Indiana: NRA seeks to protect worker privacy

[Foxfire]

The NRA has targeted Indiana's "parking lot" gun law.
Look it up!

Found this story on another site.
I am unable to post attachments, can someone else (Moderator maybe?) please post it for me.
I think everyone on here or in IN would like to know about it.

Indiana: NRA seeks to protect worker privacy nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=14681

Indiana: NRA seeks to protect worker privacy
heraldbulletin.com/business/x233969970/NRA-wants-Indiana-lawmakers-to-ban-employers-from-gun-related-questions

(Second one is from The Herald Bulletin(Anderson, IN.))

Thanks

 

[rich8483]

NRA-ILA :: Indiana: NRA seeks to protect worker privacy

NRA wants Indiana lawmakers to ban employers from gun-related questions » Local Business » The Herald Bulletin

 

[Disposable Heart]

Biggest thing is the burden shifts to the employee: Keep your mouth shut about guns at workplaces that don't really like them. It is a privlidge to work at a company, follow their general flow. Want to be a hero? Don't count on seeing your unemployment claim filled.

This is a property rights battle that pits scared anti-gun/anti-worker safety business owners against workers who are scared of workplace shootings. On one hand, businesses are scared to fire the "wrong person" who will readily go to their car and shoot up the place. On the other hand, the current bills and mindset of people wanting to have a semblance of protection when they leave work or in the case of a workplace shooting.

This is scared, frail minded businesspeople who want their workers to not have a say in anything. These are the same people that probably have nightmares of worker rebellions in their factories. All scared sheep who have power somehow and are unpatriotic to the core. They don't care about your rights, just make them money, but don't scare them!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Biggest thing is the burden shifts to the employee: Keep your mouth shut about guns at workplaces that don't really like them. It is a privlidge to work at a company, follow their general flow. Want to be a hero? Don't count on seeing your unemployment claim filled.

This is a property rights battle that pits scared anti-gun/anti-worker safety business owners against workers who are scared of workplace shootings. On one hand, businesses are scared to fire the "wrong person" who will readily go to their car and shoot up the place. On the other hand, the current bills and mindset of people wanting to have a semblance of protection when they leave work or in the case of a workplace shooting.

This is scared, frail minded businesspeople who want their workers to not have a say in anything. These are the same people that probably have nightmares of worker rebellions in their factories. All scared sheep who have power somehow and are unpatriotic to the core. They don't care about your rights, just make them money, but don't scare them!

I agreed with you up to that point. It is a property rights battle. No one should tell a property owner what they can or cannot do with their property. If you don't like the rules don't enter the property. And the property owner's motives are irrelevent. Why they don't want firearms on their property is their business.

I carry at least two weapons everywhere. But when there's a sign that says no firearms, I respect the property owner's wishes. I decide at the door whether I will enter or not. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Depends on a lot of factors. That's not allowing myself to be disarmed - it's respecting other people's property rights.

I don't support this law or the change. Real property rights trump my rights to enter a property.

 

[level.eleven]

I agreed with you up to that point. It is a property rights battle. No one should tell a property owner what they can or cannot do with their property. If you don't like the rules don't enter the property. And the property owner's motives are irrelevent. Why they don't want firearms on their property is their business.

I carry at least two weapons everywhere. But when there's a sign that says no firearms, I respect the property owner's wishes. I decide at the door whether I will enter or not. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Depends on a lot of factors. That's not allowing myself to be disarmed - it's respecting other people's property rights.

I don't support this law or the change. Real property rights trump my rights to enter a property.

I have nothing else to add. +1

 

[thompal]

I don't support this law or the change. Real property rights trump my rights to enter a property.

I would agree that an employer may tell its employees that they can not carry into the building, or while on duty, but is that the same as saying that they may not leave one in their private, locked car?

If an employer has a "no jeans" policy, does that mean you can't have a pair in your trunk to change into after you get off work?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I would agree that an employer may tell its employees that they can not carry into the building, or while on duty, but is that the same as saying that they may not leave one in their private, locked car?

If an employer has a "no jeans" policy, does that mean you can't have a pair in your trunk to change into after you get off work?

If my employer told me I could not possess firearms on his property (he wouldn't because he is me) then that means no firearms on his property. There are choices. I could park off property, not have a weapon on my person or in my vehicle while it's on his property, or I could find a new job that had workplace rules consistent with my principles (but I am an awesome boss so why would I)?

Two totally different things. The better corollary would be if your employer had a no jeans policy and you had a pair of jeans in a bag that you changed into after work but before leaving the property. At that point you would have defied the policy and could be sanctioned for it.

 

[thompal]

If my employer told me I could not possess firearms on his property (he wouldn't because he is me) then that means no firearms on his property. There are choices. I could park off property, not have a weapon on my person or in my vehicle while it's on his property, or I could find a new job that had workplace rules consistent with my principles (but I am an awesome boss so why would I)?

Two totally different things. The better corollary would be if your employer had a no jeans policy and you had a pair of jeans in a bag that you changed into after work but before leaving the property. At that point you would have defied the policy and could be sanctioned for it.

I guess I'm just at odds with most people on this issue. I think we all (grudgingly) agree that an employer can control what you may have on your person while you are working and in their building. Where I differ is that I believe that your car, and the contents of your car remain YOUR PROPERTY, no matter where it is parked.

Everyone else seems to feel that your car magically becomes the property of the owner of whatever piece of land you park it on, thus you can not have firearms in your car, since it is no longer your property. I reject that notion.

I would agree that a property owner can insist that no illegal activity take place on his piece of land. For instance, you could not set up a meth lab in your car on his land, or sell hot car stereos out of the trunk. But to suggest that you can not keep your legally owned property (a firearm) in your legally owned property (car) is a slap in the face to the concept of private and personal property, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[steveh_131]

I would agree that an employer may tell its employees that they can not carry into the building, or while on duty, but is that the same as saying that they may not leave one in their private, locked car?

If an employer has a "no jeans" policy, does that mean you can't have a pair in your trunk to change into after you get off work?

If you're parking on their property, then I would say so.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I guess I'm just at odds with most people on this issue. I think we all (grudgingly) agree that an employer can control what you may have on your person while you are working and in their building. Where I differ is that I believe that your car, and the contents of your car remain YOUR PROPERTY, no matter where it is parked.

Everyone else seems to feel that your car magically becomes the property of the owner of whatever piece of land you park it on, thus you can not have firearms in your car, since it is no longer your property. I reject that notion.

I would agree that a property owner can insist that no illegal activity take place on his piece of land. For instance, you could not set up a meth lab in your car on his land, or sell hot car stereos out of the trunk. But to suggest that you can not keep your legally owned property (a firearm) in your legally owned property (car) is a slap in the face to the concept of private and personal property, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know why we grudgingly accept that a real property owner may establish rules by which you may enter or use that property. That's not controlling you. If the property owner says no foreign cars in the parking lot then you shouldn't get upset when they tow your Honda. If they say no motorcycles don't get mad when the guards won't let you on the property with your bike.

Your car and guns are your property. You can do with them what you want. But if a property owner says no firearms on his property, that's the rules by which you are accepted for entry.

Your rights end when someone else's superior rights begin.

 

[jedi]

FYI here is the text of the bill.

SB0411 & HB1355 – Disclosure of Firearm or Ammunition Information
(ie. Don’t ask, Don’t tell about Firearms @ work)
Provides that a civil action may be brought against a public or private employer that has: (1) required an applicant for employment or an employee to disclose information under certain circumstances about whether the applicant or employee owns, possesses, uses, or transports a firearm or ammunition; or (2) conditioned employment, or any rights, benefits, privileges, or opportunities offered by the employment, upon an agreement that the applicant for employment or the employee forego the otherwise lawful ownership, possession, storage, transportation, or use of a firearm or ammunition.

BTW this post has also been posted here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iana_nra_seeks_to_protect_worker_privacy.html

MODs can they be merged? or Close the other one?

 

[thompal]

Your car and guns are your property. You can do with them what you want. But if a property owner says no firearms on his property, that's the rules by which you are accepted for entry.

Your rights end when someone else's superior rights begin.

Well, if we are talking "rights," then I would say that my right to live trumps an employer's right to be hoplophobic.

As for the "no firearms on his property," is that really the case? Are there signs at every entrance to the parking lot stating such, and are customers under the same threats if they chose to exercise their rights? Or is the company policy aimed strictly at employees? If it is a uniform policy, such as on a military base or government property, then that is one thing. If it's at a place such as Meijer or Walmart, then it is something entirely different. In the latter cases, I know of no situation where an employer will search your car, while on a military base, it is a very real possibility that any car, even of visitors, can be searched.

If an employer welcomes legal firearm owners as customers with open arms, even as they carry in the store, while sanctioning legal employee firearm owners who leave their firearm in their private car, under the guise of "employee safety," then there seems to be some disconnect. It is either the height of hypocrisy, or a sign that the employer trusts its customers more than it does its own employees.

Either way, I still firmly believe that I, as an employee, have the right to keep my private property (either a firearm or a pair of jeans) in my private property (car) for me to wear or carry after I clock out. I would still respect the company policy to not wear jeans, or carry a firearm, while on the clock.

 

[Bummer]

... That's not allowing myself to be disarmed - it's respecting other people's property rights. ...

If you disarm yourself and enter, it's both, is it not?

Your rights end when someone else's superior rights begin.

Shouldn't the right to protect oneself, which would seem to be derived from the right to life, have a higher priority than property rights?

Hobbes clearly placed Life at the top of the list. Locke placed the order at Life, Liberty, Property. Jefferson and his fellows replaced Property with Pursuit Of Happiness in their list. In any case, unless we are to argue that Duty is of higher standing than Rights, which the founders of this Nation did not seem to support, it would seem that property rights are of less importance than life. This would seem to suggest that the right to self defence is superior to property rights. Further, it would seem that the right to property relies on the right to self defense, since one can hardly assert the right to property without the right to defend that assertion.

Thoughts?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Well, if we are talking "rights," then I would say that my right to live trumps an employer's right to be hoplophobic.

As for the "no firearms on his property," is that really the case? Are there signs at every entrance to the parking lot stating such, and are customers under the same threats if they chose to exercise their rights? Or is the company policy aimed strictly at employees? If it is a uniform policy, such as on a military base or government property, then that is one thing. If it's at a place such as Meijer or Walmart, then it is something entirely different. In the latter cases, I know of no situation where an employer will search your car, while on a military base, it is a very real possibility that any car, even of visitors, can be searched.

If an employer welcomes legal firearm owners as customers with open arms, even as they carry in the store, while sanctioning legal employee firearm owners who leave their firearm in their private car, under the guise of "employee safety," then there seems to be some disconnect. It is either the height of hypocrisy, or a sign that the employer trusts its customers more than it does its own employees.

Either way, I still firmly believe that I, as an employee, have the right to keep my private property (either a firearm or a pair of jeans) in my private property (car) for me to wear or carry after I clock out. I would still respect the company policy to not wear jeans, or carry a firearm, while on the clock.

What it comes down to is you don't respect the rights of property owners. That's fine. I don't see much purpose in continuing to talk past each other.

 

[edporch]

In the meantime, when at work just keep your firearm in your car and shut up about it.
If you've not been one to tell everybody at work you carry concealed, you probably won't have any problem in MOST workplaces.

 

[MilitaryArms]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZEleliyEB8]YouTube - Four Important Pro-Gun Bills Move Forward in the Indiana Senate[/ame]

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If you disarm yourself and enter, it's both, is it not?

Shouldn't the right to protect oneself, which would seem to be derived from the right to life, have a higher priority than property rights?

Hobbes clearly placed Life at the top of the list. Locke placed the order at Life, Liberty, Property. Jefferson and his fellows replaced Property with Pursuit Of Happiness in their list. In any case, unless we are to argue that Duty is of higher standing than Rights, which the founders of this Nation did not seem to support, it would seem that property rights are of less importance than life. This would seem to suggest that the right to self defence is superior to property rights. Further, it would seem that the right to property relies on the right to self defense, since one can hardly assert the right to property without the right to defend that assertion.

Thoughts?

It boils down to this.

You have an absolute right to protect yourself.

Property owners have an absolute right to set the rules for the use their property as they choose, subject to whatever stupid restriction government places on that ownership and use.

A property owner can say no firearms are permitted on his property.

You have an absolute right not to enter the property if the owner places restrictions on its use.

If you do not want to enter someone else's property unarmed then don't. It's really that simple. Binary decision.

 

[thompal]

What it comes down to is you don't respect the rights of property owners. That's fine. I don't see much purpose in continuing to talk past each other.

Hmmm, an absolute! I get it.

So, what you are really saying is that you value an employer's wishes over my property rights?

I will ask again, at what point in my travels to work do the contents of MY personal locked car become the property or concern of the land owner? And, if my firearms are suddenly the property of the land owner, what other personal items in my locked car are likewise under his control? My music collection? My reading collection? My GHB? My spare clothing (there might be JEANS!!!!)?

Where would you have this corporate collectivism end? Since you've made it clear that you place the corporations' rights as superior to the individual's, would you grant the company unfettered access to your locked car so that they may enforce their policies? If you don't support that, then your claims that their rights are superior are nothing but hot air, because logically a right does not exist without a means to implement or enforce it.

 

[level.eleven]

All rights are property rights. This is why public property fails, but that's a different discussion.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Surprised no one has brought up the obvious example of smoking bans as an already existing curtailment of property owners rights...


Fenway, can we get a "pot stirring" smilie?