The Indiana state senate, in a commanding, 41-9 vote, decided Monday to protect employees' right to store firearms in their locked vehicles. The bill, SB 25, would prevent empoyers (with a few exceptions) from prohibiting workers from keeping firearms locked in their vehicles parked on company parking lots.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Johnny Nugent, R-Lawrenceburg, told his colleagues on the Senate floor that people should be able to keep legally permitted firearms in their vehicles so they can go hunting before or after work, or defend themselves if needed on the way to or from their jobs. It would not prevent employers from banning guns inside the workplace.
The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where the legislation died in 2009 after passing the Senate.
The failure of last year's similar legislation notwithstanding, supporters might have more grounds for optimism this year, as the House version, HB 1065, seems to have some momentum behind it, having passed a committee vote by a 10-1 margin.
Interestingly, critics of the bill cite this month's ABB shooting spree in St. Louis as one of the reasons to oppose this legislation.
Lobbyists from the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Manufacturers Association and the Domestic Violence Network voiced concerns during a committee hearing about the potential for workplace shootings such as one Jan. 7 in St. Louis in which a man killed three co-workers and himself. Business lobbyists fought for and won an amendment that would protect companies from being sued if they follow the law and someone is harmed.
I have not, so far, been able to confirm my (still strongly held) suspicion that the ABB shooting occurred in a designated "gun-free zone," but I would hope that few would argue that any corporate policy against guns would have stopped the killer, rather than simply ensuring him a good supply of unarmed victims.
I do applaud the amendment protecting companies from liability stemming from compliance with the law (SB 25 contains a similar provision).
The full Indiana House could vote on HB 1065 at any time.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Kudos to IN legislators!!! They're actually working!! Our bunch here in IL met for a day and a half then ran home to try to get each other re-elected!! This early primary is terrible. But I don't hear too many lawmakers talking about putting it later in the year!
HB1065 passed the house yesterday 76 to 21. So, both sides of the house have passed a version of the bill by an overwhelming majority, I would think this would be destined to become law.
Coincidentally, I spoke at a TEA Party last night on 2nd Amendment rights and used the ABB shooting as a reason to support Parking Lot Carry.
As I left the state, Representative Murphy, a co-author of HB1065, was there to great me. He was smiling from ear to ear, introduced himself, and said the House passed HB1065 and HB1068 a few hours earlier. Kudos to Representative Murphy! He is a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Also, how fantastic was it to see a representative of a district over an hours drive away at a local TEA Party.
Supporters of legislation like this need to rethink what the 2nd Amendment really is: It's a prohibition placed on the government to keep them from restricting firearms ownership. That's it.
The 2nd Amendment, or rather The Constitution as a whole, was not designed to make those same prohibitions on private property owners. To the contrary, The Constitution was designed to ensure private property rights go free of abrogation.
Legislation like this is an abrogation of those property rights.
I personally would never restrict my employees possession of firearms on my property. Hell, I'd probably have show and tell time. But the fact of the matter is that this legislation is anathema to The Constitution and private property rights.
Jason, I certainly agree that the parking lots issue is not a 2nd Amendment issue, and I have actually in the past argued, as you are now, that the property owner has a right to decide who can, and who cannot, come onto his property, and if he designates people with guns as people who cannot, that's his prerogative, as disagreeable as I find it.
I still lean that direction, which is why I avoided taking a position on the legislation in this column. From the purely "any chair in a bar fight" perspective, though, any effort the anti-gunners have to spend trying to fight this is effort they won't be able to apply to something else.
What about the property rights of your vehicle? If a person is not a tresspasser (they work there, are doing business there, etc.), and the gun is never leaving your car, it is staying in your personal property. In many states the car is even viewed as an extension of your home. Beyond that though, if you can't keep it in your car, that effectively means that you can't drive with it because while you would be legal while the car is in motion, you would be illegal almost whenever the car stops. The trial lawyers have done a fantastic job of making sure from a liability standpoint that almost every business has to on paper somewhere state that weapons are banned on their property. No one is saying they have to be allowed to take the weapons inside, but if you can't leave it in your car, your in trouble. Imagine if every gas station said you could not keep the weapon in your car while fueling? Guess you could never drive with a gun farther than one tank of gas!
“The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”
And indeed they shall! Tip of the 3-corner and wave of the autoloader to the legislators righteously acting to secure ’Rights’.
A person’s privately-owned vehicle is that person’s private property and the contents within as owned by said person are that person’s private possessions--regardless of where the vehicle is located.
No other person has any authority over said contents without the expressed permission from the owner. Any unauthorized person’s authority ends at the exterior of the vehicle, including that which may be affixed to a vehicle, such cargo holders on a motorcycle. Clear enough?
Employers violating the ‘Rights’ of employees by firing, banning possession of a firearm in an employee’s vehicle as a condition of employment and / or instituting some related ban policy as a condition for continued employment brought the necessity for this legislation all on themselves.
As a pertinent aside:-
A person’s body is irrefutably that person’s private property and possession, as is, that which is upon one’s immediate person and likewise contained within one’s own body.
Carrying a weapon concealed violates no other person’s actual ‘Rights’, but to make it illegal or somehow deny a person the ‘bearing of arms--(as in a fire-arm)--through coercion, threat, or any of the like is irrefutably a denial of the ‘Right’ to Keep and Bear Arms--a ’Right’ which in historical fact predates and preexists every form of American government, is enumerated as such in most State constitutions and specified in the IIA to the U.S. Constitution as a ‘Right’ that ‘shall not be infringed.’
In cases of government denying or arbitrarily making this 'Right' illegal, such acts are, on principle alone--Immoral.
Leaving one’s firearm in a locked vehicle under any circumstance is, at the least, a concession made on one‘s own ‘Rights‘ as a sovereign individual.
IMHO
Pete: In relation to 4th Amendment issues, yes, your car should be considered an extension of your home. But as I mentioned, Constitutional issues relate to government restrictions, not those imposed by private property owners. If I owned a piece of property that you were going to be parking on, I am well within my rights to search your vehicle if I so desire. If you don't agree to that, you can park elsewhere.
As for the gas station analogy and trying to use that to gain my support for infringement of private property rights, it's not going to work. First off, no gas station chain in their right mind is going to establish a no-firearms policy and then actually try enforcing it by searching every vehicle that comes on the property - it would be way too costly. Secondly, if they did, they would quickly find out that the market wouldn't look too kindly at that.
CIDGofOne:
In response to your statement that "No other person has any authority over said contents without the expressed permission from the owner. Any unauthorized person’s authority ends at the exterior of the vehicle, including that which may be affixed to a vehicle, such cargo holders on a motorcycle. Clear enough?"
Yeah, it's clear. It should also be clear then that your authority to park on my property or be employed by my company ends if you don't let me inspect your vehicle if that's one of my conditions of employment.
Of course, if you were to disagree with that statement, then you certainly wouldn't object to me having the ability to remain in your house after an invite even though I put on a shirt that says something profane. Right.
After all, if you were actually saying that you can set the conditions for me remaining on your property, yet I can't, you would be a hypocrite.
What about the property rights of your vehicle? If a person is not a tresspasser (they work there, are doing business there, etc.), and the gun is never leaving your car, it is staying in your personal property. In many states the car is even viewed as an extension of your home. Beyond that though, if you can't keep it in your car, that effectively means that you can't drive with it because while you would be legal while the car is in motion, you would be illegal almost whenever the car stops. The trial lawyers have done a fantastic job of making sure from a liability standpoint that almost every business has to on paper somewhere state that weapons are banned on their property. No one is saying they have to be allowed to take the weapons inside, but if you can't leave it in your car, your in trouble. Imagine if every gas station said you could not keep the weapon in your car while fueling? Guess you could never drive with a gun farther than one tank of gas!
Jason: The emphasis should be on what an entity like a gas station can legally do, not on whether it can do it but we just shouldn't worry about it because they would never enforce it (ie, they would never search the car, or they would be worried about losing business). In fact, selective enforcement is part of the problem that this bill addresses. A boss can not just have a no gun in the parking lot policy that he lets his buddies get away with, but when there is one person they want to target they can selectively do so. The reality is that people do have guns in their trunk all the time, no one knows it, but they are technically in violation and then it is only selectively enforced in a discrimatory fashion. Also, many of these businesses act in an oligopolic manner, or as I said previously due to liability concerns these have almost become defacto company policies just so they don't get sued. This is not just anyone with a car on your property. This is employees or customers.
Jason: Also, just to understand how you are approaching this, you would have no problem with K-12, public universities, unemployment offices, DMVs, post offices, city halls, and libraries have to have these policies, correct? Could also any company that accepts subsidies from the government then also be compelled to have to accept such policies as a condition for them receiving public money? Could government make this a part of their business licensing? Could it be a civil rights issue of discrmination, such as race, creed, or color, sex, or religion?
Pete: I believe the gas station should be able to have the ability to establish a no firearms policy if they want. It's their property, and I'm free not to patronize it.
That said, as I've mentioned, I don't agree with having a no firearms policy, I'm saying that property owners can establish whatever policies they wish for admittance on their property.
As for K-12 schools, public universities, DMVs, etc. Yes, I do have a problem with prohibition in those cases, as those are governmental or quasi-governmental properties.
As for government subsidies, there should be none in the first place.
A civil rights issue? Without totally diverging from the topic, I believe that a private business should be able to hire or fire whoever they want for whatever reason. But just because I believe they should have the ability, doesn't mean I think they should do it, nor would I do it myself.
Supporters of legislation like this need to rethink what the 2nd Amendment really is: It's a prohibition placed on the government to keep them from restricting firearms ownership. That's it.
The 2nd Amendment, or rather The Constitution as a whole, was not designed to make those same prohibitions on private property owners. To the contrary, The Constitution was designed to ensure private property rights go free of abrogation.
Legislation like this is an abrogation of those property rights.
I personally would never restrict my employees possession of firearms on my property. Hell, I'd probably have show and tell time. But the fact of the matter is that this legislation is anathema to The Constitution and private property rights.
Jason, you are wrong. Those who oppose your view, though achieving the proper outcome, argue from the wrong position. This is not a gun rights issue v. property rights issue, it is a property rights issue v. property rights issue. Your stance of my property my rules has some credence, but not the extent that they deny others' property rights. My property my rules, is silly on the face of it if carried to absolutes. Do you advocate that your employees grant you sexual favors because they are on your property?
If not, why not? Your property, your rules. Or do your rights end at the beginning of the rights of others?
The lame analogy you offered of the t-shirt is just that, Lame. It would be more accurate if you left the t-shirt in the car, or if you had compared it to a gunowner carrying his gun into the place of employment on his belt. What if an employee had a St. Christopher medal hanging from his rear-view mirror, do you have the right to tell him to remove it?
I think not. I don't think you do, either.
But suppose he agreed to hide it in the glove box, do you still have the right to enforce your ban on his property. NO! and you never did.
If you invite me on your property you invite all of me, including my rights. If you try to violate those rights you would be placing yourself in great physical danger. If you don't invite me, then I have no business being there. Bullying people out of their rights is never an honorable pursuit.
My vehicle is mine. What's in it is mine. What's in it is none of your business unless you can prove actual harm has occurred. If you cannot then mind your own business, and I'll mind mine.
Why is that so hard to understand?
There are numerous other scenarios, far too many to bother with.
Regarding those in government--in addition to abiding by the basic Moral codes of conduct and ethical behavior, adhering to constitutionally-imposed limitations on powers and laws enumerated as ’Rights’ of the Citizens…primary among the purposes for the institution of all forms of American government is to secure ’Rights’.
In principle, exactly those same ‘Rights’ individuals have without the existence of any government at all.
Government serves not only in establishing ’laws’--all just and fair laws based on ’Rights’ of the individual--but as an arbitrator in civil disputes, such as the one we’re discussing here and determining the validity, justness and fairness of those in question.
Re; Mr. Jason Gillman Jr.
I well recognize you to clearly be a man of principle, making this discussion all the more worthwhile.
Re; Mr. Kurt Hofmann
Thanks for providing us with this format and keeping the Spirit
Alive.
Excellent discussion.
straightarrow has it correct. “This is not a gun rights issue v. property rights issue, it is a property rights issue v. property rights issue.”
Another distinction which must be established is, to a significant extent--the property aspect of the issue involves property used for business purposes, ( in contrast to privately-owned land or a person’s private home ) and said business property is often open to access by the public, such as Disneyworld, shopping malls and even mom and pop stores. Avoiding intricate specifics, say a corporately-owned mall with a parking lot publicly accessible 24/7, establishes a policy that all businesses in the mall must ban guns in employees cars, or a storeowner does so independently.
While no law prohibits those among the general public from having firearms in their vehicles, but in many instances visitors legally carry concealed firearms in the mall itself.
A 'ban' on guns in employee's vehicles is a 'Right' denied.
Straightarrow: "Do you advocate that your employees grant you sexual favors because they are on your property?
If not, why not? Your property, your rules. Or do your rights end at the beginning of the rights of others? "
No, I don't advocate my employees grant me sexual favors. I do however advocate that business owners be allowed to set that as a condition of employment - no matter how silly it is. If the employee or prospective employee doesn't like it, then they don't have to be employed there. It's simple.
As for hiding whatever, they can go ahead and do that, but if a part of the process is the property owner actually doing vehicle searches, that's something they can do as property owners. {Continued}
"If you invite me on your property you invite all of me, including my rights. If you try to violate those rights you would be placing yourself in great physical danger. If you don't invite me, then I have no business being there. Bullying people out of their rights is never an honorable pursuit."
If I invite you on my property, it would be with whatever conditions attached that I set. If I change those conditions, you would certainly have the right to leave at that time peacefully.
However, with your statement, it sounds like YOU are the one trying to bully yourself into control of MY property. THAT would be a bad move.
CIDGofOne: It's like this: Private property is private property. Even if a business gives a default state of public access, they retain the ability to set conditions and standards for that access, and further retains the right to change those at a later time.
As I mentioned, if they change them, they only thing they should be responsible for is letting those who do not wish to abide by the new terms leave peacefully.
Bottom line is though, if they don't bother checking, don't worry about it.
Jason: Thank you for the comments, but if you are one of the employees that have been fired, and they weren't checking vehicles up until the time they got fired, that statement doesn't help much. Some of your other points likewise can't be dismissed: you may not wish the government could say a reason why you can't fire someone, but they do in terms of race, etc. So the discussion is then what CIDGof1 part 4 says. You may also wish that there were no subsidies, but in reality, there are, so that has to be considered. In addition, our brave new world is also forcing former government services into so called public private partnerships. If the govt. outsources or contracts work to a company, it can attach stipulations. Same with licensing. You can argue that no licensing should be necessary, and that argument may have merit, but gun owners are also trying to work to protect themselves with the rules as the game is being currently played, not "how it should be".
I am also open to hearing other solutions to address this problem: say you are being stalked or fear for your safety for some reason, and wish to have a legally owned gun with you in your legally owned private vehicle as you drive to and from work. What reasonable options do you have to continue to do so? Not all businesses have parking on the streets in front of them. If you take a bus or taxi, you can't have the gun with you then in some cases (and for sure no way to store it at its destination). It seems your option would be to only look for jobs where they have a policy that allows you to keep firearms in the trunk. That is a policy likely to only be found by asking in the first interview. I think the likelihood of receiving a job by doing so are close to zero in many cases, but beyond that, based on liability issues, I think the amount of jobs available that would offer that is very small once lawsuits are considered. What alternative allows the driving back and forthtowork?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!