State House to Vote Soon on Pro-Gun Bill

[dagibson1507]

Will this allow people employed in the school system to be protected from termination? I know the previous law prevented employers from terminating employees for having guns secured in their service except for certain excluded facilities.

 

[AndersonIN]

Will this allow people employed in the school system to be protected from termination? I know the previous law prevented employers from terminating employees for having guns secured in their service except for certain excluded facilities.

Indiana being an "at will" work state means you're never truly protected from termination but from what I heard it would make it legal to have a gun/ammo in your vehicle.

 

[brotherbill3]

Will this allow people employed in the school system to be protected from termination? I know the previous law prevented employers from terminating employees for having guns secured in their service except for certain excluded facilities.

See below.

Indiana being an "at will" work state means you're never truly protected from termination but from what I heard it would make it legal to have a gun/ammo in your vehicle.

THIS ^^^^ yes - it includes employees of the school; it protects you if stored properly, and licensed etc.

 

[MisterChester]

Letter sent!

 

[dagibson1507]

I'm aware we are an at will state. My understanding though was the previous "take your gun to work law" prevented employers from banning weapons in locked vehicles, out of plain sight. While they could still fire you they would open themselves up to civil and punitive damages. My question is if this passes world employees of the school be given the same protection if it's no longer a crime to simply possess one secured in a car on school grounds.

 

[AndersonIN]

According to State Rep Austin...............YES!!!

 

[rvb]

reps emailed. will try to also call tomorrow if I get the chance.
-rvb

 

[minuteman32]

I spent the afternoon calling & receiving calls from my State Rep's (Karlee Mercer D92) legislative assistant. The Rep may actually call me, herself, tomorrow. I gather that she is planning to vote against it because she is "listening to the school corporations and police" & NOT the voters! She is "very concerned with the safety of the children, and is very pro gun .... even an NRA member (she believes)".
If y'all care at all about this, now is the time to call, email, visit your State Senator & Rep.

 

[brotherbill3]

According to State Rep Austin...............YES!!!

She is going to support it Monday? that's good!!! She argued against it today.

 

[brotherbill3]

I'm aware we are an at will state. My understanding though was the previous "take your gun to work law" prevented employers from banning weapons in locked vehicles, out of plain sight. While they could still fire you they would open themselves up to civil and punitive damages. My question is if this passes world employees of the school be given the same protection if it's no longer a crime to simply possess one secured in a car on school grounds.

To the bold part - Yes - this bill extends the same protection to the staff, faculty and administration of schools as the rest of us. Infact, Rep Eberhart Discussed this when arguing against Rep. Lawson's amendment today; Rep Lawson had an amendment to remove this section of the bill; it was soundly defeated.

Vote is Monday after 1 pm. Then likely to conference committee.

 

[87iroc]

Columbus Republic has picked up the story claiming BCSC is against it. Also claim ONLY police are qualified to have a gun on school grounds.

 

[minuteman32]

I worked in/around IPS schools & was a reserve officer for part of that time. I trained along side the merit officers & what I learned was that most of the non LEO's that I knew could shoot circles around most of the LEO's.Most of the non LEO's had as much or more firearms training & knowledge than the LEO's & paid for everything out of their own pockets. Not bashing my brothers & sisters in blue/brown/etc. just stating what I observed.
Maybe they should look up the IN Constitution if they think someone or a group should have special privilege. [h=3]Section 23. Equal privileges and immunities[/h]Section 23. The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens

As well as;
[h=3]Section 32. Arms--Right to bear[/h]Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Doesn't say "the police" or that we can bear arms only in certain locations, It says, "The people" and "for the defense of themselves"!

 

[K_W]

I worked in/around IPS schools & was a reserve officer for part of that time. I trained along side the merit officers & what I learned was that most of the non LEO's that I knew could shoot circles around most of the LEO's.Most of the non LEO's had as much or more firearms training & knowledge than the LEO's & paid for everything out of their own pockets. Not bashing my brothers & sisters in blue/brown/etc. just stating what I observed.
Maybe they should look up the IN Constitution if they think someone or a group should have special privilege. [h=3]Section 23. Equal privileges and immunities[/h]Section 23. The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens

As well as;
[h=3]Section 32. Arms--Right to bear[/h]Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Doesn't say "the police" or that we can bear arms only in certain locations, It says, "The people" and "for the defense of themselves"!

Also sounds like the LTCH requirement is unconstitutional under the IN Constitution as it creates an imunity to the crime of carrying a handgun only for those who have it.

 

[minuteman32]

Also sounds like the LTCH requirement is unconstitutional under the IN Constitution as it creates an imunity to the crime of carrying a handgun only for those who have it.

I would agree. I think the VT Constitution has similar wording.

 

[Hoosierkav]

229 comes to the floor Monday for discussion and vote.

 

[kludge]

It seems that page 3 line 42, the last word "not" should not be there.

?????????????????????????

 

[CathyInBlue]

The term ["school property"] does not include parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection if the parking lots are used by a person who is not enrolled as a student in any high school or is a high school student and is a member of a shooting sports team, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as a member of the shooting sports team. As applied to a person enrolled as a student in any high school who is not a member of a shooting sports team, the term ["school property"]includes parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection.

That's a lot of verbiage. Let's break it down with respect to some of the larger repeated phrases.

PLATAORINC: parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection
MOAST: a member of a/the shooting sports team
HSS: a high school student/a person who is enrolled as a student in any high school

The term ["school property"] does not include PLATAORINC if the parking lots are used by not HSS or HSS and MOAST, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as a MOAST. As applied to HSS who is not MOAST, the term ["school property"] includes PLATAORINC.

Better, but let's get some of those and/or clauses reorganized.

The term ["school property"] does not include PLATAORINC if the parking lots are used by {
not HSS
or
{HSS and MOAST, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as MOAST}
}.

As applied to HSS who is not MOAST, the term ["school property"] includes PLATAORINC.

It doesn't really make sense to apply the school's principal clause to the not HSS part of that OR construction, since the principal clause is predicated on persons who are MOASTs. Also, if you removed that questionable not, how would that read?

The term ["school property"] does not include PLATAORINC if the parking lots are used by {
HSS
or
{HSS and MOAST, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as MOAST}
}.

As applied to HSS who is not MOAST, the term ["school property"] includes PLATAORINC.

Now, it's problematic. In the first sentence, the whole HSS clause before the OR is meaningless, or rather, it renders the principal clause, which is a limitting criterion, in the HSS clause after the OR meaningless. "The term doesn't apply to HSS OR HSS who meet this specific criterion."

Perhaps if the original language were wrapped in traditional formatting for these kinds of things:

The term ["school property"] does not include parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection if the parking lots are used by:
(a) a person who is not enrolled as a student in any high school or
(b) is a high school student and is a member of a shooting sports team, and the school's principal has approved the person keeping a firearm concealed in the person's motor vehicle on days the person is competing or practicing as a member of the shooting sports team.
As applied to a person enrolled as a student in any high school who is not a member of a shooting sports team, the term ["school property"] includes parking lots adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in this subsection.

I suspect they didn't do that because these clauses are already tacked on after (a) and (b) subsections and when broken down, as I have, are clear in their own right.

and conjunctions bind more strongly than or conjunctions, so those two and's in (b) create a single concept separate from the or'ed (a) concept.

 

[87iroc]

Wrote my rep again this morning.

 

[mshogren]

Polite email sent to Rep Turner in support of thus bill as amended!

Mark

 

[Bill of Rights]

ARGH!!!!! I've been listening for an hour and a half... they got to SB 229 and Rep. Eberhart passed for discussion today! <grrr>

I'm not yet sure what's happened, but I'm going to try to find out.

Edit:
Apparently all is well. They're going to discuss it during the break, but it will come for a vote today (deadline for Senate bills on Third Reading)
I'm told that delays like this are not unusual if there are still some "jitters" among some of the Representatives.