GOING TO WAR. Fired in violation of Senate Bill 411 passing

[CathyInBlue]

What SnS provided here on an internet forum can be classified as "hearsay" because it cannot be substantiated simply because we are not actually privy to the evidence that he claims to have therefore we are being asked to take his word for it.

And then we have that thing called a "chain of trust". Guy Relford vouches for him. I trust Guy. Therefore, I trust that SnS's characterization is accurate, if not precise. Is that good enough for a court of law? No. That's why there are standards of evidence for court. Is it good enough for a web forum... yeah. It is.

 

[KG1]

......

My own personal feeling is that I tend to give SnS's claim a little bit more credence now than I would have originally despite the non disclosure because an well known member of the INGO community and respected 2A oriented attorney has agreed to represent him based on having more actual knowledge of the evidence than we as forum participants are asked to believe.

And then we have that thing called a "chain of trust". Guy Relford vouches for him. I trust Guy. Therefore, I trust that SnS's characterization is accurate, if not precise. Is that good enough for a court of law? No. That's why there are standards of evidence for court. Is it good enough for a web forum... yeah. It is.

I would agree with that hence the closing sentence in my previous post where I summed up my own personal feeling.

 

[n9vmo]

Sorry for the threadjacking but...

Football is damn feminine sport...

Aussie Rules Football for the win!!!

And now back to the thread.

 

[rgrimm01]

Sorry for the threadjacking but...

Aussie Rules Football for the win!!!

Where they are required to dribble the ball? We call it basketball and the baskets are smaller; contact is about the same...

 

[sepe]

Sorry for the threadjacking but...

Aussie Rules Football for the win!!!

And now back to the thread.

Aussie Rules is a good time.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Having it in his vehicle is not "carrying". From the same law, he can have it in his locked vehicle. His employer is not prohibited from telling him he cannot have it on his person while working.

I am interested to see where this goes.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill it may not be "carrying" but it would be "possessing", if he is using his car in "the performance of his duties". Versus leaving it locked in your car when you go into/onto the building/jobsite for your job. I'm guessing that will be the argument made by the defendants lawyer(s).

IC 34-28-8-9
Regulation or prohibition of firearm possession or carrying a firearm by employee; when authorized
Sec. 9. Notwithstanding section 6 of this chapter, this chapter does not prohibit a public or private employer from:
(1) regulating or prohibiting the possession or carrying of a firearm by an employee during and in the course of the duties of the employee on behalf of the employer or while on the property of the employer;

Nope, they cannot even ask you about any firearms in your vehicle. They can restrict you from carrying on your person while working, but nothing else.

See below.

A handful of HR professionals I know do believe they have the right to ask. Some of those even believe they have the right to dig through your car to look for a gun...since it is on private property. Another one I know, former Marine and former competitive shooter, would simply ask you if you wanted to head to his back 40 to do some skeet shooting or head to a different part of the farm to shoot out to 500 yards. Some are morons that believe their opinion carries more weight than laws. Still a few decent ones out there though.

Can you show me anything in the law that states they are not allowed to ask? They can't make it a requirement for you to answer but it doesn't forbid asking. Slight difference but......

And they don't have the right to search your vehicle, they do have the right to ask to do so though. And as long as they don't mention firearms they have the right to fire you for refusing.

IC 34-28-8-6
Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information to employer or potential employer
Sec. 6. A public or private employer doing business in Indiana may not:
(1) require an applicant for employment or an employee to disclose information about whether the applicant or employee owns, possesses, uses, or transports a firearm or ammunition, unless the disclosure concerns the possession, use, or transportation of a firearm or ammunition that is used in fulfilling the duties of the employment of the individual;

Here goes...

IC 34-28-8-9
Regulation or prohibition of firearm possession or carrying a firearm by employee; when authorized
Sec. 9. Notwithstanding section 6 of this chapter, this chapter does not prohibit a public or private employer from:
(1) regulating or prohibiting the possession or carrying of a firearm by an employee during and in the course of the duties of the employee on behalf of the employer or while on the property of the employer; or

Section 1 does not prohibit an employer from establising policy (regulating) regarding the possession of a firearm. The employer is not prohibiting from listing items in policy as they see fit regarding "regulating or prohibiting" the possession of firearms. This does not preclude the employer from executing policy, and after ample time allowed, requiring an employee to sign in writing that they understand the employer's policy "regulating or prohibiting the possession..."

It doesn't prohibit them from having policy regarding carry or possession during or in the course of their duties. If it's in my car and I'm in work I don't have actual possession of it. If I'm driving around in my car in the course of my duties I have actual possession.

And then we have that thing called a "chain of trust". Guy Relford vouches for him. I trust Guy. Therefore, I trust that SnS's characterization is accurate, if not precise. Is that good enough for a court of law? No. That's why there are standards of evidence for court. Is it good enough for a web forum... yeah. It is.

Can you show where Guy vouched for him? He has taken on his case but that is a bit different. If taking on a case is the same as vouching for someone.......

 

[CathyInBlue]

Can you show me a lawyer who took a civil case from someone they thought was a lunatic and whose case was a loser because of it? Can you show me a single case a lawyer has taken that he thought it a certainty that the law was on the defendant's side and they were going to lose?

Guy took the case. That shows entirely enough vouch for my books.

 

[actaeon277]

Courts have already ruled that a weapon in your trunk, or inaccessible to the driver (SUV) do not constitute "in possession" when related to transportation of firearms. It is a cornerstone of transportation laws.

 

[RedneckReject]

It doesn't prohibit them from having policy regarding carry or possession during or in the course of their duties. If it's in my car and I'm in work I don't have actual possession of it. If I'm driving around in my car in the course of my duties I have actual possession.

According to ADM's handbook employees are not allowed to use their vehicles to patrol. All patrols must be done on foot. Employees are supposed to drive to their job site and go on foot from there. Their vehicles have nothing to do with their duties.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Can you show me a lawyer who took a civil case from someone they thought was a lunatic and whose case was a loser because of it? Can you show me a single case a lawyer has taken that he thought it a certainty that the law was on the defendant's side and they were going to lose?

Guy took the case. That shows entirely enough vouch for my books.

Are you really serious? Yes lawyers have taken cases from people who they thought were lunatics and the case was a loser, usually they don't do it on a contingency basis though. Also in quite a few civil suits, the attorneys never expect it to come to trial, a lot of businesses/insurance companies will settle because it's cheaper than fighting it. I'm not saying that is why took the case.

Guy took the case, and again I'm not disparaging him. I have no reason to. But that does not mean the case has merit, it just means that he thinks it does. Have you ever known a lawyer to be wrong? There is a reason they call it practicing law.

It is a vouch for the suit at the most, not a vouch for SnS. Also it's not a vouch that SnS told Guy every detail.

Also I have personal experience with an attorney who would of gladly taken a losing case, and even sorta advised towards doing it. But he wanted his fees upfront. No I'm not the one that brought the question of a suit to him, he suggested it all on his own as a "possibility". Which after talking to another attorney and doing a bit of research, there would of been absolutely no chance in hell of winning. And one more time, I'm not saying Guy is that type of an attorney. I have no knowledge of him other than what he posts on here and absolutely no reason to disbelieve anything he posts.

Courts have already ruled that a weapon in your trunk, or inaccessible to the driver (SUV) do not constitute "in possession" when related to transportation of firearms. It is a cornerstone of transportation laws.

I'm going to guess that you are referring to federal interstate transport laws. In IN having a handgun in your trunk is "in possession", if you don't believe me have someone get pulled over with a loaded one in their trunk, without a LTCH or other exemption. Or heck try OH where a loaded magazine or speed loader that fits a firearm in the vehicle (including one that is dissembled/trigger locked/locked case/in the trunk) is considered a loaded firearm.

Also it's not inaccessible to the driver, it's inaccessible to the passenger compartment. For vehicles without a separate compartment e.g. vans/suvs in the area farthest from the passenger compartment.

According to ADM's handbook employees are not allowed to use their vehicles to patrol. All patrols must be done on foot. Employees are supposed to drive to their job site and go on foot from there. Their vehicles have nothing to do with their duties.

For patrols you are correct, but are they allowed to do any of their duties in the vehicle? For instance filling out log books/reports/etc? Are they off duty/unpaid when they are between job sites?

 

[Ted]

This thread was an amazing read of fail. As a HR Manager of 15 years, in 2012 Indiana, as a right to work state, you just don't get fired straight away unless you were just being a dumbass and a threat/disruption to the job. Just saying.

As an HR manager of 15 years experience, then you should also know the difference between, 'Right to Work', and 'Employment at Will'.

As formally a HR manager myself, I have had to terminate, or document the termination of employees for reasons other than being

"...a dumbass and a threat/disruption to the job."

As a matter of fact, I've been aware of employees being terminated from employment, for merely being perceived as such things as being too fat or too smart by their supervisor.

Not every supervisor is ethical, law abiding, or moral.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Have you ever known a lawyer to be wrong?

The point being that I have yet to know Guy to be wrong. Specificity matters.

It is a vouch for the suit at the most, not a vouch for SnS. Also it's not a vouch that SnS told Guy every detail.

Again, I have trust that Guy teased out all of the salient details and was satisfied with SnS's answers.

I'm not saying Guy is that type of an attorney. I have no knowledge of him other than what he posts on here and absolutely no reason to disbelieve anything he posts.

Here's where we get to the meat of it. Guy was recommended to me by Sen. James Tomes. Sen. James Tomes was recommended to me by my personal lawyer. That's a lot of vouching and a long chain of trust. You have no such chain of trust, so to you, TFT is just another forum poster/legal beagle. This does not invalidate the concept of chains of trust in general, or my chain of trust specificly.

 

[bwframe]

Any further info on the court date?

 

[Skywired]

The point being that I have yet to know Guy to be wrong. Specificity matters.

Again, I have trust that Guy teased out all of the salient details and was satisfied with SnS's answers.

Here's where we get to the meat of it. Guy was recommended to me by Sen. James Tomes. Sen. James Tomes was recommended to me by my personal lawyer. That's a lot of vouching and a long chain of trust. You have no such chain of trust, so to you, TFT is just another forum poster/legal beagle. This does not invalidate the concept of chains of trust in general, or my chain of trust specificly.

YEP....That pretty well sums it up for me. You can talk... or you can walk...

 

[RedneckReject]

Any further info on the court date?

As far as I know there is still no court date. Things like this usually take quite a while before they go to court. IF they go to court. A lot of times the parties will just settle and they never even see a court room. I guess time will tell.

 

[bwframe]

As far as I know there is still no court date. Things like this usually take quite a while before they go to court. IF they go to court. A lot of times the parties will just settle and they never even see a court room. I guess time will tell.

How would one keep track of this?

 

[RedneckReject]

How would one keep track of this?

Public records. Newspapers are a great source. They generally print upcoming court dates in the fine print that no one reads.

 

[bwframe]

Public records. Newspapers are a great source. They generally print upcoming court dates in the fine print that no one reads.

What would be the paper down there to watch?

 

[RedneckReject]

What would be the paper down there to watch?

The Reporter-Times is the Martinsville paper. They should have record of it if and when it happens.

 

[downzero]

Guy took the case. That shows entirely enough vouch for my books.

If I were a lawyer, I'd take any non-frivolous case that I thought I could handle that had a client who would pay the fee. I'd stretch to the limits of the rules of professional conduct to take a case from a client who wanted to win on principle, even though I'd tell him if I thought it'd be extremely unlikely he'd be victorious.

Lawyers gotta make a living too, and some cases, even if tough, come out for the side with the uphill battle.

I guess what I'ms aying is, I think tough fights are worth having sometimes.