[Patriots] Surprised? No

[antsi]

Gentlemen... Although the term may be applied loosely, given the above posts.... We can disagree without being disagreeable. Step away from the keyboards, go outside and take a few deep breaths, and when you come back, remember that there's another human being at the other end of the conversation, please.

Thanks very much.

Blessings,
Bill

Fair enough, and my apologies for getting personal.

I am getting very tired of the argument that my employer, whose physical plant is built with government grants, who got special tax deals for providing public services, who routinely gets special accommodation via road building and other infrastructure on the government dime, who gets 90+ % of their revenue from Medicare/aid, whose staff is paid for primarily by government physician education grants, is somehow "private property" when it comes to what I can have in my car.

Tired of hearing about my freedom to work elsewhere, when every single health care organization in the US has the exact same policy (except in states that have laws like HB 1065).

Tired of hearing that the effects of employer gun bans are limited strictly to their parking lot, when I have to drive through two of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Indy to get to work and then get out of my car in a parking lot where the same employer's official policy is that they have no responsibility whatsoever for my safety, and where people are routinely assaulted; most recently an employee assaulted by two thugs with a knife.

Tired about hearing about how important it is to protect the Precious Fragile Property Rights of huge mega-corporations that have no accountability to anyone any more. Who will happily enfoce policies that leave me at the mercy of armed gangs, yet will take money out of my paycheck as a taxpayer "bailout" if they run into fiscal trouble due to irresponsible speculation in the insurance business.

They gamble with my money on the table. They win, they keep the winnings. They lose, I cover their bets. Where are your sacred notions about private property and free enterprise in all that?

So please, tell me again about how this is all about "private property rights" and I should be sobbing and fretting and staying up nights worrying about how my employer's rights might get trampled by the wicked nasty employees who are going to start keeping fertilizer bombs in their cars if something isn't done to stop this draconian infringement on their rights.

 

[dburkhead]

The subject of this thread is not smoking.
The subject of this thread is not driving.
The subject of this thread is not killing.
The subject of this thread is not who can come up with the most ridiculous strawman.

The subject of this thread is that Pat Bauer and Rep. Bischoff are doing their best to make this bill which many gun owners seem to want to pass, not do so.

While I think that property rights should come before personal choice of where to work, I don't have good answers to David's questions about where to draw lines. I don't think an employer should have the right to tell an employee what s/he can or cannot have in his vehicle; Political signs? Bumper stickers, for that matter? A Bible on the seat? What kind of car an employee is allowed to drive to work? But if we accept 100% property rights those would all be within the employer's purview, and I don't think I can go there.

In a perfect world, someone who chooses to run his business such that his employees are forbidden to carry would find himself without employees or with only employees from the Brady Bunch, VPC, etc. In a perfect world, someone unable to find an employer in his field who allowed carry or even in-vehicle storage could start his own business and flourish primarily because he allowed his employees to exercise their rights.
We don't live in a perfect world. I can't say that either side is completely right or completely wrong. We stand at the intersection of two very important rights-two equally important rights. I don't know that there IS a right answer to this.

I do know that making this issue about people instead of issues is not conducive to anyone's coming to a decision.

Blessings,
Bill

My main point was that the issue was not so clear cut as many would portray. I happen to fall on a particular side of the line. Given the situation we have and the legal system we have and the precedent and case law we have something like HB1065 is probably the best balance of individuals' rights we can get at this time. Others can come to a different conclusion and that's okay.

As I've said here and in other threads there's always going to be a line and there are always going to be questions about where that line is drawn. The "straw men" from my side were actually more of reductio ad absurdem--illustrating that the "property rights" as ultimate "trump" argument fails by carrying it through to its final conclusion.

But exactly where that "line" is to be drawn is something about which reasonable individuals may disagree.

The problem is, the world is full of unreasonable individuals.

 

[elaw555]

The curious thing I want to ask ArmyMP, since he seems to be comparing this bill to smoking bans, is this.

1. Does your employer/smoking ban/etc. forbid you from possessing cigarettes and lighters on your person/in your car while at work or in said restaurant or bar? So you could concieveably smoke two on the way to work and two on the way home? You could even get in your car and drive to a public place for ten minutes to smoke during the workday if you were really jonesing for one? Smokers at my office have to actually step outside into the cold air to light up. Awwwww... What you propose leaves us defenseless on the way to and from work. Smoking bans do not prevent you from smoking in your car on the way to or from work. A smoking ban forbids smoking in public places, but respects your private property. See the difference?

2. You routinely ask people to "find another job" if they do not like. As a property owner, me excercising my right does not affect your business at all. I walk into stores in Metropolis weekly with my concealed firearm, and have yet to link a stores closing to my actions. Yet you espouse a possible wholesale life change to a citizen who dares challenge the absolute property rights of people who stand to lose absolutely nothing if we are allowed to carry TO...NOT IN...their business.

Maybe an actual example is appropriate. If I decided to heed your advice and find a new job where I can carry I would obviously lose my current $25 dollar an hour position here as an airline operations supervisor. There are no other airlines operating in Indiana so I would need to sell my house that I just bought 2 years ago and move to a new State, where the airline I MIGHT get hired at would have a similar policy on guns and would pay me half what I am making now due to union seniority. Oh, and my wife will have to get out of college if she wants to go with me and postpone her education! No go. Maybe I find a job at a local gun store! I can carry all day there. Then again I go from 25 per hour to less than 10 per hour. My wife will have to quit school to get a job to help pay the bills. My health insurance is gone and I have to buy seperate or go without. Hmmmmmm... Not a good deal.

Did you just get lost on your way to here. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Donate

 

[BloodEclipse]

where is your vehicle parked? Im not advocating stripping anyones rights...

you parked on his property

So he should have a right to enter the car and search it for items he doesn't like?
NOT!

 

[Bill of Rights]

The curious thing I want to ask ArmyMP, since he seems to be comparing this bill to smoking bans, is this.

1. Does your employer/smoking ban/etc. forbid you from possessing cigarettes and lighters on your person/in your car while at work or in said restaurant or bar? So you could concieveably smoke two on the way to work and two on the way home? You could even get in your car and drive to a public place for ten minutes to smoke during the workday if you were really jonesing for one? Smokers at my office have to actually step outside into the cold air to light up. Awwwww... What you propose leaves us defenseless on the way to and from work. Smoking bans do not prevent you from smoking in your car on the way to or from work. A smoking ban forbids smoking in public places, but respects your private property. See the difference?

2. You routinely ask people to "find another job" if they do not like. As a property owner, me excercising my right does not affect your business at all. I walk into stores in Metropolis weekly with my concealed firearm, and have yet to link a stores closing to my actions. Yet you espouse a possible wholesale life change to a citizen who dares challenge the absolute property rights of people who stand to lose absolutely nothing if we are allowed to carry TO...NOT IN...their business.

Maybe an actual example is appropriate. If I decided to heed your advice and find a new job where I can carry I would obviously lose my current $25 dollar an hour position here as an airline operations supervisor. There are no other airlines operating in Indiana so I would need to sell my house that I just bought 2 years ago and move to a new State, where the airline I MIGHT get hired at would have a similar policy on guns and would pay me half what I am making now due to union seniority. Oh, and my wife will have to get out of college if she wants to go with me and postpone her education! No go. Maybe I find a job at a local gun store! I can carry all day there. Then again I go from 25 per hour to less than 10 per hour. My wife will have to quit school to get a job to help pay the bills. My health insurance is gone and I have to buy seperate or go without. Hmmmmmm... Not a good deal.

Did you just get lost on your way to here. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Donate

Good point in your first part... Although I had an employer who DID try to forbid the possession of smoking materials in personal vehicles.

Your third point, however, I think what he's saying is that you have to make a choice.. Sure, you can carry on an employer's property if you judge that necessary, but with that, you accept the risk that the employer will react negatively if it's ever discovered. IN is an employment at will state... meaning they can fire you at any time for any reason or no reason. (race, creed, color, etc. excluded)

Also, no, a private employer NEVER has the right to search your vehicle without your consent. They can, however, fire you if you refuse to give that consent. Please note that I'm not saying I like or approve of this... merely that it IS the law... and they DO have those rights of property. Antsi, however, makes a good case in re: employers that are not wholly private.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyBeerman]

It's my land...I don't care about what, how many, what kind, color, capacity, sexual oreintatation, length, oreintation YOUR stuff is I don't want it on MY land! Now if you want to go into schools, city, county or state parking lots...I don't care what you bring to the table it is YOURS your tax dollars paid for it as far as I'm concerned. But what I built from nothing, I don't anyone telling me THEY have a RIGHT to blah, blah, on my property. I bet if I fired you for bringing a gun on MY property you'd sue me for harassment or some other BS thing.

The right of the land owner should never be in question. The next thing you know I'll have to let you come on to my yard to pee.

So I guess that using your argument, if you was a Pepsi drinker you could ban me, or fire me for having a Coke product in MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, and don'e give us the apple to apple oranges to oranges argument.

It's about having YOUR personal property retained inside of your vehicle, which is also your personal property. If it remains inside the vehicle secure in a safe manner you will never know it's there. How plain and simple is that?

That is unless you get someone who has no intention of respecting the law and decides do what he wants, then you'll be thanking that gun owner for having it and being able to possibly thwart any actions he may try and do.

Remember gun control only controls law abiding citizens, the people who cause harm have no respect of the law.

 

[Roadie]

Fair enough, and my apologies for getting personal.

I am getting very tired of the argument that my employer, whose physical plant is built with government grants, who got special tax deals for providing public services, who routinely gets special accommodation via road building and other infrastructure on the government dime, who gets 90+ % of their revenue from Medicare/aid, whose staff is paid for primarily by government physician education grants, is somehow "private property" when it comes to what I can have in my car.

Tired of hearing about my freedom to work elsewhere, when every single health care organization in the US has the exact same policy (except in states that have laws like HB 1065).

Tired of hearing that the effects of employer gun bans are limited strictly to their parking lot, when I have to drive through two of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Indy to get to work and then get out of my car in a parking lot where the same employer's official policy is that they have no responsibility whatsoever for my safety, and where people are routinely assaulted; most recently an employee assaulted by two thugs with a knife.

Tired about hearing about how important it is to protect the Precious Fragile Property Rights of huge mega-corporations that have no accountability to anyone any more. Who will happily enfoce policies that leave me at the mercy of armed gangs, yet will take money out of my paycheck as a taxpayer "bailout" if they run into fiscal trouble due to irresponsible speculation in the insurance business.

They gamble with my money on the table. They win, they keep the winnings. They lose, I cover their bets. Where are your sacred notions about private property and free enterprise in all that?

So please, tell me again about how this is all about "private property rights" and I should be sobbing and fretting and staying up nights worrying about how my employer's rights might get trampled by the wicked nasty employees who are going to start keeping fertilizer bombs in their cars if something isn't done to stop this draconian infringement on their rights.

Abso-frakkin-lutely!

I think there is a definite distinction between my home, and a business, in regards to private property.

Also, my car is still MY private property no matter where it is. A police officer MUST have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to violate my private property with a search. Why? Because it is private property! Does the 4th cease to apply depending on where my car is parked? Nope. So why do my rights supposedly end at my employer's driveway?

As someone else has asked, ArmyMP, would you be in favor of allowing an employer to forbid me to even have cigarettes in my car, if they ban smoking, and thus fire me for seeing cigs on my car seat?

Both guns and cigs can be legally possessed. Both can be banned by an employer. So what is the difference?

 

[Roadie]

It's my land...I don't care about what, how many, what kind, color, capacity, sexual oreintatation, length, oreintation YOUR stuff is I don't want it on MY land! Now if you want to go into schools, city, county or state parking lots...I don't care what you bring to the table it is YOURS your tax dollars paid for it as far as I'm concerned. But what I built from nothing, I don't anyone telling me THEY have a RIGHT to blah, blah, on my property. I bet if I fired you for bringing a gun on MY property you'd sue me for harassment or some other BS thing.

The right of the land owner should never be in question. The next thing you know I'll have to let you come on to my yard to pee.

Here you are comparing business property, with private property. You really think they are the same thing? Yes, you can prevent someone from using your yard as a urinal. You can prevent anyone you like from coming to your HOUSE or yard.

However, when it comes to a business, by your post it sounds to me like you would be for allowing employers to ban "negroes", gays, mexicans, women, brunettes, etc on your business property. Really?

Yes, you do have rights to YOUR business property as well, UNTIL they infringe on someone ELSE'S rights. That is the difference between private property, and a business. My rights do not end at your business property line. My car does not stop being MY car. The 4th Amendment still applies to my car, even if it sits in your business's parking lot.

 

[Roadie]

So in your perfect world i could park a truck full of ammonium nitrate, fuel oil and fireworks in your driveway? or have a sign proclaiming that I hate *insert racial term here*!!!! and you wouldnt mind?

So, you are seriously comparing a legally purchased handgun, owned by a citizen that is licensed to carry that handgun for their personal protection, as per the Indiana State Constitution:

Article 1, Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

..to a homemade BOMB??

As for the sign. Can you have that on your door, at your HOME? Heck yes! It's called the 1st Amendment. However, can you have that on your BUSINESS? No, that is called discrimination.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Looks like we need to put pressure on quickly!!!


Indiana lawmakers make plans to go home early | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

 

[BloodEclipse]

Looks like we need to put pressure on quickly!!!


Indiana lawmakers make plans to go home early | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Snakes and cowards.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Here you are comparing business property, with private property. You really think they are the same thing? Yes, you can prevent someone from using your yard as a urinal. You can prevent anyone you like from coming to your HOUSE or yard.

However, when it comes to a business, by your post it sounds to me like you would be for allowing employers to ban "negroes", gays, mexicans, women, brunettes, etc on your business property. Really?

Yes, you do have rights to YOUR business property as well, UNTIL they infringe on someone ELSE'S rights. That is the difference between private property, and a business. My rights do not end at your business property line. My car does not stop being MY car. The 4th Amendment still applies to my car, even if it sits in your business's parking lot.

...albeit with a lower standard of review for the 4A... There is a lesser expectation of privacy in a car.

And no, if I own, let's say a bar.. We'll call it "The House Floor", and I've earned the money and am buying the bar from the bank, making my payments; This Bill, in other words is ALWAYS on the House Floor, slowly growing my business by giving up any life I have outside the place, making sure that the food is cooked right by doing it myself, serving drinks and making sure the bartender is doing the job the way I expect him or her to do it, that place may be open to the public, but it is my private property. *I* own it. Not a big conglomerate, not a major consortium, the only gov't funds that have anything to do with it are what the bank loaned, not what's being used to pay it back/off... I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. I reserve the right to hire who I want, when I want.

I can understand but do not agree with denial of owner's rights because the owner is a big conglomerate The first reason is because now we have to ask the question: How big is too big? There are other reasons also, but that's my main one.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

Personally Bill I see this as common sense. My property, your property. What I have Secured in my property is none of your concern...

 

[cbop]

I never thought I would advocate such a wishy-washy approach as "don't ask, don't tell" but that may be what is needed here to placate both sides. You, as a business owner, need to have employees to make your business work and if you choose to hire me in that goal, it does not give you the right to arbitrarily search my vehicle at your whim and pleasure. I, on the other hand, do not have the right to jeopardize your business by having what could be construed as a threat in my vehicle. If I do not blatantly display or make known the weapon in my vehicle and have it secured therein, you cannot base your decision on the appropriateness. My property rights and your property rights can coexist as long as neither of us try to abridge the other. If I give you no reason to know I have a weapon in my vehicle, you cannot act upon mere suspicion and search my vehicle nor make the continuance of my employment subject to your suspicions.

 

[Tandem160]

Personally Bill I see this as common sense. My property, your property. What I have Secured in my property is none of your concern...

Until it is on MY property. Especially if I don't want whatever YOUR property is. If you said don't bring this thing onto my property I wouldn't bring it to yours, so why should you get bring something I don't want onto mine?

 

[jeremy]

Until it is on MY property. Especially if I don't want whatever YOUR property is. If you said don't bring this thing onto my property I wouldn't bring it to yours, so why should you get bring something I don't want onto mine?

That is easy...

1) Do you grant your employees permission to park their vehicles on your property?!

2) Because do you guarantee my safety to and from your place?!

 

[Yeah]

IN is an employment at will state... meaning they can fire you at any time for any reason or no reason. (race, creed, color, etc. excluded)

Maybe I'm wrong, because I haven't been anyone's employee for a while so I might be confused here, but this law seems pointless. If it passes:

Bob: "Hey did you know that law passes where you can keep guns in your car"
George: "Yeah I have like 10 guns in my trunk right now, its awesome!"

5 minutes later..

HR: "George, we no longer need your services, get your personal belongings and security will see you to your car."

Or maybe you go to work and shut up about it, but that isn't any different than today. In most of the strawmen scenarios posited in this thread, the employer can terminate the employee. Drink Pepsi? You're fired.

 

[ArmyMP]

Maybe I'm wrong, because I haven't been anyone's employee for a while so I might be confused here, but this law seems pointless. If it passes:

Bob: "Hey did you know that law passes where you can keep guns in your car"
George: "Yeah I have like 10 guns in my trunk right now, its awesome!"

5 minutes later..

HR: "George, we no longer need your services, get your personal belongings and security will see you to your car."

Or maybe you go to work and shut up about it, but that isn't any different than today. In most of the strawmen scenarios posited in this thread, the employer can terminate the employee. Drink Pepsi? You're fired.

+1 to that man

everyone on here advocating this bill is just wasting their time... thank god we live in an at will state... Doesnt matter if this bill says you can bring it to work, I can still fire you for it...

 

[BloodEclipse]

+1 to that man

everyone on here advocating this bill is just wasting their time... thank god we live in an at will state... Doesnt matter if this bill says you can bring it to work, I can still fire you for it...

Yeah and then I can sue you. Then you can come work for me.
Have you even read the bill?

 

[Roadie]

+1 to that man

everyone on here advocating this bill is just wasting their time... thank god we live in an at will state... Doesnt matter if this bill says you can bring it to work, I can still fire you for it...

Wrong.

IC 34-6-2-103(j)(2).
(b) If a person is found by a court, in an action brought under subsection (a), to have violated section 2 of this chapter, the court may do the following:
(1) Award:
(A) actual damages; and
(B) court costs and attorney's fees;
to the prevailing individual.

Seems to me, that means you can't fire your employee for carrying a gun in their vehicle, without repercussions, eh?

Not to mention, Employment at Will has ALWAYS had provisions that protected the rights of the employee. I will give you a first hand example:

I was fired from a job many years ago because of a serious illness that required surgery. My employer, thinking that "Employment at Will" meant that they could fire me for any reason. Wrong. The court found that:

A: Employees were still working there that had missed more work than I, therefore I was not treated equally.

B: I was not offered FMLA, even though I had been employed there 3 years.

So you see, you cannot arbitrarily fire someone without cause that is equally enforced.

If you are, indeed, a business owner, I suggest hiring a good attorney, you are going to need it some day.