some of the best debating I've read on INGO. Rep to both of you for keeping it generally civil.

I thought Indy made some really good points, for many of which dburk was able to give a rebuttal, but there were some really key issues on which I agreed with Indy. In the end, I give the nod to Indy in the debate because I think some of the points he raised weren't adequately rebutted. However, I'm still going to give my support to this bill because I find that it is reasonable to give this protection to citizens.