Utility Workers Have No Right to Leave Weapons in Cars?

[Somemedic]

New Indiana Law Restricts Employers from Requiring Employees and Applicants to Disclose Gun Possession and Use | Publications | Littler Mendelson

Having a discussion with a friend who works for NipsCo and he mentions that he has no right to leave a weapon in his car at work. I said hogwash... so he sends the following link.

What say you INGO?

 

[MCgrease08]

He was the one that sent you that link? Clearly he hasn't read it.

Is his workplace one of the few that is controlled, such as a port where firearms are able to be prohibited?

Is he referring to a potential company policy that prohibits firearms from being used in company vehicles?

Without seeing his specific employee handbook or employer policies it's impossible to know the parameters of his specific situation.

But if he's making a blanket statement that it's illegal to keep a firearm in a locked vehicle (barring a few exemptions) then he's wrong.

 

[sig-guy]

Pretty sure Nipsco employees sign a form stating no weapons on Nipsco's grounds, period. But I could be wrong.

 

[Kutnupe14]

New Indiana Law Restricts Employers from Requiring Employees and Applicants to Disclose Gun Possession and Use | Publications | Littler Mendelson

Having a discussion with a friend who works for NipsCo and he mentions that he has no right to leave a weapon in his car at work. I said hogwash... so he sends the following link.

What say you INGO?

Preceding.

 

[Bill of Rights]

New Indiana Law Restricts Employers from Requiring Employees and Applicants to Disclose Gun Possession and Use | Publications | Littler Mendelson

Having a discussion with a friend who works for NipsCo and he mentions that he has no right to leave a weapon in his car at work. I said hogwash... so he sends the following link.

What say you INGO?

He was the one that sent you that link? Clearly he hasn't read it.

Is his workplace one of the few that is controlled, such as a port where firearms are able to be prohibited?

Is he referring to a potential company policy that prohibits firearms from being used in company vehicles?

Without seeing his specific employee handbook or employer policies it's impossible to know the parameters of his specific situation.

But if he's making a blanket statement that it's illegal to keep a firearm in a locked vehicle (barring a few exemptions) then he's wrong.

Pretty sure Nipsco employees sign a form stating no weapons on Nipsco's grounds, period. But I could be wrong.

The form signed is meaningless, in general, but not in this specific case.

To answer the first and second quotes above, the author of that article needs to learn to read. The law (IC 34-28-7) specifically allowed for schools and a few businesses to have policies forbidding guns in parking lots or elsewhere on their property. K-12 schools were removed this year (July, 2014). Make sure you thank Sen. Jim Tomes and Rep. Jim Lucas for that, BTW.

IC 34-28-7-2:
IC 34-28-7-2 Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b),
a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or (2) has the effect of prohibiting; an employee of the person, including
a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the
trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's
locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance,
a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an
employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm
or ammunition:

(1) on the property of:
​

(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home;
(E) an emergency shelter care group home; or
(F) a child care center; in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80,
465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78,
465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
​

(2) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-232);
(3) in violation of federal law;
(4) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
(5) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(6) at the employer's residence;
(7) on the property of a person that is:​

(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
​

(8) on property owned by:​

(A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power; or
(B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1;
​

....

Unfortunately for the OP's friend, NIPSCO falls into the exception carved out in (8), so he would be correct. NIPSCO is allowed to have and enforce that rule. That said, he still has the right to have it there, it's just that his employer is permitted under state law to infringe on that right and to discipline, including by termination, his exercise of it.

Of note, (6) changed this year as well. The article referenced is from 2011.

Hope this helps.

Usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

The form signed is meaningless, in general, but not in this specific case.

To answer the first and second quotes above, the author of that article needs to learn to read. The law (IC 34-28-7) specifically allowed for schools and a few businesses to have policies forbidding guns in parking lots or elsewhere on their property. K-12 schools were removed this year (July, 2014). Make sure you thank Sen. Jim Tomes and Rep. Jim Lucas for that, BTW.

IC 34-28-7-2:
IC 34-28-7-2 Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b),
a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or (2) has the effect of prohibiting; an employee of the person, including
a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the
trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's
locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance,
a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an
employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm
or ammunition:

(1) on the property of:
​

(A) a child caring institution;
(B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
(C) a private secure facility;
(D) a group home;
(E) an emergency shelter care group home; or
(F) a child care center; in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80,
465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78,
465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
​

(2) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-232);
(3) in violation of federal law;
(4) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
(5) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
(6) at the employer's residence;
(7) on the property of a person that is:​

(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
​

(8) on property owned by:​

(A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power; or
(B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1;
​

....

Unfortunately for the OP's friend, NIPSCO falls into the exception carved out in (8), so he would be correct. NIPSCO is allowed to have and enforce that rule. That said, he still has the right to have it there, it's just that his employer is permitted under state law to infringe on that right and to discipline, including by termination, his exercise of it.

Of note, (6) changed this year as well. The article referenced is from 2011.

Hope this helps.

Usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA

Blessings,
Bill

Pretty sure it's covered by (7) also.

 

[actaeon277]

Pretty sure it's covered by (7) also.

maybe not, it says "chemical"

 

[Somemedic]

"Unfortunately for the OP's friend, NIPSCO falls into the exception carved out in (8), so he would be correct. NIPSCO is allowed to have and enforce that rule. That said, he still has the right to have it there, it's just that his employer is permitted under state law to infringe on that right and to discipline, including by termination, his exercise of it."

BoR... according to the aforementioned law, termination would not be the only issue he would face but, and I'm assuming, loss of his license and sanctions imposed by the state in the form of incarceration.

Misdemeanor or felony?

 

[SouthernIndy]

That is the same way with Vectren, except they do not own the streets around the company ground.

 

[Bill of Rights]

"Unfortunately for the OP's friend, NIPSCO falls into the exception carved out in (8), so he would be correct. NIPSCO is allowed to have and enforce that rule. That said, he still has the right to have it there, it's just that his employer is permitted under state law to infringe on that right and to discipline, including by termination, his exercise of it."

BoR... according to the aforementioned law, termination would not be the only issue he would face but, and I'm assuming, loss of his license and sanctions imposed by the state in the form of incarceration.

Misdemeanor or felony?

As I'm reading it, all it says is that those employers are not prohibited from having a rule like that, not that there is a law to forbid it.

Take, for example, that you work from a city fire station. That property most likely has no exemption and thus, you may keep a pistol (or other, but I'll stick with just pistol for this example) in your locked vehicle, behind the station, even if the city doesn't like the idea. They can tell you not to do it, and you can both tell them to pound sand and also sue for injunctive relief and (treble) damages.
Likewise, if someone worked in an office building, his private employer is similarly prevented by statute from forbidding him from having a firearm in his vehicle; indeed, they can't even ask him if he owns guns. (nor can the city, i.e. governmental, employer so ask, and neither is allowed to discipline you in any way if they find out you do own them. Do beware, though, as IN is employment at will, and they don't have to give you a reason, nor does the reason given have to be the only one they have. If their reason is not sufficient, however, they may end up paying unemployment on you.)

I don't know if there's an applicable federal law re: possession of a firearm there. Much like the much-debated post office, there's no state law, and yet the federal law may or may not apply there...can you tell I don't want to get into THAT debate?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Lectric102002]

Pretty sure it's covered by (7) also.

I don't think NIPSCO has any nukes, do they ?

 

[actaeon277]

I don't think NIPSCO has any nukes, do they ?

(7) on the property of a person that is:

(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;



​

I could be wrong, because it says "Chemical Facility". But I can't find the list, to find out, cause I'm pretty sure there are more than "Chemical Facilities" on the list.
As I stated in my next post, I could be wrong though.
​