Another 2nd Amendment poll (Inside Indiana Business)

[confused89]

Thank you Eddie, I did not see it from that point, but I still don't have to like the policy that they have.

 

[Thumper]

From what i was told which is probably wrong.If the property owner will not let you carry to and from work they are responsible for your safety to and from.

 

[Denny347]

From what i was told which is probably wrong.If the property owner will not let you carry to and from work they are responsible for your safety to and from.

Not true. Wishful thinking more likely.

 

[Roadie]

Has there been any legal distinction made between a parking lot and a building, as far as property rights go?

 

[SavageEagle]

Poll still doesn't look promising. No one has the right to tell me I can't carry to and from work. By saying I can't have my pistol locked in my car that's exactly what they are saying. Period.

 

[critter592]

My car. My property. I respect property owners. My gun in my car is my property. See? Simple. I get out of my car then your rules apply. Just like carrying on school property. In my car I retain my property rights.

 

[femurphy77]

Stepping away from the table and looking at this from another angle; isn't this just another demonstration of who really runs this country? Big Business! Even if they pass a law that allows you to keep a firearm in your car it is very easy in Indiana to fire a person for that very thing.

"H.R. dude; Psst, hey did you hear that Tom has a pistol in his car? Boss; Yeah I know, I don't like it but we can't fire him for it. H.R. dude; well then fire him because he wore mismatched socks this morning! Boss; Great Idea! I guess that's why you make the big bucks!!!"

As stupid as this scenario seems, an Indiana employer is entirely in their rights. Good luck on trying to prove they only did it because you carried to work but left it in your car!!!

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I see this as a conflict of rights, that of personal property rights and that of the 2nd Amendment along with Section #32.

Under the idea of the "Castle Doctrine" any person may defend their home from an intruder and be immune from punishment because their home is sacrosanct.

We have always as a nation and a culture held personal property rights in the highest regard. As such, we are loathe to tell a property owner what can and cannot be done on their own property UNLESS it affects someone off of their property. As an example I cannot pour poison into a stream running through my property because it will travel downstream and poison your property, thus causing you direct harm. Agreed? This seems entirely reasonable.

I also do not believe my private property rights stop just because I am on your property. My private lunchbox, toolbox, car, and any personally owned equipment cannot be violated just because it is on someone else's property. As an example of legal thinking let us say you are named "Bob." And as a contractor you have a toolbox clearly labeled "Bob's Toolbox." Now the police come onto the property doing a random drug search that has been requested by the business owner. If you are not around your toolbox the business owner cannot consent to a police search of "Bob's Toolbox." They have no authority to do so. Any evidence found within said toolbox without a warrant would be thrown out in court. Our private property rights do not and should not end whenever our property is located on another person and/or business property.

I also see the general idea of the right to keep and bear arms being infringed under Section #32 of the Indiana Constitution! The purpose of this right granted to citizens of Indiana is "...for defense of themselves..." This means that our founding fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves not just from foreign powers but from any aggression no matter its source. Therefore any company that prohibits your ability to carry a weapon is in violation of your right under Section #32 of the Indiana Constitution to self defense.

For these reasons I do not believe that any employer should be allowed to prohibit any employee from exercising their Constitutional right to self defense.

All that said Eddie made an excellent point in the real world of civil litigation. Companies are afraid, with some just cause, of being held liable for allowing firearms. It would be useful to form a nonprofit entity to hold companies liable from the other end of the spectrum, thus balancing out the pressure they receive.

Regards,

Doug

 

[antsi]

We are talking about private property

personal property rights

My employer is a hospital owned by a huge corporation that owns/runs more than half the hospitals in Indiana. Much of their physical plant is paid for by taxpayer money in the form of grants. The vast majority of the income comes through Medicare/Medicaid, also taxpayer money. They also get huge $ from the government for resident training. They get special deals where the city builds roads and other infrastructure for them, for free. They get special tax breaks. They also got bucket loads of "stimulus money" which is nothing more than a loan against future taxpayers. All supposedly because they are providing a public service to the community.

Please explain to me again how this is "personal private property," and this corporation should be granted personal private property rights that take precedence over my rights, not just in their parking lot, but also on my way to and from work.

I am waiting...

 

[jeremy]

As of 201001201011

Current Results

Should employers be allowed to prohibit employees from bringing guns to the workplace?

Yes

57.22% No

42.78%

 

[jeremy]

I personally don't see what is so difficult here...

To me the it is quite simple. My property is my property, your property is your property...

 

[Roadie]

My car. My property. I respect property owners. My gun in my car is my property. See? Simple. I get out of my car then your rules apply. Just like carrying on school property. In my car I retain my property rights.

This is an excellent point! The precedent has already been set. I can't carry IN a school, but I can carry TO a school, in their parking lot, to pick up my child. Hence, the difference between parking lot rights and building rights.

IANAL, but it sounds good to me!

 

[Bill of Rights]

My car. My property. I respect property owners. My gun in my car is my property. See? Simple. I get out of my car then your rules apply. Just like carrying on school property. In my car I retain my property rights.

Except that carry on school property is written into the law under very specific circumstances: You must be transporting another person to or from the school, you must have your LTCH, and you must not leave the vehicle, even if the firearm stays in the vehicle.

No, it's not right nor does it make any sense that school property is some magical place where guns theoretically cause crime and those who obey the law are powerless to stop it. As long as the school lobby has the ear of our legislators, however, I'm not sure it's going to change.... unless our voice is louder.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[critter592]

Except that carry on school property is written into the law under very specific circumstances: You must be transporting another person to or from the school, you must have your LTCH, and you must not leave the vehicle, even if the firearm stays in the vehicle.

No, it's not right nor does it make any sense that school property is some magical place where guns theoretically cause crime and those who obey the law are powerless to stop it. As long as the school lobby has the ear of our legislators, however, I'm not sure it's going to change.... unless our voice is louder.

Blessings,
Bill

Ok well there is that. But come on I was trying to relate it to something that already existed. Is it suh a stretch? Obviously even this group is somewhat torn with it even if they fall in favor of this type legislation.

 

[SedahDrol]

I personally am in favor of this type of legislation. Business already have to recognize my 1st amendment rights, why not my second.

One thing to remember is that businesses are not persons. Their rights are not constitutionally protected. They are merely granted privileges similar to those of people. Time and time again the Peoples rights trump those of businesess. Should a business be allowed to prevent me from defending myself on their property. Yes, but only if they can guarantee my safety. Obviously if I am allowed to protect myself on their property, they should not be held accountable for my actions on their property.

The way thing are now, is that if a dumbass comes in and shoots up the place that doesn't allow one to defend themselves, I or my heirs can sue the business out of existence. Sure I can also sue the dumbass' estate, but who has deeper pockets.

Why should we as the people give businesses the privilege of denying us our constitutional rights. Sure there are property rights, but those rights belong to the people.

 

[rocked]

You can see my response below to the people who have already started showing their dissatisfaction for the bill even making it to the floor. Go onto the IBJ site and fill it up with praise for our lawmakers getting this one right. 10-1 it went through the Natural Resource Committee.


Get it right!
ROCKED January 21, 2010 2:54 PM
You folks will never learn! The radicals that lose it and go on shooting sprees are not LTCH permit holders. It is the ability of anyone to own and unlawfully carry the gun into a situation to cause harm. It is a right and privilage of all law abiding citizens to carry and defend themselves from criminals no matter where they may be at the time such an awful event unfolds. And if more people would leagally carry they could put down the lunitic shooting the place up and maybe even save some lives other than their own.
Reply to Comment --- this will link you to the article...

Foolishness
Anti-NRA January 21, 2010 2:35 PM
Great, let's make it even easier for a disgruntled employee to retaliate against his employer! This makes absolutely no sense!
Reply to Comment


Nice
x January 21, 2010 10:06 AM
This state deserves itself..
Reply to Comment

 

[Roadie]

You can see my response below to the people who have already started showing their dissatisfaction for the bill even making it to the floor. Go onto the IBJ site and fill it up with praise for our lawmakers getting this one right. 10-1 it went through the Natural Resource Committee.


Get it right!
ROCKED January 21, 2010 2:54 PM
You folks will never learn! The radicals that loose it and go on shooting sprees are not LTCH permit holders. It is the ability of anyone to own and unlawfully carry the gun into a situation to cause harm. It is a right and privilage of all law abiding citizens to carry and defend themselves from criminals no matter where they may be at the time such an awful event unfolds. And if more people would leagally carry they could put down the lunitic shooting the place up and maybe even save some lives other than their own.
Reply to CommentFlag Comment


Foolishness
Anti-NRA January 21, 2010 2:35 PM
Great, let's make it even easier for a disgruntled employee to retaliate against his employer! This makes absolutely no sense!
Reply to CommentFlag Comment


Nice
x January 21, 2010 10:06 AM
This state deserves itself..
Reply to CommentFlag Comment

These fools just don't get it. Rules and laws will NOT stop a criminal from acting criminally!

As I have stated before, how many of the workplace shootings do we read about where they guy goes home and gets his gun and comes back? OR sits at home for days, or weeks, and stews about it, THEN goes back?

1:How exactly will having a rule/law against guns in LTCH holders cars, stop this?

2:In turn, couldnt allowing guns in an LTCH holders car, allow an employee the means to go to their car, retrieve their weapon, and save lives in case of a lunatic rampage?

Regardless of how anyone feels about the employer's property rights, the bottom line is Gun Free Zones do not work. Period.