New Indiana law bans businesses from asking workers whether they have guns in their vehicles

[jpak]

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9MM5DI00

Indiana employers won't be allowed to ask workers about guns and ammunition that they might have in their vehicles under a bill that Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed into law.

The new law will also prevent businesses from requiring employees with weapons to park in separate areas. Supporters say the provisions are needed because some businesses were making such requirements after a law took effect last year that barred employers from prohibiting worker from having weapons in their vehicles on company parking lots.

It passed both the House and Senate by wide margins, but some legislators said it was wrong to decide that individual gun rights trump employers' property rights.

<more>

how authoritarian

[oneshooter]

1. Good The antis lose again! n/t

[jpak]

6. Nope - business owners lost. The GOP/NRA took away their property rights

yup

[RSillsbee]

15. I agree, it is kind of a dumb law

It is no more difficult for me to say "None of your business." that it is for you to ask "Do you have a gun in your car?" .

[GreenStormCloud]

16. It is difficult to say, "None of your business" to your boss. N/T

[rl6214]

27. In some businesses that's reason enough to get you fired

I have worked at a couple of places where failure to participated in a company investigation would get me fired, no ifs, ands or buts.

[YllwFvr]

86. Yes, same here

Ive worked in a place where they can search your car, and if you say no they can terminate, or whatever other action they want.

[rl6214]

26. Ahhhh, there's the shtick

Didn't see it in the OP.

[TheWraith]

80. It's not their property. The employee's car is their own property.

Are you okay with your boss being able to demand to know whether you have alcohol in your car? Or Democratic lit? And them being able to fire you if you don't feel like giving them unlimited search rights for your vehicle?

On edit: I just saw below how you said if you were a business owner you'd force your employees to let you search their cars illegally, and fire them if they refused. So I guess I have my answer. How is that different from any other kind of illegal search and seizure? Suddenly a person no longer has rights because they're employed by someone else? You'd turn people into basically indentured servants to their employers, and yet it never occurs to you to realize that your authoritarian tendencies are very right-wing in nature.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. It supports the worker (little guy) against a corporation (big guy).

Sounds rather progressive to me to place limits on what the boss can do.

[rrneck]

4. +1000. nt

[jpak]

7. Nope - the GOP/NRA stomped the rights of small business owners to control their own property

yup

[rrneck]

8. Interesting

that you use small business owners as a human shield for your partisan pro corporate agenda.

[jpak]

10. what horseshit

:rofl:

yup

[rrneck]

11. Truth hurts doesn't it?

Too bad you're the only one that can't see it.

[jpak]

12. Nope - nonsensical horse shit is funny

yup

[rrneck]

14. That explains

Othe gales of laughter when you show up.

Do you support corporate intrusion into people's daily habits, even when they're not at work?

[lawodevolution]

42. you got put in your place

next on your agenda, restart slavery.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. speaking of horseshit

yup

[rl6214]

28. Small business owners? What horseshit!

How about just business owners.

Be honest in your posting. You don't care about small business owners.

[Euromutt]

56. How many small businesses have their own employee parking lots?

Damn few, I'll wager. And this law will, be definition, only affect businesses with their own exclusive employee parking lots.

[DonP]

19. How about bumper stickers on a private car?

Should the boss get to tell you what the bumper stickers on your car can be? What if he doesn't like the people you support politically or the groups you belong to or the church that you attend?

Or is the 1st amendment different to some people? He can't tell you what to put on your car but he can control what's inside the car?

Some allegedly progressive people just don't seem to get it and go blind, deaf and dumb (mostly dumb) if an issue involves firearms.

[kelly1mm]

65. What does the 1st amendment have to do with a private employer?

You do know that the 1st Amendment only applies to the government right?

[DonP]

82. So if your boss doesn't like your Obama/Biden sticker he can fire you?

After all, it's his property and if your bumper sticker offends him he can dump you right?

The 1st only applies to the government, not a private employer who doesn't have to respect your free speech rights.

[kelly1mm]

83. In most states, yes s/he could fire you based on political stickers. nt

[David West]

79. Yes, he should.

The 1st amendment limits the GOVERNMENT from limiting speech, not private entities. If anything, the government stopping property owners from controlling what is said/espoused/done on their property is itself a violation of the 1st amendment.

Doesn't the freedom of (dis)association mean anything to you?

[no limit]

30. How do you feel about being forced to allow me to carry a gun in to your house?

[PavePusher]

31. You can't be "forced" to do that.

This is about letting people store the gun in their car while at work.

[no limit]

35. Can I store a gun in a car parked on your property? Should you have a say in that?

[PavePusher]

38. What if I don't want you to have a pen in your car....

while it's on my property? What is the limit?

I'd prefer to keep the limit as narrow as possible, in that only items that are inherently, unstably dangerous (gas/liquid poisons and explosives, for instance) would be limited. Unless you have a licence and proper storage in your vehicle.

[no limit]

39. As the property owner should I get to decide what is unstably dangerous and what isn't?

Or do you think your gun rights trump property rights?

[PavePusher]

45. I think my right to self-protection trumps your angst...

about inanimate objects in my locked vehicle.

Unless you can offer some guarantee for my physical security on the way to and from work, and hold liability if/when your guarantee fails.

[no limit]

46. Do I have a right to tell you that you can't park on my property?

[PavePusher]

52. Sure, but again with the manufactured angst, eh?

[no limit]

53. So you agree, I have a right to tell you that you can't park on my property

so if I ask you if you have a gun in your car before you park on my property and you say yes then I have the right to tell you that you can't park there. Correct?

[Euromutt]

92. Why don't we look at that scenario from the other end?

Let's say you need to stop at a local (strip) mall, and you park your car in the parking lot in front of the (strip) mall. This parking lot is almost certainly the private property of the corporation that owns and operates the mall. Does the mere fact that you're parked on the corporation's property give the corporation's representative the right to search your vehicle to ensure it doesn't contain anything the corporation finds objectionable?

By your reasoning above, it does.

[rrneck]

47. Do your property rights

trump the car owners property rights?

[no limit]

48. So your argument is anyone can freely park on my property anytime they want and I cant say no?

Wow, what an astonishing argument.

[rrneck]

50. Actually

it was a question. Can You answer it?

Also, do you have reason to believe that any particular individual may harm you with any object in his car?

Do you have the right to determine what someone has in their car when it's not on your property?

Should the amount of property you own determine the extent of your rights?

[no limit]

51. You question involves the assumption that you can part anywhere you want when ever you want

and nobody has the right to tell you that you can't park there.

So the argument you are making is absolutely abusrd, and I think you understand it's absurd. You're trying to slime your way out of it.

Again, if I have a 2 car drive way do you have the right to park in my drive way whenever you want without my permission and I can't do anything about it?

This is an important question you need to answer, because it goes to the very bottom of your point.

[rrneck]

55. LOL

I just asked you to clarify your position. You don't have to answer. There's no need to get all tactical and shit.

:rofl:

[no limit]

60. I guess comprehension isn't your strong point.

Do you have the right to park in my driveway without my permission?

[rrneck]

64. Nor is framing yours.

At issue are 3 pieces of property. Property A contained within property B sitting atop property C.

Does the owner of property C have the right to tell the owner of property B what sort of property A to put inside property B?


Do you have the right to supersede the property rights of another person if their property is on your property?

If so where do your property rights end and the other property owners rights begin?

[no limit]

66. Why do you have such a hard time answering my question? It's a simply yes or no

I'll repeat my question one last time, if you don't answer it this time I'll just assume you don't have the brain cells required for you to answer it, deal?

Do you have a right to park in my driveway any time you want without my permission?

Your question is totally irrelevent. But if you want an answer I'll give it to you. Yes, if you are parked in my driveway I have a right to demand my own terms to allow you to use that driveway. Because you have no right to park your car on my driveway unless I give you permission to. Do you deny this?

[rrneck]

67. Am I required to park in your driveway? nt

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

70. Ah.

Libertarian free market civil rights. People have to work and they have to drive to work. So as a heroic producer of capital value you can use the power of the free hand of the marketplace to tell people what they can have in their cars from the moment they leave home. I guess they could make an extra trip to get it but hey, then it's their gas and their time. Nice bit of corporate risk dispersion there. It truly is good to be the king.

[rl6214]

57. Are you assuming that the person parking in your 2 car driveway

is there to visit you? Do you provide that 2 car driveway for people to use when they visit you? If they are not there to visit you then they have no right to park in your driveway. If they are there to visit you and you provide that driveway for anyone to use when they visit you than it should be available for anyone to use that is visiting you.

[no limit]

63. You said "should be available for anyone to use"

it is my decision who gets to use my driveway and who doesn't, correct? Even if I tell you to come visit and when you try to park on my property I tell you that you can't eventhough I might be a total jerk I still have the right to do this, correct?

If you answer anything other than correct then your answer is wrong. The right answer is yes, I have a right to do all these things.

The fact you have a weapon in your vehicle doesn't change any of this.

[S_B_Jackson]

73. Do you own MY vehicle?

If so, you might have an arguement. If not, then you have none.

[David West]

84. Do you own HIS land you are parked on?

If so, you might have an argument. If not, then you have none.

[S_B_Jackson]

85. He's opened his property voluntarily

for the purposes of parking my PRIVATE vehicle, on property which he owns. He may rescind that invitation as he wishes, but it doesn't mean that he is granted authority to search my vehicle or to expect an answer to an inquiry to a LEGAL item which may or may not be locked in MY personal property.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Employer is NOT being forced to allow guns in the business. You FAIL.

If you come to visit me I will not insult you by asking to search you car before you park in my driveway. I will conclude that whatever is in your locked car is your business, not mine.

[jpak]

33. If I was a business owner, I would line my employees up in the parking lot and make them open their

car trunks

If they didn't

I'd fire them

Let them take this stupid GOP/NRA law to court

They would dump it in a millisecond

yup

[rl6214]

34. Talk about athoritarian

How do you think the union bosses would react to something like that?

[jpak]

37. Exercising property rights is authoritarian - are no trespassing signs fascist now too?

koo koo

yup

[rl6214]

43. You didn't answer my question

How do you think the union bosses would react to all of the employees being lined up and forced to open their trunks or be fired?

[no limit]

54. I'm "athoritarian" because I don't want you parking your car in my drive way?

[rl6214]

58. Are you talking about your home driveway or

a driveway at a business?

[no limit]

61. Let's say my home/business

[S_B_Jackson]

75. ROTFLMAO!

Bubba, if you're running a business out of your house, you couldn't afford to hire me in the first place.

Epic FAIL.

[no limit]

76. Thank you for sharing your contempt for small business owners.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. That would increase your payroll costs.

For each requirement that you place upon employees you shrink your eligible labor pool, thereby raising your own cost of labor.

[DonP]

59. Don't forget to demand to see their "papers" and ...

... their birth certificates too.

You sound more and more like Joe Arapaio, Bull Connor or Jan Brewer with every post. Can't decide which your ideas are closer to?

[Atypical Liberal]

72. Wow. Just wow.

If I was a business owner, I would line my employees up in the parking lot and make them open their

car trunks

If they didn't

I'd fire them


Wow. Just wow. And you said it was authoritarian to allow people to keep firearms in their cars on company property!

Just so you know, one of the tenets of being "liberal" or "progressive" is putting the interests of people above those of corporations.

I suppose you support mandatory drug screening, too?

[S_B_Jackson]

74. And as soon as you completed that sentence, I would be on the phone to

the county District Attorney's office, and to a civil rights attorney. YOU have no authority, or right to make such a demand; and any disciplinary action you take when I protest your abuse of authority is civilly and criminally actionable.

Go ahead, make me rich.

[Marengo]

77. And after all of that, I would successfully sue you into penury. N/T

[David West]

81. If I ran a business...

That is in no way how I would conduct my affairs. But I respect your right to run your business that way, and I hope that the market will bite you in the ass for it. Good luck finding employees, and may God help you when you lose all pro-gun business.

[Euromutt]

94. Why don't you pay them in corporate scrip while you're at it?

Force them to shop at the company store, and make sure you bust up any attempts at unionizing.

Good grief, and you call yourself a progressive...

[no limit]

36. But you are arguing that as the property owner...

you have no right to control what is kept in vehicles parked on your property and what can't be. Correct?

[GreenStormCloud]

40. As long as the car is locked, that is correct. Your car is an extension of your home. N/T

[no limit]

44. So eventhough the car is parked on your property if you don't own the car...

anything can be stored in that car and it is not your responsibility?

You have a funny understanding of property rights which is completely flawed. But hey, that's your opinion. I think if you are parking on my property and you decide to have explosives in your car, or illegal drugs in your car, or thousands of rounds of dangerous ammunition I am going to tell you that you have no right to park on my property, and I have that right. Now again, you might not agree with that. But luckily your gun rights don't trump my property rights no matter how hard you wish that weren't so.

[petronius]

89. Wouldn't there already be laws against storing and transporting truly hazardous materials?

Banning guns in the car is more analogous to banning cigarettes, religious materials, pornography, or alcohol in the car - all things that are innocuous when locked up out of sight in the employee's private vehicle.

More generally, when it comes to property rights or anything else, as a liberal I'm going to side with the worker over the boss and the person over the corporation. And, as a matter of preference, with the small/local business over the large...

[Euromutt]

69. We're not talking about houses; we're talking about places of business

The two are markedly different. To draw a parallel, you can refuse to let a black person into your house, but if you operate a business which is open to the general public, you cannot refuse to serve a black person solely because he is black. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that, when you open your property to others, you thereby forfeit certain powers to dictate what can and cannot happen on your property. Most notably, you can't refuse entry and/or service to a customer on the basis of ethnicity.

Similarly, if you set up a parking lot for your employees to park their cars in, it my be credibly argued that you give up the power to dictate what they keep on or in their privately owned vehicles, insofar as that does not directly affect the functioning of your business. It's your business if an employee has stolen office supplies or the fruits of industrial espionage in his car, but that's it.

[RamboLiberal]

62. +1000 on that - none of the bosses damn business

[polmaven]

3. Wow!

What are they doing to their employees in Indiana that makes them so afraid someone may have a gun in the car? :wtf:

[rrneck]

5. Heh.

The same shit they're doing all over the country.

[spin]

9. Indiana is one of 13 states that allow workers to bring their guns to their employers parking lot ..

A 'Bring Your Gun to Work' Movement Builds
Partly as a result of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, gun rights activists are proposing laws that permit more workplace firearms

Gun Control March 31, 2011, 5:00PM EST

***snip***

Indiana is now one of 13 states that grant such rights to employees. The spread of "parking lot" or "bring your gun to work" laws stems in part from the landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. Surprisingly, the January shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) is also playing a role. Of 37 bills introduced in 16 state legislatures this year involving guns on company property, 33 came after the Tucson attack, says the Legal Community Against Violence, a public-interest law center in San Francisco. Gun rights activists, fearing a backlash, are pushing for broader rights, says Ladd Everitt, a spokesman with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a Washington advocacy group. "People see an incident like this and they think, 'They're going to take our guns. We better get every law we can,'" says Everitt.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223038869200.htm

Florida passed a similar law in 2008.

Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law
By Michael Peltier

TALLAHASSEE, Florida | Wed Apr 9, 2008 3:49pm EDT

Reuters) - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/09/us-usa-florida-guns-idUSN0948339420080409

Nobody ever mentions the fact that the employee has to drive to and from work, often through dangerous areas.

One of my co-workers on the graveyard shift once had a road range incident on the way to work. He managed to infuriate another driver in some manner and when both cars pulled up to a stop light, the angry individual got out of his car and approached my friend's car with a tire iron in his hand. My friend drew his 9mm pistol and placed it in his hand on his steering wheel. The attacker noticed the pistol and returned to his car without attempting to break the driver's window.

My co-worker said that had not a car been in front on him at the light, one beside him and a deep ditch to his right, he would have simply drove off.

So far we have had no problems with this law in Florida, but the law limits those who would take their guns to work to people with concealed carry permits. For many years before 2008 I carried a firearm to work as did many of my co-workers. I believed one of the organizations that oppose firearms published a paper that said that if an employer didn't have a no guns policy in his parking lot he could be held legally responsible if an employee shot up the workplace after retrieving a firearm from his car. Consequently many companies adopted a policy that forbid firearms in their parking lots.

I continued to bring a firearm with me to work even after the no-gun policy was adopted as did many other employees. I'm positive that management knew this fact, as I was known to be a gun enthusiast. The guard force was well aware of the fact as the Sargent of the guard sold me a stainless .357 revolver just to carry in my car. The force was unarmed and the Sargent said that if the shit ever hit the fan, he would borrow the firearm I had in my car.

Management simply decided to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell policy." They had a no guns in parking lots policy, but they never attempted to enforce it,

[ileus]

13. The people win again.........good news for America.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. What's in my car is private property...

Just like my house or apartment, so long as the contents of my car are lawful then it's nobody's business what is in my car.

[Pullo]

18. Winning!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. wow. a thread from jpak that I am proud to K&R, aside from the

odd nonsensical commentary at the bottom.

[jpak]

23. K&R GOP authoritarianism?

how authoritarian

:D

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. thing is, I know, you really do like guns

love 'em in fact. yes, you do. yup. yup. yup. you even like war and think it is an acceptable reason to have death and to carry guns.

on edit:

also you like telling people what you think they should do.

[rl6214]

29. Same here

First time I have ever K&R a jpak thread.

:toast:

:bounce:

[TPaine7]

22. Good, it's not their concern.

[rl6214]

25. So, because "It passed both the House and Senate by wide margins"

That makes it authoritarian?

I would say thats our Democratic process at it's best.

[Logical]

49. Jpak what else can employers ask you if you have in your vehicle?? n-t

[Atypical Liberal]

71. Good to see someone stand up to corporate interests.

I'm a big fan of personal property rights. But corporations are not people. Corporations that are open to the public should have to respect at least some rights of the public. For example, we don't tolerate businesses that have racist policies (colored restrooms, etc. etc.). Any business that operates open to the public ought to allow CCW permit holders to carry as well.

I also think that employees should be empowered to carry firearms onto company property - at least able to leave them in their cars.

I think this law is great.

[David West]

78. jpak and I AGREE?

This is rather authoritarian.

Of COURSE employers/property owners should be able to ask if someone has a gun in their vehicle. If you don't like that, you don't have to work for them or you can take your chance and lie (I'd find a different job). If we don't protect property rights, how can we expect to protect gun rights (which are, after all, merely a sub-category of property rights)? This bill isn't "pro-gun," it's anti property rights. By extension, that makes it an erosion of TRUE gun rights.

Why they even created this bill in the first place is what I'm wondering. I mean, how many employers in Indiana of all places actually ask people if they have a gun in their vehicle?

[Euromutt]

87. The ACLU would disagree with you

I quote Nadine Strossen, then president of the ACLU, in a 1994 magazine interview (http://reason.com/archives/1994/10/01/life-liberty-and-the-aclu/1):

Strossen: Our view is that there are certain fundamental individual rights which may not be intruded upon or violated. When our Constitution was written, the state was the only entity in society that had sufficient power to deprive individuals of fundamental rights. Now we have corporate concerns with far more power over people's lives than the state ever had in the l8th century. The market-liberal response is that if the individual doesn't like what their employer is doing--for example, saying that you cannot smoke at your home--then the individual goes off and gets another job. Our view is that's unrealistic.

And if people are not going to have fundamental freedoms at work, then they are not going to have them for all practical purposes, because that's where they're spending the vast majority of their time.

Italics mine.

This isn't a matter of supporting property rights as opposed to eroding them; it's a matter of weighing the property rights of the employees (namely, the right to keep certain items in their privately owned vehicles) against the purported right of the employing company to snoop into what employees are doing with their own property while on the company's property. Frankly, I think private organizations, such as corporations, have been allowed to get away with way too much for way too long. The argument that such organizations are restrained by the Bill of Rights only goes so far. As Strossen rightly notes, the government is subject to constitutional restraints because it has "sufficient power to deprive individuals of fundamental rights" and those restraints exist to prevent that power from being abused; if private organizations don't want to be subject to such restraints, it follows that they cannot legitimately exercise commensurate power.

I don't have a issue with "employers/property owners" being "able to ask if someone has a gun in their vehicle" provided we (and they) acknowledge that they have to accept "none of your business" as a legitimate answer, because while they may own the ground on which the vehicle is parked, they don't own the vehicle. And I take the view that once you open your property to others--such as customers and/or employees--you thereby accept certain limitations on what you can do on that property; people don't sign away their civil rights merely by being on it.

[rrneck]

88. Do your property rights

as an owner of real estate trump the property rights of the owner of a vehicle?

If so, why?

[Hoyt]

90. Give em pre-employment test -- show photo of tricked out gun, if they get excited, don't hire em.

They've got issues.

[spin]

91. Define excited. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

93. That's you out of a job, then

Assuming by "excited" you mean "displays a response to a stimulus," and your brand of affected revulsion thus constitutes a form of excitement.