HB1244 - Firearms on business premises

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TaunTaun

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 21, 2011
    2,027
    48
    Excellent tool for use against universities and schools that bar firearms from legal carriers.
     

    femurphy77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,268
    113
    S.E. of disorder
    Tough call. .gov should stay the hell out of the business of dictating how a company is run. On the other hand if a business bans the legal carry of firearms then perhaps they should bear some responsibility of that decision. On the other hand if you chose to do business with an establishment that has anti-gun sentiments perhaps you should bear some responsibility of that decision.

    :dunno:
     

    dusty88

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 11, 2014
    3,179
    83
    United States
    Excellent tool for use against universities and schools that bar firearms from legal carriers.
    Public universities shouldn't be inhibiting our rights anyway or be able to make no-gun policies
    As private properties go, I'm unsure how I feel
    I definitely agree with the point that "Provides that a person who does not prohibit: (1) an individual from possessing a firearm on the person's property; or (2) the person's employees from possessing a firearm while the employees are acting within the scope of their employment; is immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on the person's failure to adopt such a policy" which to me basically says that if you choose not to take care of yourself, don't blame someone else for not taking care of you.

    As to the other, "Permits a person to bring an action for damages against a business entity having a policy of barring possession of a firearm on the entity's property, if: (1) the person suffers a loss due to criminal activity on the entity's property; and (2) the loss could have been avoided or reduced if the business entity did not prohibit possession of a firearm on its property." I'm not so sure.

    I know what the policy is when I enter the private property. I could choose not to go in (and often do take my business elsewhere) if they have a no-firearms policy.

    If that business or entity is government-owned or in some way made into a monopoly by the government (ie a utility office) that's no longer the same choice of entry.
     

    MilliJac

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2014
    340
    18
    The Fort
    It is tough, because we are pitting the convenience of the patron over the rights of the property owner in this case. Nobody is FORCING the patron to do business with the property owner, therefore the rights of the patrons aren't being infringed. However, this isn't forcing property owners to allow guns on their property either. It is simply opening them up to potential consequences for placing their patrons at risk.

    I suppose I support this sort of move, because it doesn't force any change upon the business/property owner but instead creates potential consequences for endangering their patrons by disarming law abiding citizens.

    I really don't know. Its tough.
     

    dusty88

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 11, 2014
    3,179
    83
    United States
    It is tough, because we are pitting the convenience of the patron over the rights of the property owner in this case. Nobody is FORCING the patron to do business with the property owner, therefore the rights of the patrons aren't being infringed. However, this isn't forcing property owners to allow guns on their property either. It is simply opening them up to potential consequences for placing their patrons at risk.

    Yeah, in the context of things that you CAN currently sue for today, you should be able to sue for this. But in the context of what you SHOULD be able to sue for, I can't support it.

    Is there currently any statute that prevents us from suing someone who prohibited us from being armed?

    I've often felt like it's the legislators that should be sued for creating the gun-free zones.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    It is tough, because we are pitting the convenience of the patron over the rights of the property owner in this case. Nobody is FORCING the patron to do business with the property owner, therefore the rights of the patrons aren't being infringed.

    And nobody is FORCING the private property owner to open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce.

    I do not agree that property rights trump RKBA in a place of public business.
     

    dusty88

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 11, 2014
    3,179
    83
    United States
    And nobody is FORCING the private property owner to open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce.

    I do not agree that property rights trump RKBA in a place of public business.

    Whoa.

    Commerce is an exchange between 2 people. Government should not dictate to which people you do commerce with. It would be no different than forcing an employee to work for employers they were not comfortable with.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    Whoa.

    Commerce is an exchange between 2 people. Government should not dictate to which people you do commerce with. It would be no different than forcing an employee to work for employers they were not comfortable with.

    How is any forcing involved?

    Refusing to do business with someone merely due to lawful exercise of RKBA is a civil rights violation no different from refusing to do business with someone due to race, religion, etc.
     

    MilliJac

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2014
    340
    18
    The Fort
    And nobody is FORCING the private property owner to open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce.

    Right, but if you believe that RKBA trumps everything everywhere all the time, aren't you FORCING an entrepreneur to not "open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce" if he doesn't want guns on his property?

    A patron can always go somewhere else, but if the business owner doesn't want guns on his property, you are effectively telling him "too bad, my right to convenience is more important than your right to live your life the way you want to".

    Am I misreading that?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    Right, but if you believe that RKBA trumps everything everywhere all the time, aren't you FORCING an entrepreneur to not "open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce" if he doesn't want guns on his property?

    A patron can always go somewhere else, but if the business owner doesn't want guns on his property, you are effectively telling him "too bad, my right to convenience is more important than your right to live your life the way you want to".

    Am I misreading that?

    Yes, you're misreading that. RKBA doesn't trump property rights. Property rights don't trump RKBA. Rights are co-equal.

    A patron can always go somewhere else: does that apply also to black people? Muslims? Homosexuals?

    When you open your property to public commerce, you have to deal with the Equal Protection rights of the public whom you invite onto your property. That is but one of the trade-offs of choosing to use your private property for commercial profit.
     

    dusty88

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 11, 2014
    3,179
    83
    United States
    How is any forcing involved?

    Refusing to do business with someone merely due to lawful exercise of RKBA is a civil rights violation no different from refusing to do business with someone due to race, religion, etc.

    Well I don't agree with the race, religion laws either. My opening of a cake shop does not prevent someone from going to another cake shop. However, forcing me to sell the cake to a person of a particular race does trump my rights. Forcing me to allow you to walk in the door with your weapons may force me to choose between running my business or being uncomfortable.

    Conducting commerce is an exchange between 2 people. It should not mean that in order to conduct commerce with 1 person, you must conduct commerce with all.
     

    dusty88

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 11, 2014
    3,179
    83
    United States
    That is but one of the trade-offs of choosing to use your private property for commercial profit.
    Are you employed? If so you are offering your services to someone. Should you get to choose the characteristics of your employer, or should government tell you that you must offer your services at the same price to everyone?

    Edit: if you (the taxpayer) are going to dictate how my property is used, should you not also pay for the property? Then it becomes truly "public" and you can make such rules.
     

    MilliJac

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2014
    340
    18
    The Fort
    Yes, you're misreading that. RKBA doesn't trump property rights. Property rights don't trump RKBA. Rights are co-equal.

    A patron can always go somewhere else: does that apply also to black people? Muslims? Homosexuals?

    When you open your property to public commerce, you have to deal with the Equal Protection rights of the public whom you invite onto your property. That is but one of the trade-offs of choosing to use your private property for commercial profit.

    That is well thought out position, and I respect that. However, I must disagree with the notion that bearing arms is equal to race or creed. I can put my handgun in my glovebox. Can a black person put their black skin aside and become white to access a business that prohibits black patrons? No.

    The fundamental difference is that both you and the owner are making a choice, you to not disarm, and the owner to not allow you on to their property. In the race equivalency you tried to draw, only one is making a choice. That is a big difference.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    Well I don't agree with the race, religion laws either. My opening of a cake shop does not prevent someone from going to another cake shop. However, forcing me to sell the cake to a person of a particular race does trump my rights. Forcing me to allow you to walk in the door with your weapons may force me to choose between running my business or being uncomfortable.

    Conducting commerce is an exchange between 2 people. It should not mean that in order to conduct commerce with 1 person, you must conduct commerce with all.

    There are certainly exceptions: such as a sincerely held religious belief regarding the definition of marriage, and freedom of conscience in not being forced to engage in an action that you believe constitutes condoning something that violates your sincerely held beliefs.

    Are you employed? If so you are offering your services to someone. Should you get to choose the characteristics of your employer, or should government tell you that you must offer your services at the same price to everyone?

    The employer/employee contractual relationship is not analogous to the business/customer contractual relationship - at least not in any way that is relevant to this discussion.

    Edit: if you (the taxpayer) are going to dictate how my property is used, should you not also pay for the property? Then it becomes truly "public" and you can make such rules.

    Nobody is dictating how your property is used.

    Someone carrying a firearm does not inherently "use" your property any differently from the way that someone not carrying a firearm "uses" your property. (Just as a black person doesn't inherently "use" your property differently from the way a white person "uses" your property.)
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    That is well thought out position, and I respect that. However, I must disagree with the notion that bearing arms is equal to race or creed. I can put my handgun in my glovebox. Can a black person put their black skin aside and become white to access a business that prohibits black patrons? No.

    The fundamental difference is that both you and the owner are making a choice, you to not disarm, and the owner to not allow you on to their property. In the race equivalency you tried to draw, only one is making a choice. That is a big difference.

    Forcing someone to forego their ability to protect their right to life (by exercising RKBA) or to forego conduct public commerce is no different from forcing someone to forego public commerce due to their skin color.

    That one is an intrinsic characteristic and the other is a natural, God-given right is a distinction without a difference.
     

    dusty88

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 11, 2014
    3,179
    83
    United States
    The employer/employee contractual relationship is not analogous to the business/customer contractual relationship - at least not in any way that is relevant to this discussion.

    It's only different because of government interference. If one person agrees to a cost for a service or item, that transaction is only different for an employee vs a business owner because government has interfered.

    I realize that we are working within the context of that interference when discussing this law, but I have trouble supporting something that takes rights away from the business owner, even if it's "something" I agree with.


    Someone carrying a firearm does not inherently "use" your property any differently from the way that someone not carrying a firearm "uses" your property. (Just as a black person doesn't inherently "use" your property differently from the way a white person "uses" your property.)
    You don't see it any differently, but someone who does not want an armed person on their property sees it differently, and should have a right to make that choice.
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    My own $0.02 on this bill:

    1) Should not mention firearms in any way. The right to self defense inherently includes ANY tool, or even the lack of a tool.
    2) Should also protect the business owner/employees/patrons from criminal and civil suits if/when a criminal act is stopped. (give protection both ways).
    3) Is not necessary, as one can already sue the business (owner) for negligence.
     

    MilliJac

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2014
    340
    18
    The Fort
    Forcing someone to forego their ability to protect their right to life (by exercising RKBA) or to forego conduct public commerce is no different from forcing someone to forego public commerce due to their skin color.

    That one is an intrinsic characteristic and the other is a natural, God-given right is a distinction without a difference.

    I think we have come to a point where all I can do is respectfully disagree. The person carrying a firearm is given an option: comply with the rules of the property you intend to enter or do not enter. In the skin color scenario, no option is given. There is a difference there to my eyes.

    You have the inherent right to free speech, but I hope you would agree that a business owner should be able to remove and prohibit the return of a patron who walks around cursing at mothers and their small children on store property because they are causing a disturbance. Could your firearm not cause the same kind of disturbance?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    It's only different because of government interference. If one person agrees to a cost for a service or item, that transaction is only different for an employee vs a business owner because government has interfered.

    A labor contract relationship is not the same as a good/service provider-customer relationship. They are similar insofar as the employee is similar to a service provider, and the employer is similar to a service customer. But they are dissimilar in that the relationship is continuous and ongoing, and in that both work together to provide a good or service to a third party. A provider-customer contract is a one-time occurrence (though it may happen multiple time, for repeat business). The employer-employee relationship is ongoing and symbiotic.

    They are simply not the same thing.

    I realize that we are working within the context of that interference when discussing this law, but I have trouble supporting something that takes rights away from the business owner, even if it's "something" I agree with.

    The business owner has lost no rights. "Not being uncomfortable" is not a right.

    You don't see it any differently, but someone who does not want an armed person on their property sees it differently, and should have a right to make that choice.

    They do have the right to make that choice: revert the property to private use, in which case any person can be considered as trespassing for any reason whatsoever, including for being armed.
     
    Top Bottom