2nd amendment poll in Indy Star

[jeremy]

And as much as I'd like to see this pass...your property is still parked on their property. I dunno. Tough decision to make.

I do not see the problem...

The boundaries are clearly established, my property, your property. As long as the whatever stays in my property who cares...

 

[38special]

I'm a big stickler for private property, but the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected RIGHT, just as the right of private property.

Seems to me that the constitution understands that these rights coexist. They aren't losing their right to private property when you exercise your right to bear arms.

 

[Josed]

Voted.
Last results:
Yes-58.3%
No- 41.7%

 

[SavageEagle]

And as much as I'd like to see this pass...your property is still parked on their property. I dunno. Tough decision to make.

Like the ban Morgan County has enacted if you have kids in the car?

No, seriously. What? You mean that every time I go to the gun shop with my kids and I light up I'm breaking the law?!?!?! :wtf: I heard they were talking about this, but I didn't know they passed it. I guess I won't be going to Bradis with the kids and I'll be avoiding Morgan County like the plague....

They aren't losing their right to private property when you exercise your right to bear arms.

I've yet to see anyone put it better than this and I've yet to see anyone defeat this logic. WELL put.

 

[erik7941]

Just voted and as of 4am on 1/16/10
Yes: 59.1%
No: 40.9%

 

[mk2ja]

Nice find, indykid. Voted.

I voted as well. Seems we are a little bit behind.

Assuming the way I voted is the way "we" are voting, we're back in the lead about 60/40.

 

[public servant]

No, seriously. What? You mean that every time I go to the gun shop with my kids and I light up I'm breaking the law?!?!?! :wtf: I heard they were talking about this, but I didn't know they passed it. I guess I won't be going to Bradis with the kids and I'll be avoiding Morgan County like the plague....



I've yet to see anyone put it better than this and I've yet to see anyone defeat this logic. WELL put.

I was pretty sure it passed. I've been wrong before though... Someone from Morgan County want to help us out?

 

[Limpy88]

voted
59.4 yes
40.6 no

 

[Eddie]

Just voted. Its 59.5 to 40.5 in favor of yes.

In response to the back and forth comments between Dross and Dburkhead, the way I look at it in this: RKBA is a right, just like voting. Telling me that as a condition of my employment is that I not exercise this right is the same thing as telling me I can't vote if I want a job. I wonder how many workplace/school shootingings would have ended quickly with far fewer casualties had at least one of the victims (preferably several) been exercising their right to bear arms.

 

[mk2ja]

I've really enjoyed the civil interplay between dross and dburkhead. I, too, have the same uneasiness about limiting the property / business owners from setting policy on their own property. However, I still view this legislation (SB25) to be reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable, all things considered.

One thing from the dross/dburk discussion I wanted to comment on:

3. Sanitation? No, if you dump sewage on your lawn, you affect people not on your lawn.

If you ban firearms on company property, you likewise affect people when they are not on your property. I think that is the key to my decision to support SB25.


Update on vote count at 1130 hrs:
Yes: 59.5%
No: 40.5%
Total votes cast: 1949

 

[Turn Key]

I Voted

Should Indiana pass a law allowing employees to keep guns in their vehicles at work?
Yes: 59.6%
No: 40.4%

Total votes cast: 1967


Pushing 60%


TK

 

[dburkhead]

If you ban firearms on company property, you likewise affect people when they are not on your property. I think that is the key to my decision to support SB25.

Exactly. This is the heart of why I find this an acceptable patch to the problem caused by the legal system and the unbalance of liability (liable if you don't ban and something bad happens as a result but not liable if you do ban and something bad happens as a result).

The best fix would be to fix the unbalance in the legal system but that's just not going to happen anytime soon.

Since it's not a perfect world we often have to work with imperfect solutions to imperfect problems.

 

[bigdaddy1427]

I just voted and it is at 60.1%

 

[BeeRian]

Done. Yes-60.2%

 

[indykid]

If I am not mistaken, in Indiana your automobile is considered an extention of your home, and therefore your private property when you park it anywhere. That is also why if you shoot a person trying to carjack you, in Indiana it is looked at the same as if you shot them while they were breaking into your home.

Looks like those who prefer freedom are winning!

 

[Roadie]

Just voted. Its 59.5 to 40.5 in favor of yes.

In response to the back and forth comments between Dross and Dburkhead, the way I look at it in this: RKBA is a right, just like voting. Telling me that as a condition of my employment is that I not exercise this right is the same thing as telling me I can't vote if I want a job. I wonder how many workplace/school shootingings would have ended quickly with far fewer casualties had at least one of the victims (preferably several) been exercising their right to bear arms.

This is another great point. Especially in light of the fact that many of the workplace shooters either went home to get their weapon, and came back, OR came back days or even weeks later.

This ties into the "Gun Free Zone" mentality. As Suzanna Hupp said:

"We have created a shopping list for madmen," she said. "If guns are the problem, why don't we see things occurring at skeet and trap shoots, at gun shows, at NRA conventions? We only see it where guns aren't allowed. The sign of a gun with a slash through it is like a neon sign for gunmen, 'We're unarmed. Come kill us.' "

What if the military would have allowed its already trained soldiers, to carry weapons on base? Would the Ft. Hood death toll have been less? Nobody can say, however, I would bet that if a few people had been armed, it might have even prevented it before it even started.

I think the standard here is already set. Can an employer randomly search my wallet without a warrant? Why not? Because is my personal property. The fact that it is ON their property doesn't change the fact that it is mine.

I know when I worked in a call center that was an "information clean room" we had to put all wallets, purses, phones, etc in a locker before entering, in the interest of information security. To search a locker would require a suspicion of wrong doing, and the presence of a police officer.

Basically, while the car, my property, is on their property, it is still MY property, is it not?

 

[public servant]

I'd be interested in hearing from business owners on INGO. I understand all of them probably gladly allow their employees to carry onto their property...but do they want the government telling them they must allow it?

I'm all for being allowed to...until they are forced.

 

[Roadie]

I'd be interested in hearing from business owners on INGO. I understand all of them probably gladly allow their employees to carry onto their property...but do they want the government telling them they must allow it?

I'm all for being allowed to...until they are forced.

Is it really "forcing" the business owner, or is it giving back 2nd Amendment rights where they had been taken?

 

[3whitey]

voted, gunowners are now in the lead

 

[41mag]

Just voted Yes: 60.3% No: 39.7%
Total votes cast: 2183