Steel Mill blasts "Bring Your Gun To Work" bill

[Blue Tile Spook]

My comment was more general then that, before that bill was signed into law, here in Indiana, it was not your right to have the firearm in your car. It has now been deemed that it is your right. The Constitution can not specifically address all situations but it does lay the groundwork for your protection, IMO, IANAL.

Phil

The legislation didn't GIVE us the right, it re-affirmed the right and gave legal protections when exercising that right. The .gov doesn't give rights, it gives privileges.

 

[littletommy]

This whole "go to your car, get a gun, and shoot up the place" is weak argument. Do you happen to remember that Univ. of Alabama shooting a few weeks ago? The faculty member went HOME, got a gun, and had her husband bring her back to campus. If someone intends to commit a crime, they will find a way. Rules or no rules, laws or no laws.

If your company has employees THAT upset, you have other issues to deal with.

I agree, people are gonna do what they are gonna do, but....I worked with a guy a few years ago, it was a Tuesday, he laughed and joked just like always, we walked out to the parking lot together, he said "see ya in the morning", and went home and stuck a .357 in his mouth. He gave no warning, no indication anything was wrong. So...you never REALLY know what a person is capable of doing.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I agree, people are gonna do what they are gonna do, but....I worked with a guy a few years ago, it was a Tuesday, he laughed and joked just like always, we walked out to the parking lot together, he said "see ya in the morning", and went home and stuck a .357 in his mouth. He gave no warning, no indication anything was wrong. So...you never REALLY know what a person is capable of doing.

LT, I agree with you. I do not like to see the anti-2A'ers that hinge their opinion on the "But what if..." scenarios or the "Somebody might..." mindset. My mother may fall and break her hip tomorrow but I can't force her to stay in bed all day because she might fall.

My B-I-L committed suicide in a similar situation and similar way to what you write here. He visited his brother's house, and his brother went to the bathroom. While he was gone, my B-I-L dug through the closet and stole a .380 that was stored there. He went back to his own home, confronted his ex-wife, said something to the effect of, "You don't have to worry about me anymore", put the gun to his temple and fired, killing himself in front of her. He had previously voluntarily gave up his few firearms to family members because he had two small children, but ended up stealing one from his brother.

 

[littletommy]

LT, I agree with you. I do not like to see the anti-2A'ers that hinge their opinion on the "But what if..." scenarios or the "Somebody might..." mindset. My mother may fall and break her hip tomorrow but I can't force her to stay in bed all day because she might fall.

My B-I-L committed suicide in a similar situation and similar way to what you write here. He visited his brother's house, and his brother went to the bathroom. While he was gone, my B-I-L dug through the closet and stole a .380 that was stored there. He went back to his own home, confronted his ex-wife, said something to the effect of, "You don't have to worry about me anymore", put the gun to his temple and fired, killing himself in front of her. He had previously voluntarily gave up his few firearms to family members because he had two small children, but ended up stealing one from his brother.

The situation I described really changed the way I treat people, from the guys I work with, to my wife and my kids, to complete strangers. One minute your here, next your gone, and theres nothing a person can do about it. As far as somebody shooting up the workplace, well, I can at least try to be prepared for that, and hopefully, god forbid, if it ever happens, I am, even at work. Thats a heart wrenching thing to happen to your family, sorry to hear that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

My comment was more general then that, before that bill was signed into law, here in Indiana, it was not your right to have the firearm in your car. It has now been deemed that it is your right. The Constitution can not specifically address all situations but it does lay the groundwork for your protection, IMO, IANAL.

Phil

Yes, you do have that right now, prior to this new law becoming effective. You have always had the right to have that firearm wherever you wanted to have it. Rights come as a virtue of being born, not as a result of gov't action.

Now... our fair state has seen fit to unConstitutionally (x2!) restrict the exercise of that right by demanding what amounts to protection money for the "privilege" of carrying off of our own property. And prohibiting carry in certain places. And prohibiting (as does the fedgov) certain types of arms. No matter. The right still exists.

What you do NOT have is the right to be on any personal property with the exception of your own. You have no right, no contractual interest in, no claim upon the property of your employer. Not his parking lot, not his building, not his office, not sitting at the desk he purchased.

No.
Right.
At.
All.

You are allowed on his property to perform a service.

The legislation didn't GIVE us the right, it re-affirmed the right and gave legal protections when exercising that right. The .gov doesn't give rights, it [STRIKE]gives[/STRIKE] controls privileges.

Fixed, in bold and underlined text.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Yup, sorry about that. My fingers were moving faster than my mind. Thanks, bill!

 

[rambone]

Are you saying that there must be no regulations that do not already exist? None? (Please say you agree with that--it will be such fun to show how utterly ridiculous it is. BTW, how do you feel about regulation on how much CO2 a business can release into the atmosphere?) Otherwise you need to discuss the individual merits of a particular piece of legislation.

LOL. I forgot about the epic thread about arguing for & against Government CO2 regulations. It is very funny in the context of what has been said in this thread. +1

 

[antsi]

Scientists once believed that acquired traits could be inherited (A major part of communist philosophy and the idea of creation of the "new Soviet man"). That one held sway for as long as it did (to the great detriment of the state of science within the old Soviet Union) thanks to being politically supported far beyond what the meager "evidence" would permit. (There's a lesson there.)

Lysenkoism. There was also the Nazi equivalent, Rassenhygiene. Under both regimes, there were legitimately trained scientists pushing this stuff who should have known better. The problem is that interpreting scientific data is a tricky business to begin with, and if there are huge political, institutional, and social pressures that favor one kind of outcome over another, it's going to skew people's thinking.

We have similar pressures in our health research because most of the funding comes through NIH. You can go to their web page and see what kinds of research they are funding this year. NIH Guide: All Active Funding Opportunities (RFAs & PAs)
Look at this list and see if you can detect any subtle political interests at work:
Development and Translation of Medical Technologies that Reduce Health Disparities (SBIR [R43/R44])
NCMHD Advances in Health Disparities Research on Social Determinants of Health (R01)
NHLBI Research Centers at Minority-Serving Institutions (P30)
Recovery Act Limited Competition: The NIH Directors ARRA Funded Pathfinder Award to Promote Diversity in the Scientific Workforce (DP4)
Pharmacokinetic Research in Pediatric HIV/TB Co-Infection (R01)
ARRA OS Recovery Act 2009 Limited Competition: Enhanced State Data for Analysis and Tracking of Comparative Effectiveness Impact: Improved Clinical Content and Race-Ethnicity Data (R01)
Comprehensive Partnerships to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (Limited Competition U54)
Chronic Co-Morbid Conditions in HIV+ U.S. Adults on Highly-Effective Anti-Retroviral Therapy (R01)
Seek, Test, and Treat: Addressing HIV in the Criminal Justice System (R01)
Seeding National Mentoring Networks to Enhance Diversity of the Mental Health Research Workforce (U24)
Environmental Health Sciences Core Center Grants (P30)

PM me if you need help with any of the political "code words."

That's what it's like in the health sciences. I imagine it is not much different in the climate sciences. Basically the government says "We'll pay big money for research that shows that industry is bad, cars are bad, and much more government regulation is needed." I know it's difficult, but if you think about it for, oh, say, a nanosecond, you might be able to discern how this process could, in theory, distort the scientific process.

 

[Phil502]

Yes, you do have that right now, prior to this new law becoming effective. You have always had the right to have that firearm wherever you wanted to have it. Rights come as a virtue of being born, not as a result of gov't action.

Now... our fair state has seen fit to unConstitutionally (x2!) restrict the exercise of that right by demanding what amounts to protection money for the "privilege" of carrying off of our own property. And prohibiting carry in certain places. And prohibiting (as does the fedgov) certain types of arms. No matter. The right still exists.

What you do NOT have is the right to be on any personal property with the exception of your own. You have no right, no contractual interest in, no claim upon the property of your employer. Not his parking lot, not his building, not his office, not sitting at the desk he purchased.

No.
Right.
At.
All.

You are allowed on his property to perform a service.



Fixed, in bold and underlined text.

Blessings,
Bill

Come on Bill, I know you had the right to have the firearm in your car before the Bill passed, you just could not do it without the threat of being fired for it.


Thats correct you have no right to be on the employers property, if he does not want you there.

Really.
No.
Kidding.

This just restricts his ability to make what is now considered an unfair restriction on your right to have a firearm locked in your own vehicle. Of course by restriction, I mean the threat of termination for exercising your right to have a firearm in your own car, yes...even while it's parked on his property.

 

[Bubba]

Please, discuss the topic like gentlemen or agree to meet at the bike racks after school and discuss it like boys. A standard page of mud-slinging doesn't advance the debate at all. We have multiple lines of arguments on rights-vs-rights and rights-vs-responsibility for you to choose from. I urge you to end this threadjack before the thread gets locked.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Come on Bill, I know you had the right to have the firearm in your car before the Bill passed, you just could not do it without the threat of being fired for it.


Thats correct you have no right to be on the employers property, if he does not want you there.

Really.
No.
Kidding.

This just restricts his ability to make what is now considered an unfair restriction on your right to have a firearm locked in your own vehicle. Of course by restriction, I mean the threat of termination for exercising your right to have a firearm in your own car, yes...even while it's parked on his property.

I'm glad you knew that, Phil. It's not what you said, but I'm glad you knew it. Others (some of whom have never registered for a membership here) read these boards, and it's important to me to ensure that they see the correct info, that they not get the idea anywhere on here that rights are a gift of government when they are actually, at least in re: our current and recent government administrations, a thorn in the side.

I look at this intersection of rights, responsibilities, and privileges, and while I love the debate on it, I don't love not having a clear, absolute answer to the conflict of rights. It frustrates me that the employers don't see for themselves the clear fact that armed good citizens are safer than unarmed good citizens and that trusting their employees would go a long way toward preventing what they apparently worry about so much. It frustrates me that a law like this (which overrides some peoples' rights) is perceived to be "necessary" to force the recognition of others' rights.

If you took my response as chiding you personally, I did not intend it to do that, merely to address the fact of rights being ours from birth; from God, not from government.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have moved the posts between dburkhead and bigus_D to the break room.

They may be found at this link.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/82221-petty_bickering_thread.html

That is all.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Cool! Thank you!

 

[longbow]

We have a sporting clays range near our home office....
this spring the pistol and rifle range will be done...

Nothing is better than walking into an office building with a laptop bag in one hand and a rifle case in the other

 

[LEO IN TRAINING]

I believe if the state believes your are compentant enough to carry in a public place with 100's of people around i believe you should be able to secure your weapon in your own property as a vehicle at work....when enraged employees go out and start shooting fellow employees its because he has something seriously wrong in the head, not because he has a firearm in his car....a little while back over in Portage IN a man recieved a bad review and came back wielding a shotgun, wasnt fired just a bad review...it was a review, maybe they should of been doing psycolgical reviews instead at that workplace....

 

[LEO IN TRAINING]

on another note, MITTEL STEEL might provide alot of jobs in NW IN, but they sure do let go just as many as they hired when things go bad....

 

[rambone]

Vaccines!?!

I've got another thing to add. What if your employer is trying to coerce you into getting vaccinated? Or any other kind of injection for that matter?

I know plenty on this board still line up and take their government medicine, but to some of us, being coerced to have things put in our bodies that we don't want is a very big deal. My own sister had a very serious reaction to vaccines that were pushed on her. How did that H1N1 thing work out for all of ya? I know of at least 2 people on this board who had family members become very ill from the vaccines themselves. I hope more people realize the risks of being vaccinated before the next "big scare."

This is just another example of something I don't think any employer should be able to obligate its employees to take. It could literally mean life or death, if you are one of the unfortunate percentage that have horrible reactions to vaccines.

The same logic should be applied to defend students in schools, private or public, who have to choose between sacrificing their career or getting unwanted shots.


Maybe this is where I stray from libertarianism, but damned if I believe anyone else can dictate what is in my body or in my vehicle. In my view, limited government still means defending people from such coercion. Your job is a legally recognized contract, and some legitimate legal ground rules are both pertinent and necessary, in my opinion.

 

[bigus_D]

Your job is a legally recognized contract...

Ummm.... not really.

I don't have a contract. I believe the VAST majority of workers don't have a contract. Furthermore, Indiana is an 'at will' employement state. You can be fired for any reason at any time (unless, of course you DO actually have a contract AND that contract contains some stipulations against termination).

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's not a written contract, bigus, but it is, nonetheless, a contract. I agree to provide my employer a service and follow their policies in exchange for a paycheck and certain agreed-upon benefits. If they stop providing those benefits or pay, or if their policies become too onerous for my tastes, either of us has the right to terminate that "contract".

Rambone, this is the issue. Jim Tomes recently wrote about term limits for politicians. We have them in place for every elected office in this country! No, they're not always statutory nor are they necessarily found as such in the text of any Constitution, but they exist. See, the term of office is defined, at which time that person may run again (or not) but at that time, the people have the privilege of citizenship (note: not "right") to vote them out of office. Similarly, you, the employee, have the right to tell that employer that his policies are unacceptable to you, and that either he may change them or you will leave.
What you do not have is a right to that job. For that reason, it is not government's place to protect your interest in that job, any more than there should be a law controlling (i.e. setting a minimum level of) your productivity at a job.

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bigus_D]

It's not a written contract, bigus, but it is, nonetheless, a contract. I agree to provide my employer a service and follow their policies in exchange for a paycheck and certain agreed-upon benefits. If they stop providing those benefits or pay, or if their policies become too onerous for my tastes, either of us has the right to terminate that "contract".

I can accept that... however, it should be noted that the "contract" could be terminated by either party at a moments notice without cause. This is quite different from my wife's written contract (she is a teacher), which stipulate specific termination conditions. As per that contract, she has agreed to pay to her employeer damages in the case that she terminates the contract outside of the outlined provisions. In return, she can't be fired unless she has commited a breach of the contract. This is VERY different that the majority (I'd guess) of employer/employee relationships.