HB1065 - Guns allowed at workplace in locked vehicle

imported post

I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF GOV. DANIELS SIGNING HB1065 INTO LAW. ESSENTIALLY IT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE WITH VALID CCL'S TO CARRY THEIR WEAPONS TO WORK, SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN LOCKED UP IN YOUR VEHICLE. MY CO-WORKERS AND I HAVE HAD SOME LONG (AND SOMETIMES HEATED) DEBATES ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME MORE INPUT. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT? SORRY IF THIS TRHREAD SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE ELSE, I'M NEW TO THIS SITE AND DIDN'T LOOK AROUND LONG FOR A SPOT TO POST IT.





This is a hard one for me. I'm not sure how I feel about it.

On one hand, I hate the fact that my company tells me what I can or cannot have inside of my personal property. If I want to (legally) carry my gun to work, and leave it in my car - that's MY decision, and my boss shouldn't have any say-so in it.

Now.... On the other hand, this is a HUGE slap in the face for Property Owners' Rights. If I work hard, put my money and livelyhood on the line to buy a building and start a company - I don't want CONGRESS, or ANYONE else, telling me what I HAVE to allow on MY property. It's my building, the employees are working FOR ME, and it should be MY decision to allow or restrict firearms on MY PROPERTY.

What if I open a daycare? I don't want guns anywhere near the children I'm legally responsible for, because as we all know - tragic accidents do happen. Life isn't perfect. An employee COULD leave his car unlocked... A childCOULD wander away from watching eyes... you get the point. Who's fault will that be?Indiana's - they didn't let me restrict firearms from being on the premises. The gun owner - she should've locked the gun away. The employee watching the child - he should have been more alert. No matter where the blame was placed it wouldn't make much difference.... the child would still be dead... My business would still be shut down ... anti-gun nuts would still have yet another story to feed their propaganda machine.



I don't know.


I'm happy I can start carrying my gun to work on July 1st though.


I TRULY understand the frustration my employer will feel when they have to ammend their "no weapons on the premises" policy.



Your thoughts?





matt...

KAHR CW40

TAURUS PT145

TAURUS M85 .38spcl (+P)

imported post

While I respect the property rights of the business owner, I have property rights, too. Those are within the confines of my vehicle. By the employer agreeing to employ me, I believe he agrees to allow my personal property to intersect with his in the form of providing a place to park my vehicle. During that intersection there exists the potential for conflicting property rights. I think this law guarantees a compromise between the two competing property rights. It doesn't require him to allow me to bring a gun out of my property (my vehicle) and into his property (the parking lot outside my vehicle or inside his building).


On an unrelated note, where does one go about obtaining a CCL? I have a License to Carry a Handgun, or LTCH. It mentions nothing about concealing.

imported post

I agree with you about conflicting property rights. I just feel this legislation is on the verge of "crossing the line." Whether we like it ornot, when we pull into the parking lot at work, we're on the property of our employer. Even in the car, we're still ON their property. When I was hired at my work, I signed a form agreeing to abide by my employer's Rules and Corporate Policies... one of those rules was not to bring a weapon onto their premises. I've respected that rule to date because I am thankful for such a good job in this tough economy. Listen... I'm all for laws that support my right to carry... but not at the expense of someone else's rights - especially not the rights of the company that makes it possible for me to support my family. I don't know - I just kind of have "split" opinions on this one. Maybe I'm completely in the wrong here.. who knows. In talking to a Human Resources Director about this very issue, I became more sensitive to the Company's point of view. He said that while he understands the Company is released from legal liability for acts of workplace violence attributed to this law - he would still feel responsible in some way if anything happened. He considers everyone here one big happy family.



Before this law, I wasn't allowed to carry a weapon to work. My employer feels like this mitigates the opportunity for acts of workplace violence. I somewhat agree... If I got fired, flew off the handle and wanted to shoot the place up, I'd have to go home and get a gun - then drive all the way back to work, gain access to the building, and THEN commit the unspeakable. That's a LOT of time to cool off. If my gun is in the car, that "cool off" period is greatly reduced. I know this all hinges on the idea that employees follow the rules and leave their guns at home while they're working.

The arguement I like best in FAVOR of this law, is that by a Company restricting the presence of firearms on company property, they take away my right to protect myself on the way to and from work. IMHO, that's a hard one to contradict.



As to the previous poster's "side note"... You're right.... I guess I have a LTCH, not a CCL - MY BAD man!

imported post

mdevar wrote:

I agree with you about conflicting property rights. I just feel this legislation is on the verge of "crossing the line." Whether we like it ornot, when we pull into the parking lot at work, we're on the property of our employer. Even in the car, we're still ON their property. When I was hired at my work, I signed a form agreeing to abide by my employer's Rules and Corporate Policies... one of those rules was not to bring a weapon onto their premises. I've respected that rule to date because I am thankful for such a good job in this tough economy. Listen... I'm all for laws that support my right to carry... but not at the expense of someone else's rights - especially not the rights of the company that makes it possible for me to support my family. I don't know - I just kind of have "split" opinions on this one. Maybe I'm completely in the wrong here.. who knows. In talking to a Human Resources Director about this very issue, I became more sensitive to the Company's point of view. He said that while he understands the Company is released from legal liability for acts of workplace violence attributed to this law - he would still feel responsible in some way if anything happened. He considers everyone here one big happy family.



Before this law, I wasn't allowed to carry a weapon to work. My employer feels like this mitigates the opportunity for acts of workplace violence. I somewhat agree... If I got fired, flew off the handle and wanted to shoot the place up, I'd have to go home and get a gun - then drive all the way back to work, gain access to the building, and THEN commit the unspeakable. That's a LOT of time to cool off. If my gun is in the car, that "cool off" period is greatly reduced. I know this all hinges on the idea that employees follow the rules and leave their guns at home while they're working.

The arguement I like best in FAVOR of this law, is that by a Company restricting the presence of firearms on company property, they take away my right to protect myself on the way to and from work. IMHO, that's a hard one to contradict.



As to the previous poster's "side note"... You're right.... I guess I have a LTCH, not a CCL - MY BAD man!

Click to expand...

If a company wants to provide security for me, then fine, I'll leave my firearm at home. However, I am responsible for my own well being. As for people "flying off the handle," would you rather be able to defend your life or duck for cover? People who "fly off the handle" are not going to abide by company rules. If that were true, then no crimes would happen in places that have strict gun laws.

imported post

If a company wants to provide security for me, then fine, I'll leave my firearm at home. However, I am responsible for my own well being. As for people "flying off the handle," would you rather be able to defend your life or duck for cover? People who "fly off the handle" are not going to abide by company rules. If that were true, then no crimes would happen in places that have strict gun laws.

Click to expand...

If you'regoing toleave your gun inthe car... chances are, you're still going to "duck for cover"... right? I mean, a gun in the glovebox of your car out in the parking lotwon't do much to protect you.

As far as your statement, "People who will 'fly off the handle' are not going to abide by company rules" .... I don't necessarily agree. A normally law abiding, sane person faced with the extremely stressful and devastating experience of losing his/her job may be prone to commit an act of violence in the "heat of the moment." Just as someone may be prone to commit an act of violence should they come home and find their spouse in bed with someone else.

imported post

mdevar wrote:

If a company wants to provide security for me, then fine, I'll leave my firearm at home. However, I am responsible for my own well being. As for people "flying off the handle," would you rather be able to defend your life or duck for cover? People who "fly off the handle" are not going to abide by company rules. If that were true, then no crimes would happen in places that have strict gun laws.

Click to expand...

If you'regoing toleave your gun inthe car... chances are, you're still going to "duck for cover"... right? I mean, a gun in the glovebox of your car out in the parking lotwon't do much to protect you.

As far as your statement, "People who will 'fly off the handle' are not going to abide by company rules" .... I don't necessarily agree. A normally law abiding, sane person faced with the extremely stressful and devastating experience of losing his/her job may be prone to commit an act of violence in the "heat of the moment." Just as someone may be prone to commit an act of violence should they come home and find their spouse in bed with someone else.

Click to expand...

My point was that I should be able to carry no matter where I am. I am responsible for my life, not you, not the police, not the company I work for. Police have no duty to protect you (Warren vs DC). You have no duty to protect me (I'm not familiar with any case law that says you are). Companies have no duty to protect its employees from criminals. I know many people who have lost their jobs, husbands, wives, family, etc and yet then did not murder anyone. Why? Because they knew better.

imported post

My point was that I should be able to carry no matter where I am. I am responsible for my life, not you, not the police, not the company I work for. Police have no duty to protect you (Warren vs DC). You have no duty to protect me (I'm not familiar with any case law that says you are). Companies have no duty to protect its employees from criminals. I know many people who have lost their jobs, husbands, wives, family, etc and yet then did not murder anyone. Why? Because they knew better.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Another point... and then hopefully I'll be done. This law does not allow you to carry a gun wherever you are. This law permits you to carry a gun to the PARKING lot of your workplace. You are still albeit defenseless while inside the building. Until I'm allowed to have a gun on my person at work, I don't like the idea of someone else having such easy access to a gun in the parking lot. Does that make any sense? I don't want to be hiding behind my file cabinet in my office when someone flies off the handle.... I want my gun on my hip. Kind of makes me wonder about the natural progression of this law... was it passed so that we could ease into the "Carry at Work" legislation?

imported post

mdevar wrote:

My point was that I should be able to carry no matter where I am. I am responsible for my life, not you, not the police, not the company I work for. Police have no duty to protect you (Warren vs DC). You have no duty to protect me (I'm not familiar with any case law that says you are). Companies have no duty to protect its employees from criminals. I know many people who have lost their jobs, husbands, wives, family, etc and yet then did not murder anyone. Why? Because they knew better.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Another point... and then hopefully I'll be done. This law does not allow you to carry a gun wherever you are. This law permits you to carry a gun to the PARKING lot of your workplace. You are still albeit defenseless while inside the building. Until I'm allowed to have a gun on my person at work, I don't like the idea of someone else having such easy access to a gun in the parking lot. Does that make any sense? I don't want to be hiding behind my file cabinet in my office when someone flies off the handle.... I want my gun on my hip. Kind of makes me wonder about the natural progression of this law... was it passed so that we could ease into the "Carry at Work" legislation?

Click to expand...

That is what I am saying too. I would much rather have my firearm on me than in my car. This law does help those who want to go to the range before, during lunch, or after work, but previously could not because they could not have a firearm on the property. Or in the perchance someone does go shooting in the work place, I'd rather have the chance to run to my car and grab my firearm, than to wait defenseless.

imported post

Just a slight point to the OP. Last I knew from reading the new legislation, there were still certain business this law does NOT apply to, daycare being one of them. Also mentioned I believe were mental health facilities, schools, nursing homes (I think).

At work at the moment, so don't have easy access to the full law quickly, but there are exceptions to the law, and daycares are mentioned specifically, so child safety still made it in.

I believe it also said not in plain sight (or something to that effect) and in a LOCKED vehicle also.

imported post

CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]:
Chapter 7. Possession of Firearms in Locked Vehicles
Sec. 1. This chapter applies only to possession of a firearm by an individual who may possess the firearm legally.
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an individual from possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's vehicle.
(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an individual from possessing a firearm:
(1) in or on school property, in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function, or on a school bus in violation of IC20-33-8-16 or IC35-47-9-2;
(2) on the property of:
(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home; or
(E) an emergency shelter care group home;
in violation of 465 IAC2-9-80, 465 IAC2-10-79, 465 IAC2-11-80, 465 IAC2-12-78, or 465 IAC2-13-77;
(3) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC35-41-1-21);
(4) in violation of federal law;
(5) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC21-7-13-6(b));
[line]
(6) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(7) at a person's residence; or
(8) on property owned, operated, controlled, or used by an entity that:
(A) is required to:
(i) conduct a vulnerability assessment; and
(ii) develop and implement a site security plan;
under the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; or
(B) is required to have a security plan under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-295.

imported post

Thanks, I didn't have the chance to find it at work and post it.

imported post

DarkRose wrote:

Thanks, I didn't have the chance to find it at work and post it.

Click to expand...

NO PROBLEM... I DON'T KNOW IF THIS BILL WILL ALLOW ME TO CARRY OR NOT... I WORK FOR A BARGE COMPANY, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A SECURITY PLAN IN PLACE FOR OUR FLEETS... NOT SURE HOW IT WILL WORK OUT. IN TALKING TO THE HR DIRECTOR, HE SEEMED TO THINK THEY WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW GUNS IN THE PARKING LOT. OUR LUCKY GUYS ON THE BOATS WILL STILL HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR HEAT AT HOME WHEN THEY GO TO WORK.

imported post

We have a similar law in Louisiana, which allows employees to keep a firearm in their personal vehicle while in a company parking area. Had it for a couple of years now.
A nonevent. It only legalized what many have already been doing.

imported post

I'm sure. We've kind of discussed it at work, my office is split about 50/50 for and against, but we all agree that probably at least 25-30% of the cars in the parking lot already have guns locked in them anyway....

imported post

turbodog wrote:

We have a similar law in Louisiana, which allows employees to keep a firearm in their personal vehicle while in a company parking area. Had it for a couple of years now.
A nonevent. It only legalized what many have already been doing.

Click to expand...

Sounds like according to that subsection 8 towards the bottom, your company can still prohibit.



Oops, quoted the wrong post, sorry...

This was @mdevar

imported post

DarkRose wrote:

Sounds like according to that subsection 8 towards the bottom, your company can still prohibit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think they may be able to prohibit guns in the parking lot. It's just sort of a "grey area". Our Headquarters Building itself doesn't need to have a security plan in place, but our fleets out on the rivers definitely have security plans. I guess I'll just have to outright ASK on July 1st if I can bring my gun to work, LoL