curious loophole...

[ICBM]

I have come to a curious conclusion about the rights of gun owners who work for a local government and choose to bring their gun to work and store it in their vehicle.

It seems that private employers can regulate firearms possession up to the limits of the "bring your gun to work" law. But, public employers of cities, counties and towns cannot, except as stated by state and federal law.

For example, if I were a teacher for Indianapolis Public Schools (God have mercy of their souls), I would be able to go to work with my handgun on my dash board, in pain sight, as long as I were in the vehicle. That's because the school district is part of a "political subdivision". If I were Taco Bell employee (God have mercy on their customers), and did the same thing, I could be fired. Now, as a teacher, if I left my handgun on my dash, in plain sight, in my parked vehicle, I could be charged with a misdemeanor, because state law prohibits that. The taco maker could at most, be fired, notwithstanding any other violation.
Now, if instead of being a teacher for a public school, I were a employee for the city department of parks and recreation, and I left my gun in plain sight in my locked motor vehicle, in the parking lot belonging to the city, they could not terminate me because it violates state preemption.

So, it seems that cities have limited options for creating rules for their employees regarding the transportation and storage of firearms.

Some relevant law below.

IC 34-28-7-2
Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
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 employee of the person, including a contract employee, from
possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the
employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's
locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked
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 employee of the person, including a
contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
(1) 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;
(E) an emergency shelter care group home; or
(F) a child care center;
in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80, 465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC
2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78, 465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC
3-4.7-19;
(2) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in
IC 35-31.5-2-232);
(3) in violation of federal law;
(4) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary
educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
(5) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(6) at the employer's residence;
(7) on the property of a person that isA) subject to the United States Department of Homeland
Security'sChemical Facility Anti-TerrorismStandardsissued
April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations;
(8) on property owned by:
(A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates
and transmits electric power; or
(B) a department of public utilities created under
IC 8-1-11.1; or
(9) in the employee's personal vehicle if the employee, including
a contract employee, is a direct support professional who:
(A) works directly with individuals with developmental
disabilities to assist the individuals to become integrated into
the individuals' community or least restrictive environment;
and
(B) uses the employee's personal vehicle while transporting
an individual with developmental disabilities.

IC 35-47-11.1-2
Political subdivision regulation of firearms, ammunition, and
firearm accessories prohibited
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political
subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation,
registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and
firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition,
and firearm accessories.

IC 35-47-11.1-4
Not prohibited by chapter
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the
following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from
enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms,
ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law
enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.
(2) Subject to IC 34-28-7-2, an employer from regulating or
prohibiting the employees of the employer from carrying
firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official
duties.
(3) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and
resolving any case or controversy or issuing any opinion ororder on a matter within the jurisdiction of the court or judge.
(4) The enactment or enforcement of generally applicable
zoning or business ordinances that apply to firearms businesses
to the same degree as other similar businesses. However, a
provision of an ordinance that is designed or enforced to
effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer,
manufacture, or display of firearms, ammunition, or firearm
accessories that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state
is void. A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not use the
unit's planning and zoning powers under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit
the sale of firearms within a prescribed distance of any other
type of commercial property or of school property or other
educational property.
(5) Subject to IC 35-47-16-1, the enactment or enforcement of
a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm
in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior,
city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the
building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business,
any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a
firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is
occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to
common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or
private business.
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or
restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public
meeting.
(7) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or
restricting the possession of a firearm in a public hospital
corporation that contains a secure correctional health unit that
is staffed by a law enforcement officer twenty-four (24) hours
a day.
(8) The imposition of any restriction or condition placed on a
person participating in:
(A) a community corrections program (IC 11-12-1);
(B) a forensic diversion program (IC 11-12-3.7); or
(C) a pretrial diversion program (IC 33-39-1).
(9) The enforcement or prosecution of the offense of criminal
recklessness (IC 35-42-2-2) involving the use of a firearm.
(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political
subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or
organizer of the event:
(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the
promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct
or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the
event is conditioned; or
(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of
conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political
subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the
event.
(11) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or
restricting the possession of a firearm in a hospital established
and operated under IC 16-22-2 or IC 16-23.
(12) A unit from using the unit's planning and zoning powers
under IC 36-7-4 to prohibit the sale of firearms within two
hundred (200) feet of a school by a person having a business
that did not sell firearms within two hundred (200) feet of a
school before April 1, 1994.
(13) Subject to IC 35-47-16-1, a unit (as defined in
IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision
prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a
building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public
entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least
one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections
of persons entering the building by use of metal detection
devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public
entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the
individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in clause
(B).
However, except as provided in subdivision (5) concerning a
building that contains a courtroom, a unit may not prohibit or
restrict the possession of a handgun under this subdivision in a
building owned or administered by the unit if the person who
possesses the handgun has been issued a valid license to carry
the handgun under IC 35-47-2.

 

[solus]

alas, while the peculiarities of the law notwithstanding, the impractical side regarding your course of action of leaving your firearm in your locked vehicle in plain sight in the government property would be a nice bad guy, er, uh person to be PC, would have a nice trinket to terrorize the community with and you would be out the expense of a window and the loss of your SD trinket! that is unless you partake in the NRA's theft program, then you would $$$ and have cause to go out to purchase a new SD trinket.

 

[ICBM]

alas, while the peculiarities of the law notwithstanding, the impractical side regarding your course of action of leaving your firearm in your locked vehicle in plain sight in the government property would be a nice bad guy, er, uh person to be PC, would have a nice trinket to terrorize the community with and you would be out the expense of a window and the loss of your SD trinket! that is unless you partake in the NRA's theft program, then you would $$$ and have cause to go out to purchase a new SD trinket.

Well, it also applies to things like ammunition. If you locked up your firearm, but forgot to stash your magazine, you could be fired just for ammunition and/or accessories, without being a legitimate risk.

 

[solus]

Well, it also applies to things like ammunition. If you locked up your firearm, but forgot to stash your magazine, you could be fired just for ammunition and/or accessories, with being a legitimate risk.

I have known individuals who refuse to park their vehicles on their employer's parking areas and instead park on the street and walk to their job's facility. of course, another acquaintance refuses to drive on the USPS' property to put mail in the outside collection boxes as they believe they are violating federal statutes on having 'weapons' on federal property!

I suppose it depends on one's 'big brother' paranoid ideations, doesn't it?

but i am quite curious tho about how the kind Hoosier LE agency(ies) are in the business of enacting regulations?

IC 35-47-11.1-4
Not prohibited by chapter
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the
following:
(1) A law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from
enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms,
ammunition, or firearm accessories issued to or used by law
enforcement officers in the course of their official duties.

thanks for sharing the idiosyncrasies of the Hoosier's statutes

 

[ICBM]

Unless the lot is common area (post office being part of a strip mall), you CAN be arrested for driving onto USPS owned property with a firearm. It has happened before.

 

[Grapeshot]

Unless the lot is common area (post office being part of a strip mall), you CAN be arrested for driving onto USPS owned property with a firearm. It has happened before.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

"Citizens can legally carry firearms in post office parking lots, a federal judge has ruled."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/index.html

 

[color of law]

Maybe yes, maybe no.

"Citizens can legally carry firearms in post office parking lots, a federal judge has ruled."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/index.html

No Tab Bonidy can't. It was overturned in 2015.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-1374.pdf

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Unless the lot is common area (post office being part of a strip mall), you CAN be arrested for driving onto USPS owned property with a firearm. It has happened before.

I know a Guy,, whos carry permit lapse, but he still carries concealed at times,,,
AND,,, he carries into the post office, and just feels like,,, they dont know, and I dont care!!!

 

[ICBM]

I know a Guy,, whos carry permit lapse, but he still carries concealed at times,,,
AND,,, he carries into the post office, and just feels like,,, they dont know, and I dont care!!!

Playing with fire. Lets say something happens and he decides to draw his firearm, either in the building or out in the lot, regardless of the action being justified as self defense, he might get arrested for simply having the gun with him.

"Thanks for stopping this attempted murder/robbery, but now you're under arrest."

Even if a local cop didn't charge, the post-master might.

 

[color of law]

Playing with fire. Lets say something happens and he decides to draw his firearm, either in the building or out in the lot, regardless of the action being justified as self defense, he might get arrested for simply having the gun with him.

"Thanks for stopping this attempted murder/robbery, but now you're under arrest."

Even if a local cop didn't charge, the post-master might.

And that is why jury nullification exists and why courts despise it even though the USSC says it's constitutional.

 

[Grapeshot]

And that is why jury nullification exists and why courts despise it even though the USSC says it's constitutional.

Those seated on a jury must first be aware that it even exists and judges are loath to allow them to be advised.

 

[color of law]

Those seated on a jury must first be aware that it even exists and judges are loath to allow them to be advised.

Very true.

 

[Grapeshot]

So much for education, public/private, elementary or secondary.

Censorship by omission.

 

[gutshot II]

Playing with fire. Lets say something happens and he decides to draw his firearm, either in the building or out in the lot, regardless of the action being justified as self defense, he might get arrested for simply having the gun with him.

"Thanks for stopping this attempted murder/robbery, but now you're under arrest."

Even if a local cop didn't charge, the post-master might.

Just how does a "post-master" charge you with a federal crime? I'd like to hear the mechanics of that process.

How does this entire discussion apply to a "loop-hole"? I don't see any "loop-hole" here, just a federal law, like any other federal law. Are all laws "loop-holes" now?
Here are two definitions of the word "loophole"(no hyphen):
loophole (plural loopholes)

1. A method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect.
2. A loophole in the law is a small mistake which allows people to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

Can anyone point out how this law fits into either of these definitions, or any other legitimate definition of the word? These difinitions say nothing about the differences between two laws that may or may not conflict with one another or appear to do so.

This entire post is about a loophole. I can find none in the referenced laws.

 

[ICBM]

Just how does a "post-master" charge you with a federal crime? I'd like to hear the mechanics of that process.

How does this entire discussion apply to a "loop-hole"? I don't see any "loop-hole" here, just a federal law, like any other federal law. Are all laws "loop-holes" now?
Here are two definitions of the word "loophole"(no hyphen):
loophole (plural loopholes)

1. A method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect.
2. A loophole in the law is a small mistake which allows people to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

Can anyone point out how this law fits into either of these definitions, or any other legitimate definition of the word? These difinitions say nothing about the differences between two laws that may or may not conflict with one another or appear to do so.

This entire post is about a loophole. I can find none in the referenced laws.

I would assume the post master would press charges by requesting or ordering the postal inspectors, depending on how the USPS hierarchy works. What's curious is that you can technically mail firearms via the USPS depending on the item. Idk how that doesn't come in conflict with federal laws about firearms on their property.

Well, the preemption statute includes a provision allowing local governments to regulate or prohibit their own employees "from carrying firearms and ammunition in the course of the employee's official duties." except as allowed by the "bring your gun to work" statute. While they might have intended to only allow the employees to keep firearms in their parked vehicles while at work, it can be construed to allow the employees to carry "in the course of the employee's official duties" if they use their personal vehicle. It looks like you could technically keep your firearm in your open glove compartment, as long as you're vehicle is locked. Also, because that part of the preemption statute only pertains to "in the course of the employee's official duties", anything outside of the "official duties" could not be regulated. Parking may not be construed as part of those duties.

It can be seen as a small mistake that can be exploited.

 

[MamaLiberty]

Those seated on a jury must first be aware that it even exists and judges are loath to allow them to be advised.

And that's why, more and more, people are forced into "plea bargains" and other shortcuts for the prosecution. More and more, there is no jury trial, for a lot of reasons. Then, if and when a jury is summoned, they are subject to a "selection" process that weeds out any independent thinkers, especially those who understand their role as the actual judges of the "law." And then... how many people who have survived the state indoctrination of "public schools" would have any idea of that duty, or care?

But we can always try to educate them, urge them to appropriate action. http://fija.org/ Look at this if you'd like to be part of that effort.

 

[utbagpiper]

Better tried by twelve men, good and true, than carried by six that are weeping and blue.

And that is why jury nullification exists and why courts despise it even though the USSC says it's constitutional.

Those seated on a jury must first be aware that it even exists and judges are loath to allow them to be advised.

So much for education, public/private, elementary or secondary.

Over the past decade I've been called for jury duty 3 times. Twice federal, once State. Never seated.

For 3 years, I had a reasonably close social association with an Assistant US AG whose job was to prosecute white collar criminals. He argued the cases in court.

A good friend was recently called for jury duty and received quite an education from a judge was unusually open and honest about how the process worked. He wasn't seated.

From what I've seen first hand, and heard from my associates, I am loathe to ever, deliberately put myself in a position where I might need to rely upon a jury doing the right thing, if I can reasonably avoid being in that position.

On rare occasion when an innocent man's rights are grossly abused by the government, and the government's conduct is so egregious it cannot be hidden, a jury may get it right. We saw that with the criminal trial of Randy Weaver, and a couple of the criminal trials involving Cliven Bundy.

But far more often, juries get it wrong and innocent men are wrongly convicted, or peaceful, decent men who did commit some non-violent technical violation of a bad law, get railroaded anyway.

The entire system is stacked against getting an intelligent, informed, independent jury.

It starts with where federal court houses tend to be located. Violate a federal law in rural Mayberry and it won't be your neighbors sitting as jurors. The federal courthouse isn't located in Mayberry. It is located in liberal, inner-city urban area where most of the residents figure rural folks are, at least stupid, if not downright evil. Sure, a couple of rural residents will be included in the jury summons. They are likely to be excused for hardship (eg: they run their own business rather than working for a big company), or for cause if they know anything about your case. They may be more likely to try to get excused because they don't consent to any of this whole "involuntary government" thing anyway. Either way, 95% of the jury pool will be urbanites.

The voire dire process allows prosecutors to weed out most problematic jurors. Technically, they can't generally ask your political or religious affiliations. But they routinely ask where you get your news and what magazines or web sites you read. So, is FoxNews, DrudgeReport, National Review, American Sportsman, or the Watchtower on your reading list? Are you going to commit perjury? Or do you answer honestly and give all them all they need to know to know they don't want you on the jury? Did you make a stink about there not being a place to store your gun when you arrived?

What is your education level and employment? Ostensibly these questions are to help avoid bias if a sheriff's dispatcher were to be seated. In reality, they let the lawyers know who has critical thinking skills vs who might be more easily manipulated.

Both the prosecution and defense have an unlimited number of "challenges for cause". If they can demonstrate some reasonable risk of bias, a potential juror gets dismissed. Both sides also get a limited number of "peremptory challenges". They can dismiss jurors for no reason at all....as long as it doesn't look like they are trying to get rid of everyone of a certain race or gender.

And then, in the federal system (as well as in Utah courts; though I understand that other States are less offensive on this front), the lawyers get together and arrive at a mutually agreeable jury. Nothing random about this process except the initial jury summons. And when 100 potential jurors are summoned to fill 13 or fewer seats, it is easy enough to very deliberately seat as a jury, anything but a random cross section of the community. Frankly, it is amazing it ever gets the right conclusion when an innocent man is wrongly accused.

There are things for which I'll put my life and fortune into the hands of the proverbial "12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty." My life and limb and that of my family members.

There are a whole lot of things for which I won't, voluntarily, play that lottery. So I do my level best to avoid putting myself into situations where I might have to.

But to each his own.

 

[color of law]

Over the past decade I've been called for jury duty 3 times. Twice federal, once State. Never seated.

For 3 years, I had a reasonably close social association with an Assistant US AG whose job was to prosecute white collar criminals. He argued the cases in court.

A good friend was recently called for jury duty and received quite an education from a judge was unusually open and honest about how the process worked. He wasn't seated.

From what I've seen first hand, and heard from my associates, I am loathe to ever, deliberately put myself in a position where I might need to rely upon a jury doing the right thing, if I can reasonably avoid being in that position.

On rare occasion when an innocent man's rights are grossly abused by the government, and the government's conduct is so egregious it cannot be hidden, a jury may get it right. We saw that with the criminal trial of Randy Weaver, and a couple of the criminal trials involving Cliven Bundy.

But far more often, juries get it wrong and innocent men are wrongly convicted, or peaceful, decent men who did commit some non-violent technical violation of a bad law, get railroaded anyway.

The entire system is stacked against getting an intelligent, informed, independent jury.

It starts with where federal court houses tend to be located. Violate a federal law in rural Mayberry and it won't be your neighbors sitting as jurors. The federal courthouse isn't located in Mayberry. It is located in liberal, inner-city urban area where most of the residents figure rural folks are, at least stupid, if not downright evil. Sure, a couple of rural residents will be included in the jury summons. They are likely to be excused for hardship (eg: they run their own business rather than working for a big company), or for cause if they know anything about your case. They may be more likely to try to get excused because they don't consent to any of this whole "involuntary government" thing anyway. Either way, 95% of the jury pool will be urbanites.

The voire dire process allows prosecutors to weed out most problematic jurors. Technically, they can't generally ask your political or religious affiliations. But they routinely ask where you get your news and what magazines or web sites you read. So, is FoxNews, DrudgeReport, National Review, American Sportsman, or the Watchtower on your reading list? Are you going to commit perjury? Or do you answer honestly and give all them all they need to know to know they don't want you on the jury? Did you make a stink about there not being a place to store your gun when you arrived?

What is your education level and employment? Ostensibly these questions are to help avoid bias if a sheriff's dispatcher were to be seated. In reality, they let the lawyers know who has critical thinking skills vs who might be more easily manipulated.

Both the prosecution and defense have an unlimited number of "challenges for cause". If they can demonstrate some reasonable risk of bias, a potential juror gets dismissed. Both sides also get a limited number of "peremptory challenges". They can dismiss jurors for no reason at all....as long as it doesn't look like they are trying to get rid of everyone of a certain race or gender.

And then, in the federal system (as well as in Utah courts; though I understand that other States are less offensive on this front), the lawyers get together and arrive at a mutually agreeable jury. Nothing random about this process except the initial jury summons. And when 100 potential jurors are summoned to fill 13 or fewer seats, it is easy enough to very deliberately seat as a jury, anything but a random cross section of the community. Frankly, it is amazing it ever gets the right conclusion when an innocent man is wrongly accused.

There are things for which I'll put my life and fortune into the hands of the proverbial "12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty." My life and limb and that of my family members.

There are a whole lot of things for which I won't, voluntarily, play that lottery. So I do my level best to avoid putting myself into situations where I might have to.

But to each his own.

Cannot disagree. There are many factors that go into a criminal defence. One of the most important is a damn good attorney. If you notice I did not say defence attorney. You need an attorney that understands the appeal process. Those things that get reversals. Also, if you are truly innocent you want a bench trial. The judge cannot plead ignorance of the law. I speak from lots of experience.

The courts are generally corrupt. Judges are generally bias, prejudice in favor of the state. Remember, judges were once prosecutors.

I am personally involved in an appeal, only because the district judge fabricated facts not in evidence to engineer the outcome he desired. In a few months an appeal decision should be forthcoming. But I digress.

Most people don't understand that people are not found innocent, they are found not guilty.

 

[OC for ME]

Your pistil is put away and not visible. How on earth does this then become a discussion start poit where your pistil is on the dashboard in plain view. Anyway, how would a employer know you have a pistol in the glove box.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Your pistil is put away and not visible. How on earth does this then become a discussion start poit where your pistil is on the dashboard in plain view. Anyway, how would a employer know you have a pistol in the glove box.

A lot of do not know how to keep their mouths shut and want to brag about what they are getting away with.

Most people convict themselves.