Way to go Gov Daniels! Parking Lot 2.0 Signed

[IN_Sheepdog]

Governor Mitch Daniels Signs “Parking Lot 2.0” Bill Into Law!​

[FONT=&quot]On April 15, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Senate Enrolled Act 411[/FONT][FONT=&quot], a parking lot/employee protection reform also known as the “Parking Lot 2.0” bill. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Authored by state Senator and NRA Board Member Johnny Nugent (R-43) and co-authored by state Senator Jim Tomes (R-49), this employee protection expansion legislation prevents workplace discrimination for those employees who exercise their Second Amendment rights before and after work. Under the new law, businesses and employers are barred from requiring employees to disclose information about their private firearm ownership habits, what firearms or ammunition they own or transport in their vehicle, as well as prohibiting forced vehicle searches and the registration of employee firearm serial numbers.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now if we just get the other two bills through, (Preemption Bill...Mainly) Indiana will take another step forward in 2nd Am rights![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[eldirector]

 

[GARANDGUY]

Glad its passed! Now on to the others!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Interesting. I posted a thread not long ago asking if anybody on here had had any issues, discussions, etc. with their employer regarding this issue. Judging from the feedback I got on this forum, this had not been an issue.

Apparently, this has been a problem amongst non-INGO members. Does anybody have any insight into the origins of this bill?

 

[mcolford]

Exempted businesses/facilities includes "Penal Facilities. I just looked up the definition of "Penal Facility...

35-41-1-21:
"Penal Facility" means state prison, correctional facility, county jail, penitentary, house of correction, or any other facility for confinement of persons under sentence, or awaiting trial or sentence, for offenses. The term includes correctional facility constructed under IC 4-13.5


I work at Logansport State Hospital, and they are claiming to be locked in under Penal Facility part. Does that sound correct? Keep in mind we have a primary focus on Forensics (finding folks competent, and are next door to a Juvenile Corrections facility.

I just dont wanna have any guns pulled.


-MColford

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

HIP HIP HOORAY !!

 

[tnek]

Seems from other threads that some dont agree with this. Im glad but it begs the bigger question of how can any supposed gun rights supporter not agree with this.

I also heard earlier this year a couple posters had a "its just feel good legislation" attitude.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Seems from other threads that some dont agree with this. Im glad but it begs the bigger question of how can any supposed gun rights supporter not agree with this.

I also heard earlier this year a couple posters had a "its just feel good legislation" attitude.

The arguments were hashed out last year pretty well, but in a nutshell, those who don't really support the parking lot law and/or the follow up consider all rights important. You may have the privilege of being on your employer's property while you're working for him, but you do not have a right to be there. As such, it is his right to say what he will and will not permit on his property. What you DO have a right to do is choose another place to work, which includes starting your own business, one where you can OC/CC or DTC(duct tape carry) it if you choose.
What you have in your car is your business and your property, yes, but it's parked on his property. Telling a business owner what he must allow on his property is no different from telling what he cannot allow, i.e. smoking, trans fats, etc.

At the time this was argued last year, I said I like the effect of it but not the method by which it was implemented. I think it should be up to the market... if enough people disagree with his policy such that he can't get employees to work for him, he'll change his policies or he'll go out of business. The only exception I see to this was pointed out by an employee of one of the hospital systems in Indy, IIRC. his workplace was built and subsidized by tax money, thus IMHO, there cannot lawfully be any restriction on what a taxpayer owns there; it is not the property of AN employer.

As to it being "feel-good" legislation, an employer needs no reason to fire an employee. If they find you have a gun and they don't approve of that, they just have to not define that as the reason you don't work there anymore.

Now, all of this said, in light of last year's law being enacted, I think this year's follow-up does a fair job of saying "employers, you can't offer jobs only to people who don't own guns, and you have no right to know what guns they own."

I don't know if I covered all of it, but I think I hit most of the arguments. Hopefully, I answered your questions.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[tnek]

The arguments were hashed out last year pretty well, but in a nutshell, those who don't really support the parking lot law and/or the follow up consider all rights important. You may have the privilege of being on your employer's property while you're working for him, but you do not have a right to be there. As such, it is his right to say what he will and will not permit on his property. What you DO have a right to do is choose another place to work, which includes starting your own business, one where you can OC/CC or DTC(duct tape carry) it if you choose.
What you have in your car is your business and your property, yes, but it's parked on his property. Telling a business owner what he must allow on his property is no different from telling what he cannot allow, i.e. smoking, trans fats, etc.

At the time this was argued last year, I said I like the effect of it but not the method by which it was implemented. I think it should be up to the market... if enough people disagree with his policy such that he can't get employees to work for him, he'll change his policies or he'll go out of business. The only exception I see to this was pointed out by an employee of one of the hospital systems in Indy, IIRC. his workplace was built and subsidized by tax money, thus IMHO, there cannot lawfully be any restriction on what a taxpayer owns there; it is not the property of AN employer.

As to it being "feel-good" legislation, an employer needs no reason to fire an employee. If they find you have a gun and they don't approve of that, they just have to not define that as the reason you don't work there anymore.

Now, all of this said, in light of last year's law being enacted, I think this year's follow-up does a fair job of saying "employers, you can't offer jobs only to people who don't own guns, and you have no right to know what guns they own."

I don't know if I covered all of it, but I think I hit most of the arguments. Hopefully, I answered your questions.

Blessings,
Bill

Your right, this has been hashed out before and people continue to split hairs and take the stand of if a person doesnt like it they can just find another job.

For lots of us we are not talking about a walmart or McJob and just leaving isnt really an option, right now 100K jobs dont just fall off the tree.

I didnt ask any question other than I still dont understand how anyone can question a law that helps normal citizens exercise their rights.

Its still a matter of when I go to work whats is in my car is my business.

Its a given that most people understand that in this state a company can fire you for pretty any reason, but larger companies have policies in place to prevent the abuse of manufacturing a excuse if a manager has an axe to grind.

 

[E5RANGER375]

NOW, lets push for constitutional carry in indiana. that means NO LTCH required to carry your gun, for you who dont know. several states are doing the right thing, lets make sure Indiana does too. hold these politicians feet to the fire. they took an oath to uphold the constitution, so lets make them honor it. requiring an LTCH is unconstitutional.

also I would like to see a law passed that allows me to manufacture and posses silencers, sbr's, machine guns, short barreled shotguns, "destructive devices", etc, if I so wish to do so, WITHOUT having to bow down to the feds and pay a unconstitutional tax to the king and his thugs. STATES RIGHTS!

lets also repeal that stupid auto knife law!

 

[squirrelhntr]

More Freedoms = Less Government

 

[wrigleycub]

One small step in the right direction, way to go Mitch!

 

[tnek]

NOW, lets push for constitutional carry in indiana. that means NO LTCH required to carry your gun, for you who dont know. several states are doing the right thing, lets make sure Indiana does too. hold these politicians feet to the fire. they took an oath to uphold the constitution, so lets make them honor it. requiring an LTCH is unconstitutional.

also I would like to see a law passed that allows me to manufacture and posses silencers, sbr's, machine guns, short barreled shotguns, "destructive devices", etc, if I so wish to do so, WITHOUT having to bow down to the feds and pay a unconstitutional tax to the king and his thugs. STATES RIGHTS!

lets also repeal that stupid auto knife law!

Does the constitutional carry have any restrictions as in felons and mental patients etc?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Does the constitutional carry have any restrictions as in felons and mental patients etc?

well if your asking me what the constitution itself says then NO it doesnt restrict them. it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". we already have laws on the books that make it illegal to commit crimes with guns. so if a mental patient or a fellon who has SERVED HIS TIME, has a gun, then its already illegal for them to rob or kill you with it. criminals dont obey laws anyways, so a law restricting guns is pointless already. i call them "feel good laws".

we need to stop pre-policing people. make the penalties for committing crimes harsher to detour crime. when you offer criminals a four star resort to spend time in, whats the incentive to stay out of jail?

 

[tnek]

well if your asking me what the constitution itself says then NO it doesnt restrict them. it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". we already have laws on the books that make it illegal to commit crimes with guns. so if a mental patient or a fellon who has SERVED HIS TIME, has a gun, then its already illegal for them to rob or kill you with it. criminals dont obey laws anyways, so a law restricting guns is pointless already. i call them "feel good laws".

we need to stop pre-policing people. make the penalties for committing crimes harsher to detour crime. when you offer criminals a four star resort to spend time in, whats the incentive to stay out of jail?

I was refering to the states you said were implementing this and if they had any exclusions. I understand that constitutionaly there are no restrictions and agree that criminals will not follow the law anyway.

Which states are pursuing this?

 

[E5RANGER375]

I was refering to the states you said were implementing this and if they had any exclusions. I understand that constitutionaly there are no restrictions and agree that criminals will not follow the law anyway.

Which states are pursuing this?

well off the top of my head, arizona. theres others, i just cant think of them currently

 

[rockhopper46038]

I didnt ask any question other than I still dont understand how anyone can question a law that helps normal citizens exercise their rights.

I think Bill of Rights was trying to help you understand how property rights champions can have concerns about this law while still being ardent gun rights supporters. It's a fair argument, in my opinion. I am one of the conflicted. As another pertinent example, I think the smoking ban is an infringement on business owners right to conduct their business in the manner they see fit, while others think that it is a preservation of the personal right of an employee to not have to work in an environment they feel may be detrimental to their health. The two laws, smoking bans and parking lot laws, are essentially addressing identical issues from a philisophical point of view, yet it seems that many people FOR the smoking ban are AGAINST the parking lot bill, and vice-versa. Just goes to show how most people's internal "Hammurabi Code" (including, apparently, mine) is more attuned to how they persoanlly would benefit or lose, than by a well thought out, consistent moral compass.

 

[sj kahr k40]

The law increases some peoples rights while trampling others rights, I don't see it as a good law

 

[Bill of Rights]

I was refering to the states you said were implementing this and if they had any exclusions. I understand that constitutionaly there are no restrictions and agree that criminals will not follow the law anyway.

Which states are pursuing this?

Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming. New Hampshire is considering it.

The federal law disallowing felons and the mentally ill cannot be overridden by the states, so yes, that restriction will still be in place, although not placed by the state itself.

Edit: My additions to this file, which originally only went to 2006, are at the end.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[tnek]

I think Bill of Rights was trying to help you understand how property rights champions can have concerns about this law while still being ardent gun rights supporters. It's a fair argument, in my opinion. I am one of the conflicted. As another pertinent example, I think the smoking ban is an infringement on business owners right to conduct their business in the manner they see fit, while others think that it is a preservation of the personal right of an employee to not have to work in an environment they feel may be detrimental to their health. The two laws, smoking bans and parking lot laws, are essentially addressing identical issues from a philisophical point of view, yet it seems that many people FOR the smoking ban are AGAINST the parking lot bill, and vice-versa. Just goes to show how most people's internal "Hammurabi Code" (including, apparently, mine) is more attuned to how they persoanlly would benefit or lose, than by a well thought out, consistent moral compass.

I dont see where the two can be compared. Smoking is an action that directly affects those who have to breathe the air. My pistol in my locked car does not breathe or in any way affect ANYONE.
I dont smoke anymore but still do not agree with the smoking bans.