I need a gun lawyer

[Eddie]

Really? I never knew that! That's very interesting. I guess the police don't need a search warrant, then to search a company's premises? I mean, you said a company doesn't have "rights", right?

The fourth amendment is styled as a right of the people. The police would still need a warrant to search unless the search fell within an exception to the warrant requirement. (For example if a business were to display contraband in plain view.) A search warrant is based on probable cause that a person has committed a crime and evidence/contraband may be present. A corporation cannot commit a crime; the people who operate the corporation would be responsible for a corporation's criminal acts.

There are some exceptions. For example an inspector who is charged with enforcing safety rules has the ability to get a warrant in order to discharge his duty if denied entry to a place that he is lawfully charged with inspecting.

 

[rimfire_crazed]

Wrong and Wrong. If he wants to understand his rights under the law, I guess I would have to suggest he talk to a lawyer.

Employment-at-will does not mean what you think it means in Indiana. There are a number of reasons for which an at-will employee may not be fired. One of those is enshrined in HB 1065 which has been enrolled into law:

Enrolled Act, House Bill 1065

Best,


Joe

I strongly disagree. HB1065 does nothing to protect gunowners. It is lipservice to the NRA and Indiana gun owners. The left decried this "terrible action" the entire time it was being legislated but noone stopped it because they realized that IT HAS NO NET EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW.

Having a locked gun in your vehicle can be the impetus for your termination - your employer simply has to cover their butt by saying "the position was eliminated" or "terminated for gross insubordination". You can be certain that general counsel will tell them not to allow the word firearm anywhere near the documentation. If a person was fired in this manner, he would need to retain a very costly attorney and expend significant financial resources proving is case - and would likely lose.

Equal rights based on race, creed, religion - I understand it all. Noone would be so stupid to fire someone for being black, or a jew, or a wiccan, or a catholic. However, I know plenty of people who've been told "this just isn't going to work out" and that was the end of it.

 

[Fargo]

I strongly disagree. HB1065 does nothing to protect gunowners. It is lipservice to the NRA and Indiana gun owners. The left decried this "terrible action" the entire time it was being legislated but noone stopped it because they realized that IT HAS NO NET EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW.

Um, it has exactly the effect on current law it says it does. If you don't think the law changed when it went into effect, you are entitled to that opinion. That however does not change the reality that it is now illegal to prohibit employees from having firearms in their cars under certain circumstances.

Having a locked gun in your vehicle can be the impetus for your termination - your employer simply has to cover their butt by saying "the position was eliminated" or "terminated for gross insubordination". You can be certain that general counsel will tell them not to allow the word firearm anywhere near the documentation. If a person was fired in this manner, he would need to retain a very costly attorney and expend significant financial resources proving is case - and would likely lose

What you have described is a plan for an employer to break the law; nothing more. Just because it is perhaps possible for a person to break the law, does not mean it is legal or that the law isn't in effect. People steal and get away with it all the time; it doesn't mean stealing isn't against the law.

BTW, just what exactly are you basing your opinion that a fired person would likely lose?

Joe

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[steve666]

Wrong and Wrong. If he wants to understand his rights under the law, I guess I would have to suggest he talk to a lawyer.

Employment-at-will does not mean what you think it means in Indiana. There are a number of reasons for which an at-will employee may not be fired. One of those is enshrined in HB 1065 which has been enrolled into law:

Enrolled Act, House Bill 1065

Best,


Joe

There ARE a number of reasons for which an at-will employee may not be fired, however the burden of proof is on the employee to show that their discharge is for one of those specific reasons. The only possible protection that the employee has is if the employer openly admits to discharging them for one of those reasons; they have witnesses who will testify that they heard the employer state that the discharge was for one of those protected reasons; they have something in writing or a video or audio tape proving that that was the reason for discharge.

 

[Eddie]

There ARE a number of reasons for which an at-will employee may not be fired, however the burden of proof is on the employee to show that their discharge is for one of those specific reasons. The only possible protection that the employee has is if the employer openly admits to discharging them for one of those reasons; they have witnesses who will testify that they heard the employer state that the discharge was for one of those protected reasons; they have something in writing or a video or audio tape proving that that was the reason for discharge.

I wouldn't cut it that fine. Just because the only proof the employee has is their own testimony doesn't mean they don't have a chance of winning an unemployment appeal. Lots of discharged people represent themselves and win in unemployment appeals; its a fairly relaxed setting.

 

[Indy317]

I am an attorney and I am certainly not in agreement with the bolded part. As Eddie, who is also an attorney pointed out, there is a cause of action for illegal termination.

However, what folks seem to forget is this:
Say you can sue, and you likely have a case, what exactly is the typical payout in the case? If your 28 years old making $60K/year, and you hold that job for 30 years, that is $1,800,000.00 Would the person really get anything near $1.8M? As an attorney, at what point do you step away? After your client turns down $150K? $250K? $300K?

So you get fired, get a settlement, have no healthcare, and go and get sick two weeks after you cash your check. Now you owe $150K in medical bills, but at least you got that $300K settlement, but you still don't have a job.

 

[cordex]

So you get fired, get a settlement, have no healthcare, and go and get sick two weeks after you cash your check. Now you owe $150K in medical bills, but at least you got that $300K settlement, but you still don't have a job.

Um ... so you've still got $150K in the bank which means - if you're not an idiot who goes nuts with money - you have more than two years worth of the full salary you are accustomed to in order to find a new job. Wrongfully losing your job doesn't mean you should be able to retire at 28.

 

[Indy317]

Um ... so you've still got $150K in the bank which means - if you're not an idiot who goes nuts with money - you have more than two years worth of the full salary you are accustomed to in order to find a new job. Wrongfully losing your job doesn't mean you should be able to retire at 28.

Yea, but just because you have $150K in the bank doesn't mean you are going to find a job. Also, nine months later, you fall and break an ankle, more bills in the five figure range start arriving. I also would want to know if you have to pay taxes on any amount you win. Just pointing out that even though you may win the battle, you could easily lose the war.

 

[jedi]

That's right. Indiana is an "at will" employment state. Just be careful what you say

Is IL an "at will" state?

 

[Bill B]

I did not pay taxes on my settlement. My lawyer told me that settlements are not taxable, of course it could have been just that type of settlement, IANAL

 

[88GT]

Utterly untrue. It protected private property rights of employees.

Exactly.

You don't give up all (any?) of your rights when you accept employment or choose to take advantage of parking on their property.

For example, a business owner can't make you have sex with them in exchange for not firing you. That is the ultimate property right - the right to control your own body. The right to self-defense is encompassed in that right. While they MAY be able to control what comes onto their property you can't be forced to give up your right to self-defense while traveling to & from that place of employment. The concession to the property owners rights are the requirements to keep it locked up & out of sight.

Au contraire, dear sirs.

Your employment comes with caveats and conditions. If possession of firearms happens to be one of those conditions, you do necessarily give up that right if you accept employment. Now, you can avoid that restriction by not accepting employment or not following the terms and conditions of your employment.

FTR, the between-your-home-and-place-of-employment argument is weak at best. They are not limiting your right to self defense in your car as you travel to and from home/work. They are simply stating that you may not store said form of self defense on company property while your car is parked on it.

Do you really want the state telling you that you can't control what someone does on your property? Shall we extend your logic to situations that adversely affect you to illustrate how wrong this legislation really is? Sure, you wouldn't ever tell anybody that he couldn't have a firearm on your property. But would you want to tell the naked man who parading on it for political purposes that he needs to leave? Oh, too bad. His right to free speech outweighs your property rights. And the JWs or LDS missionaries proselytizing on your doorstep? Better sit back and grab a beer, friend, because they ain't going anywhere. You see, their right to practice their religion is greater than your property rights.

Voluntary infringement is no infringement at all. And by accepting employment at a company with those conditions/terms, you VOLUNTARILY accepted those conditions/terms.

The real question is why someone would support the state-sanctioned erosion of property rights at all? Let alone when he gets nothing in return.

YMMV.

 

[dross]

Companies do have rights. Searching vehicles isn't one of those rights, however. How can someone have right to search your property? No such of a thang. Some entities might have the POWER to search your vehicle, but not the right, and your company isn't one of those entities.

You, however, have every right to let the company look inside your vehicle. If you choose to do so, you have no cause for complaint. If you choose not to do so, and it's a condition of your employment, the company has the RIGHT to terminate your employment.

It's really pretty simple.

Refuse any searches you like. Seek employment anywhere you like. Ain't freedom grand?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

The real question is why someone would support the state-sanctioned erosion of property rights at all? Let alone when he gets nothing in return.

YMMV.

The argument that allowing employees to control their private property somehow infringes on the private property rights of employers is fallacious at best, an outrageous reach.

Employers are still utterly and completely free to have their property firearms free if they so wish. They have the absolute ability to keep the guns off their property... they can merely no longer do so by exercising control over the property of their employees.

Why do you think only employers are entitled to control their private property? Why don't you support the right of private citizens to exercise similar control over THEIR property?

 

[excursion12]

I have a question not exactly like the OP asked.
What if a corporation said "No ford trucks on company property"
Or "No Cubs baseball hats in cars on company property"
Would there be any backlash? Would there be a winnable lawsuit there?
Guns are legal to own and keep in your cars just like the cubs hats.

 

[Eddie]

I have a question not exactly like the OP asked.
What if a corporation said "No ford trucks on company property"
Or "No Cubs baseball hats in cars on company property"
Would there be any backlash? Would there be a winnable lawsuit there?
Guns are legal to own and keep in your cars just like the cubs hats.

But you don't have an enumerated right to Fords or Cubs hats. Mitch's stated logic in signing the bill was that he felt an enumerated Constitutional right should trump a common law property right.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I have a question not exactly like the OP asked.
What if a corporation said "No ford trucks on company property"
Or "No Cubs baseball hats in cars on company property"
Would there be any backlash? Would there be a winnable lawsuit there?
Guns are legal to own and keep in your cars just like the cubs hats.

The old Warner Gear factory (can't remember the company's last name before it shut down) in Muncie had two separate employee parking lots, one right next to the building, the other across the street. The one near the building was for American made vehicles, the one across the street for foreign made vehicles. The company made transmissions for American vehicles.

No problems, no lawsuits.

 

[DarkRose]

The old Warner Gear factory (can't remember the company's last name before it shut down) in Muncie had two separate employee parking lots, one right next to the building, the other across the street. The one near the building was for American made vehicles, the one across the street for foreign made vehicles. The company made transmissions for American vehicles.

No problems, no lawsuits.

My father had to go to a Chrysler plant for a service call or something that did the same thing, the closer lots were for Chrysler vehicles, the other lots were for everything else...

 

[Hammerhead]

The company doesn't have rights, but the owners/property owners do.



Edit: I should read the whole thread before posting.

 

[Eddie]

The old Warner Gear factory (can't remember the company's last name before it shut down) in Muncie had two separate employee parking lots, one right next to the building, the other across the street. The one near the building was for American made vehicles, the one across the street for foreign made vehicles. The company made transmissions for American vehicles.

No problems, no lawsuits.

To me that is an interesting aspect of this discussion. I actually feel differently about situations where an employee has a short walk if they choose to park off site. Contrast this to industrial parks where the only employee parking is on the company property.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I was trying to use an example that was similar to the OP, and that was the closest that I could come to doing so.

I used it because a person might call it discrimination by the employer because they (the employee) chose to bring a particular object (auto) to work, and depending on the maker of the auto, the company makes life a bit more difficult for a subsection of the employees.