Another 2nd Amendment poll (Inside Indiana Business)

[indianajoe]

Forgive any brevity... banging this out on my phone to stay off the company's internet.

See Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick to respond to the poorly worded poll question: "Should employers be allowed to prohibit employees from bringing guns to the workplace?" After voting, make sure you comment in the "Talk Back" dialog box that appears.

At least the recent IndyStar poll made clear that the issue was about "employees keeping firearms in their vehicles at work," which of course is the subject and intent of Senate Bill 0025.

 

[henktermaat]

The correct answer to the convoluted question is NO.

Voted.

 

[IndyBeerman]

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

Yes

61.27%
No

38.73%

We need more more votes.

 

[indianajoe]

Follow-up... my comment to Inside Indiana Business:

Folks,

My comment on your current poll: "Should employers be allowed to prohibit employees from bringing guns into the workplace?" ....


Assuming that your poll question is related to pending legislation (Indiana Senate Bill 0025 Indiana General Assembly), the framing of your question is extremely misleading.


The intent of Senate Bill 0025 is to proscribe a company from preventing a person who legally possesses a firearm from keeping that "firearm in that person's locked vehicle" (paraphrasing from the bill's own synopsis).


Indiana Code, in fact, appears to give a person in their vehicle similar protections in the use of self-defense as accorded that individual in their home, suggesting that a privately-owned vehicle is an extension of one's private domicile.


The phrasing of your poll question makes it seem that the issue is about letting individuals carry a firearm into the cubicle next to you (which is NOT an individual's private property), rather than keeping the defensive weapon in one's locked vehicle -- which IS one's private property.


A poll similar to yours, which recently appeared on IndyStar.com, was more clear in making this distinction, and final poll results showed 60% in favor of preventing employers from proscribing the right of a citizen to keep a handgun in their locked personal vehicle.


It would be interesting to note the final results of the poll that uses your current wording, and compare it to the results of poll which more accurately described the issue at hand.

I'll let you know if I get any response from IIB on this comment.

 

[koveras225]

My response...

The poll is poorly worded. The proposed law in question only prohibits employers from prohibiting employees from storing their firearm in their locked vehicle. Employees right to self defense, to keep and bear arms, and to property (a vehicle is an extension of ones private property, employers property rights end at the car door) trump employers unfounded fear.

 

[indykid]

Negative wording designed to trick people.

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

Yes

61.09%No

38.91%

Early results are anti-personal safety.

 

[mrjarrell]

Negative wording designed to trick people.

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

Yes

61.09%No

38.91%

Early results are anti-personal safety.

Actually the votes are likely pro-property rights, not anti-personal safety.

 

[Denny347]

Actually the votes are likely pro-property rights, not anti-personal safety.

I tend to agree with this logic more. While I hate to see good employees get hemmed up for nothing more than keeping a LEGAL firearm inside their vehicle, I do not like making a law allowing it. We are talking about private property and the right of the owner to make rules as they see fit. I just am uncomfortable in lawmakers telling property owners what to do. While it WILL help us gun owners, does that automatically make this acceptable? What if the law was reversed? What if it said that property owners could NOT allow employees to store their firearms in their vehicle? We would be screaming that the government cannot tell the property owners what they can and cannot do. Just food for thought.

 

[dustjunky2000]

This one is tough for me. It's private property, so they should be able to say what happens on it. At the same time, not allowing people to keep firearms in their vehicles means disarming them to and from work.

I don't see any reason why they can't keep them inside their vehicles. Technically that's not the companies' property. If employers are not allowed to search there, then they shouldn't be allowed to say what is kept in there.

Funny how the liberals stomp on private business owners rights with the anti-smoking laws, but suddenly care so much when it comes to guns in the parking lot in peoples cars.

 

[mrjarrell]

Employees have the options of not parking on company property or finding employment elsewhere. I get torn on the subject, too, but property rights are too basic to freedom to see them violated by legislation.

 

[LoveMyRuger]

Employees have the options of not parking on company property or finding employment elsewhere. I get torn on the subject, too, but property rights are too basic to freedom to see them violated by legislation.

I do believe in property rights BUT I cannot park off-site and walk onto the grounds of my employer. At 57 years of age and 25+ years of service, I'm looking for employment for when I get laid off, not to replace my hard-earned pension. I really do believe that anyone who would take their gun INTO the building, especially to use, has no respect for property rights or personal rights.

 

[dustjunky2000]

Employees have the options of not parking on company property or finding employment elsewhere. I get torn on the subject, too, but property rights are too basic to freedom to see them violated by legislation.

Yeah, it's kind of a tough one. I'm really bending my brain here on this topic.

I want to say that the property owners have the final say, but then I want to say that people should be allowed to bear arms while in their vehicles since that is private property. I can't decide one way or the other.

It's sad that a law has to be passed. More laws is JUST what we need.

 

[38special]

This one is tough for me. It's private property, so they should be able to say what happens on it. At the same time, not allowing people to keep firearms in their vehicles means disarming them to and from work.

I don't see any reason why they can't keep them inside their vehicles. Technically that's not the companies' property. If employers are not allowed to search there, then they shouldn't be allowed to say what is kept in there.

Funny how the liberals stomp on private business owners rights with the anti-smoking laws, but suddenly care so much when it comes to guns in the parking lot in peoples cars.

I'm all for private property rights, but you've got to understand the fact that these rights COEXIST.

We have a RIGHT to bear arms, equally as much as we have a RIGHT to private property. These rights are not incompatible. Me exercising my RIGHT to bear arms does not inherently take away a person's RIGHT to private property. I'd argue that these are not incompatible.

If I carry a gun onto your property, I am not taking away the fact that you own that private property.

Can someone ban Christians from private property? We've got the right to freedom of religion.

What about the 4th amendment RIGHT to avoiding illegal search and seizure. Can a mall take that one away and illegally search you because you entered their private property?

I sure hope not.

Like I said - do not think of these as incompatible. They can, and do coexist every single day.

 

[Roadie]

I already sent my comment off, but it was similar to those already posted. However, I reiterated the fact that Indiana's constitution says:

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

 

[Denny347]

If I do not what a person on MY property who is armed OR if I do not want someone leaving a firearm in their vehicle while on MY property, don't I have the right to tell them not to? I cannot imagine doing that but I reserve the right to do so. Just like the right to free speech. I reserve the right to throw you off MY property if you are displaying political signs or ANY speech/sign that is protected. It is a constitutional right but that does not mean you can exercize it on someone elses' property. I have to respond to protests at abortion clinics. I will protect their right to protest with everything I have. However, I tell them they they must stand on the sidewalk (public property) OR if they have permission from adjacent property owners, they can stand there. Their free speech does not trump the clinic's property rights. They will go to jail for tresspasss if they choose to protest on the clinic's property.

 

[Mr. Habib]

To me, this is an issue of the employers property rights vs the property rights of the employee. My property rights extend to my car. My employer does not have the right to search, use or take my car or its contents any more than they would have those rights with my house. Just because the employer allows me to bring my property (my car) onto their property does not give them any right to control my property, or its contents.

 

[dustjunky2000]

To me, this is an issue of the employers property rights vs the property rights of the employee. My property rights extend to my car. My employer does not have the right to search, use or take my car or its contents any more than they would have those rights with my house. Just because the employer allows me to bring my property (my car) onto their property does not give them any right to control my property, or its contents.

+1

 

[Denny347]

To me, this is an issue of the employers property rights vs the property rights of the employee. My property rights extend to my car. My employer does not have the right to search, use or take my car or its contents any more than they would have those rights with my house. Just because the employer allows me to bring my property (my car) onto their property does not give them any right to control my property, or its contents.

True, I am certainly not say that. However, if for some reason it is found out that you have a firearm on company property (in car on on person) they have the right to ask you to leave. That is all I am saying. I make this comparison, many here HATE the government telling private businesses that they cannot allow smoking. But the same group will have no problem with the government telling the same private businesses that they must allow firearms left in vehicles of employees. It gets a bit hypocritical and the only reason many gun owners like this is because it benefits them. That is how so many senseless laws pass.

 

[confused89]

I would like to throw a scenerio that had happened at work to give a different view to all of this. I have to use my own cell phone at work for work puurposes yet work will not pay for this. The shop that I work in is directly above another shop. The floor has cracks in it and water will seep down through the cracks. A maintenece man had his cell phone in the top part of his tool box and water came through the cracks and destroyed his cell phone. The company says that it is his cell phone and that they will not pay to replace it. Now some months before this someone recieved an offensive text message on his phone while at work. Someone else saw it and reported it. Work wanted to confiscate the phone saying that since it was on company property that it is theirs to take. Now to you all which one of these sounds right? My company can not have it both ways. It goes to show you that companies will bend whatever rule they can to benifit them. What is the point of having a CCW if I can not leave a handgun in my own vehicle wherever I travel expect schools and governmnet buildings? The other two days of the week I really do not go anywhere so this makes my CCW pretty much worthless.

 

[Eddie]

This was on another thread recently. It was speculated that part of the problem is that large employers are being told by their insurance carriers to enact anti-firearm policies for liability reasons. In other words it isn't the property owner's decision, it is the insurance company. The employee has a choice if the business across the street is hiring and they allow firearms, on the other other hand, if all large employers do this for insurance reasons then there really isn't a choice.

Again, speculation, but food for thought.