Yeah, that was what I meant. Since HB111 is dead, the future legislation should be a bit broader.
In that sense, it was much broader when it began. If you remember, HB111 started out as a part of the larger HB650 which was passed into law last year. At the last minute, two important provisions were stripped out of HB650- "Restaurant Carry" and "Parking Lot Carry". The parking lot provisions would have made it illegal for private businesses to ban firearms stored in vehicles on their property, such as an employee storing his gun at his work place in his car due to his employer's rules against guns inside.
The Parking lot issue dies under the reasoning of applying property rights, that the state should not be telling private business owners what they should be using for policies. Ironically, HB111 was kept on life support and scheduled for the short session this year. They denied the Parking Lot provisions due to Private Property Rights issues, but kept "Restaurant/ Alcohol" issues alive. What's the difference anyway?
Is telling private businesses that they have no say in the issue any less of a property rights issue that the parking lot provisions?
But, once those two provisions were stripped out of the larger HB650, the "Castle Doctrine" bill was passed and signed into law.
So in reality, HB111 was part of a much broader bill encompassing much more than just the restaurant angle.
Last edited: