Legal summaries of the new laws in the 2011 legislative session

[Paco Bedejo]

There is no law forbidding carry at college campuses.

This got me thinking...If there is a state-licensed daycare on a college campus or within a hospital...are we then prevented from carrying on those properties?...

 

[eldirector]

This got me thinking...If there is a state-licensed daycare on a college campus or within a hospital...are we then prevented from carrying on those properties?...

Correct. You may not carry on the same property as a (licensed) daycare.

In my opinion, that does not make an ENTIRE campus off limits. Just the location of the daycare (physical address - building and adjoining property).

 

[Bill of Rights]

Correct. You may not carry on the same property as a (licensed) daycare.

In my opinion, that does not make an ENTIRE campus off limits. Just the location of the daycare (physical address - building and adjoining property).

No offense, but while I agree with you that that's how it should be, I'd prefer something a lot stronger than your opinion on which to base a public statement. (In other words, good and appropriate equivocation. )

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Just4Fun]

And if it was not for the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns, the law will have prevented Towns and Cities from restricting the USE of guns. So I could have had a target range in my backyard if it was "reasonable" steps were taken to make it safe. But they got the word "use" removed from the code.

 

[GuyRelford]

Bill of Rights - are you aware of the new exclusions to the definition of "proper person" under Ind Code 35-47-1-7? As a new law in 2011 (taking effect July 1), I think they should be included here.

A proper person means a person who:

"(11) has not been involuntarily committed,other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;

(12) has not been the subject of a:​

(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of a proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or​

(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or​

(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:​

(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;​

(B) guilty but mentally ill; or​

(C) incompetent to stand trial."​

Ind. Code §35-47-1-7​

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill of Rights - are you aware of the new exclusions to the definition of "proper person" under Ind Code 35-47-1-7? As a new law in 2011 (taking effect July 1), I think they should be included here.

A proper person means a person who:

"(11) has not been involuntarily committed,other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;

(12) has not been the subject of a:​

(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of a proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or​

(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or​

(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:​

(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;​

(B) guilty but mentally ill; or​

(C) incompetent to stand trial."​

Ind. Code §35-47-1-7​

Sorry Guy, I just now saw this. I was not aware of it, but I thank you for posting it! How does this differ from the previous law? Were those reasons for classification as "not a proper person" not present before?

TIA!
Blessings,
Bill

 

[vinnivanhood]

Ok so I can have my gun(s) in my vehicle at work, BUT, can they in any way or under any circumstance require I allow them to inspect where and how in order to see if it is done in accordance with the law?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ok so I can have my gun(s) in my vehicle at work, BUT, can they in any way or under any circumstance require I allow them to inspect where and how in order to see if it is done in accordance with the law?

to !

They can look in the car through the windows and they can tug on the handles to ensure the car is locked, but that's no different than anyone else. Of course, if they enter the car or even open it, I'd think they'd be exposing themselves to any charge you wanted to (truthfully) make of any missing property.

The law only specifies that the ammo or firearm must be in the glovebox or trunk, or it must be stored out of plain sight, and that the vehicle must be locked. That said, there is nothing in the law that prevents them from firing you for any reason or no reason other than firearm-related (as specified under that law) It would not be difficult for an employer to say that they want to search your vehicle because of missing office supplies, and if you refuse to allow the search, you may seek employment elsewhere. You will play hell proving that the actual reason isn't that they want to search for guns.

No, they cannot force you to allow the search. You always have the choice to refuse, but they have the choice whether to continue employing you as well.

Hope this helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[vinnivanhood]

to !

They can look in the car through the windows and they can tug on the handles to ensure the car is locked, but that's no different than anyone else. Of course, if they enter the car or even open it, I'd think they'd be exposing themselves to any charge you wanted to (truthfully) make of any missing property.

The law only specifies that the ammo or firearm must be in the glovebox or trunk, or it must be stored out of plain sight, and that the vehicle must be locked. That said, there is nothing in the law that prevents them from firing you for any reason or no reason other than firearm-related (as specified under that law) It would not be difficult for an employer to say that they want to search your vehicle because of missing office supplies, and if you refuse to allow the search, you may seek employment elsewhere. You will play hell proving that the actual reason isn't that they want to search for guns.

No, they cannot force you to allow the search. You always have the choice to refuse, but they have the choice whether to continue employing you as well.

Hope this helps!

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks Bill!!!
I understand they can fire me at will, but since I was fired specifically for not complying with an inspection of where and how my guns were stored inside my vehicle I was curious if there was anything I could do about it other than looking for a new job? But it doesnt sound like it...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks Bill!!!
I understand they can fire me at will, but since I was fired specifically for not complying with an inspection of where and how my guns were stored inside my vehicle I was curious if there was anything I could do about it other than looking for a new job? But it doesnt sound like it...

I don't think there's much you can do, no, but one suggestion I'll make is to check the Break Room on here; there is a thread where you can post your skills and see if anyone is looking for someone to do a job for them. I'd give you the link, but that's easier to do on a real computer rather than my iPod.

Good luck!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[vinnivanhood]

I don't think there's much you can do, no, but one suggestion I'll make is to check the Break Room on here; there is a thread where you can post your skills and see if anyone is looking for someone to do a job for them. I'd give you the link, but that's easier to do on a real computer rather than my iPod.

Good luck!

Blessings,
Bill

I did just that, thanks for your input and help Bill! Blessings to you also!

 

[dirtdawg]

Employer parking lot rules question

First, I am an Ohio resident with an Ohio CHL. I work for a firm with HQ in [Northern IN] and another Indianapolis branch. I understand that an employer cannot enforce rules against having a firearm stored in an employee's vehicle on their lot. Can the law compel the employer to remove language from the policy manual that restricts employees from doing this?

The Rules of Conduct contained within the Policy Manual for the company I work for list various "items which are deemed sufficient cause for disciplinary action" such as, "possession of dangerous or unauthorized materials, such as... or firearms on [redacted] premises".

When Governor Mitch signed the parking lot bill into law, I had an offline discussion with some folks who should have been able to enact changes, the result of which was nothing. Basically I was told that the new law doesn't affect me. Well, I do occasionally visit the Indy office and I know that NOBODY is going to get me to open my vehicle for inspection without a warrant.

I am confident that I can weigh the potential consequences and make my own decision about whether or not to be armed on the way to and from work, but I don't like the fact that my employer thinks they can leave a rule on the books that threatens disciplinary action.

I'm not sure I would pursue civil action unless I was fired (or disciplined) for a breach. Does the law have any teeth to compel stubborn employers to make policy revisions?

 

[Bill of Rights]

First, I am an Ohio resident with an Ohio CHL. I work for a firm with HQ in [Northern IN] and another Indianapolis branch. I understand that an employer cannot enforce rules against having a firearm stored in an employee's vehicle on their lot. Can the law compel the employer to remove language from the policy manual that restricts employees from doing this?

The Rules of Conduct contained within the Policy Manual for the company I work for list various "items which are deemed sufficient cause for disciplinary action" such as, "possession of dangerous or unauthorized materials, such as... or firearms on [redacted] premises".

When Governor Mitch signed the parking lot bill into law, I had an offline discussion with some folks who should have been able to enact changes, the result of which was nothing. Basically I was told that the new law doesn't affect me. Well, I do occasionally visit the Indy office and I know that NOBODY is going to get me to open my vehicle for inspection without a warrant.

I am confident that I can weigh the potential consequences and make my own decision about whether or not to be armed on the way to and from work, but I don't like the fact that my employer thinks they can leave a rule on the books that threatens disciplinary action.

I'm not sure I would pursue civil action unless I was fired (or disciplined) for a breach. Does the law have any teeth to compel stubborn employers to make policy revisions?

As I recall, the law permits you to file a lawsuit to compel them to remove any language like that. The law does not compel them not to terminate you for some other reason, such as being one minute late, stealing office supplies (ever go home with a pen or a paper clip?), or an old favorite, "downsizing". They do not have to have a reason at all to terminate your employment, so weigh your options and make your decisions accordingly. We often say "concealed means concealed". I think in the situation you've described, I'd keep the fact that I'm armed to myself and if they ever chose to terminate me for that and were dumb enough to make that fact known, I would look upon it as a financial opportunity.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[El-Cigarro]

The legislature is not permitted to write laws in that manner, IIRC. that's why they had the language that was removed that talked about "any county with a first-class city", knowing fully well that there is only one such county in the state. To answer your question, the part of the new law that specified "a hospital containing a locked unit guarded 24/7 by law-enforcement officers" or however it was written is specific to Wishard, but the law can't be that specific.
I don't know if Howard Community hospital falls into the category of one of the provisions for county- and/or city-owned hospitals that are still allowed to have those rules. If the rules do exist in such a place, that's all they are is rules, not ordinances or laws. Nonetheless, I'd recommend following them or going elsewhere.
Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL, IDPOOTV, IDSIAHIELN, and TINLA.

Blessings,
Bill

Foregive me for asking a silly question, but are all hospitals now prohibited? Seems I seen something on the news last summer that they now forbid the carry of weapons in "Hospitals".

 

[Bill of Rights]

Foregive me for asking a silly question, but are all hospitals now prohibited? Seems I seen something on the news last summer that they now forbid the carry of weapons in "Hospitals".

No. The way last year's law was written, publicly owned hospitals are still allowed to prevent the carry of a firearm on their premises. They do not have to do so, but I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that all 13 or so in the state do.

Private property owners are not affected by that law, so they may still forbid carry on their premises also. To my knowledge, no law exists on this point. Some local ordinances might, but I'm unclear if those are allowed to be enforced.

I would never advise someone to break the law, and no, that is not sarcasm nor meant to be humorous. If you choose to carry with the thinking "concealed means concealed", they might not notice and if they do not know, you cannot be charged with anything. That doesn't mean you didn't violate whatever ordinance is in question, it only means you didn't get caught doing it. I will note that ordinance violations may result in a fine, but it's my understanding that they do not result in any jail time.

For more specific information, I recommend you contact a competent attorney in your area. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. My post is a layman's interpretation of the law in question. I hope this is helpful to you.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[pops66goat]

Thanks for all the good information! I have a few friends that don't carry in their cars because they don't have the LTC.

 

[Bill of Rights]

They still cannot carry a handgun in their cars without the LTCH. They can transport an unloaded, cased, inaccessible handgun. The law does use the word "carry" but goes on to specify the rest of that.

I don't want to see anyone get in any trouble over a misunderstanding of something I've posted.

The easiest and best solution under current law? Get the license.

Blessings,
Bill