Gun Advocates Want Right To Take Weapons To Work

[bloomington-lib]

Source: IndyChannel

INDIANAPOLIS -- Gun rights advocates said Wednesday they plan to push to allow guns near Indiana workplaces during the current legislative session.

The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, would not allow guns to be carried in actual workplaces, but would permit Hoosiers to have guns in locked vehicles in parking lots, 6News' Norman Cox reported.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce said its 5,000 members are dead set against the bill.

"They're saying, 'We want to be able to control and have a say over whether firearms are brought onto our property or not, and we don't want the Legislature telling us otherwise,'" said chamber President Kevin Brinegar.

Business owners also said they don't want a repeat of two incidents earlier this decade.

In 2001, a disgruntled worker at a Goshen wood products factory went home to get a gun, came back and started shooting. He killed himself and a coworker and shot six others.

A similar incident in South Bend two years later left four dead.

Read more: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/22158782/detail.html

---

I'm going to have to a gun now to protect myself from all these people with guns.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. But the streets would be safer

because disgruntled workers would only have to go to the parking lot to get their guns, instead of driving home and then back to work, angry and homicidal all the way.

And of course other workers would have guns locked in their cars, so they'd all dash out and get their weapons and defend themselves. That's simple, straightforward NRA logic. Emphasis on simple.

[thunder rising]

5. Indeed it makes perfect sense. At least the shoot out would be in the parking lot.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. This is the same old "blood in the streets" stuff we have heard before, and it hasn't happened.

There are states that already have that law, and nothing bad has happened there.

Notice that all the mass shooting have happened in gun-free zones.

[logjon]

54. just stop it

you're drawing on past events (or lack thereof) and common logic, and extending it to project on what has yet to (and by all logic, will continue to {not}) happen.

[spin]

132. Welcome to DU (n/t)

[rd_kent]

63. Yeah, don't exaggerate or anything.......

And you wonder why we cannot have a rational and civil conversation.

[OttavaKarhu]

130. Interesting fantasies you're projecting there.

Are you sure they're not your own about yourself and what would happen if YOU took a gun to work?

[doc03]

2. As much as I am for gun rights and CCW I don't want

anyone in my plant or at the Union Hall packing heat. I am surprised nobody has ever went nuts and killed a bunch of people where I work anyway. I don't think it would be a good idea for anyone to have a gun in our plant or in our Union Hall, heck there have been times I would have used one myself.

[katandmoon]

16. But you're OK with other people being put at risk at other work places, obviously.

[rd_kent]

64. Ugh! You are the worst.

I think that is what he was trying to say, using HIS workplace as an example of why he is against it. But YOU are TOO BUSY attacking people for no reason other than to be a jerk. Why dont you pose a serious question or state you position rationally and factually instead of posting inflammatory crap? Seriously?

[Tim01]

81. You are a funny little hysterical thing, nt

[slackmaster]

18. This isn't about anyone packing heat

It's about keeping weapons locked up in cars.

[doc03]

23. I f the employee's car is on their property I think the

property owner has the right to make the rules.

[slackmaster]

27. That's a valid and reasonable argument

The other side of it is the right to privacy that people have over the contents of their private, locked vehicles. I don't believe you sign all of that away when you park in an employer's lot.

Does an employer have the right to search your car to see if you have a bottle of liquor in the trunk? I don't believe they do.

[eqfan592]

33. Not to mention, from a moral perspective...

...what moral right does a company have of stripping you of your best means of defense when they themselves will do little to nothing to insure your personal safety?

[Callisto32]

107. I see how your line of thought is tempting but,

I think you need to consider that the issue involves private property and if property owners don't have control over what occurs on their property, it is not really their property. I know it seems dismissive, but really the solution is just if you want to carry a gun than go to places where the property owners allow you to carry.

[eqfan592]

115. I do see your point...

..but I also think that allowing people who do so legally to keep a firearm in their vehicles while at work is a solid compromise between letting people insure their personal protection as they see fit and letting a private property owner enforce whatever rules (no matter how nonsensical) they see fit (to a reasonable degree, of course).

[Callisto32]

137. I agree. (this is to both eqfan and spin)

In a better world this is a great compromise. In no way do I approve of business owners/managers disarming their employees. If there were a demonstration, we could probably stand happily next to one another. I tend to post things that go straight to the heart of my philosophy and that makes it look like I support or oppose something when in reality it is often more "I don't like it, but I have to accept it." This is one of those times. While I highly value the ability of people to defend themselves, I also highly value property rights and I am not willing to see laws (something I view as "the violence of the state") used to knock down one to raise up another as this is counterproductive to my ultimate goal: a liberal-note small "l" world governed primarily by the non-aggression principle.

[spin]

133. You have to consider that people have to drive to and from work ...

that's why I carried a firearm in my car.

I had no real need for a firearm at work as we had a guard force at the factory I worked at before I retired. I worked the late night shift from 11:30 PM to 8:00 AM.

The guard force was unarmed. The Sergeant of the guard used to joke with me that if the shit hit the fan, he might borrow my firearm. He knew I had a S&W .357 mag revolver in my car because he had sold it to me. I replied that if he needed a firearm, I came attached.

One of my co-workers had a road rage incident on the way to work. The fact that he had access to a firearm defused a bad situation without any shots being fired.

The fact that I parked my car in the employee parking lot in no way gave permission for the company to say what legal items I could have in the car. The car was MY property. The company hired me and I was in total compliance with state law as there were no illegal items in my vehicle.

The company did instate a policy that forbid firearms in the parking lot. I expressed my dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms. They held firm and told me that I could be fired if they found a weapon in my car. I told them they had no authority to search my car and I would refuse any attempt to do so. If they called the police, I would continue to refuse a search without a warrant. If they could convince the police to search my car for a legal item and fired me, I would be glad to use some of my retirement savings to sue.

It became a Mexican standoff. They decided to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. No cars were ever searched but the policy remained. The policy covered their ass. It wasn't really worth all the bad publicity to push it.

I retired about six months later. I had put in 37 years and I have to admit I was burned out. I was glad to leave and I suspect they were glad to see me go. I could be a real pain in the ass when I wanted to.

All's well that ends well.

[rd_kent]

65. And I think THAT is why you will find many of us pro-second amendment folks may agree with you.

Thanks for making a rational statement. Seriously.

[Euromutt]

77. Where it concerns business premises, I think there are limits

I read an interview with Nadine Strossen, the previous president of the ACLU, in which she argued that citizens shouldn't be expected to leave their civil liberties at the entrance to the workplace, and frankly, I agree.

We accord the government certain powers for the purpose of "establish<ing> justice, insur<ing> domestic tranquility, provid<ing> for the common defense, promot<ing> the general welfare," etc. and for these purposes, the government can use these powers to intrude on citizens' civil liberties. But because these powers are an evil--albeit a necessary one--and potentially prone to abuse, we have constitutional limits on how these powers can be used (in the form of due process, checks and balances, et al.), even though they exist to serve the common weal.

Private companies do not exist to serve the common weal, and should therefore not be accorded powers to override civil liberties that we (rightly) deny the government. I don't think employers should be able to randomly test employees for drug use, for example, or tell them what they can and cannot do on their own time. Or, indeed, tell them what they can or cannot keep in their vehicles.

[PavePusher]

87. Then the employer must also provide for my security...

on the way to and from work.

[Randall Flagg]

25. I would feel so much better knowing that a co-worker who might be having a bad day

is only a couple of hundred feet from his favorite firearm while I'm unarmed at my workstation.

This makes no sense at all.

[slackmaster]

32. The solution is obvious

You should be allowed to keep a weapon at your workstation if you really want to.

[Randall Flagg]

39. LOL... You can't be fucking serious.

That is nuts.

Imagine a plant employing 200+ people who are doing jobs they don't like and are being driven like oxen on a dusty trail.

Now imagine all the 200+ are armed.

How'd you like a job there? Weapon of choice (but you'd still be outgunned if you piss them all off).

[eqfan592]

42. Do people randomly beat each other or stab each other now at your job?

If not, then why would these people suddenly be turned into homicidal maniacs simply by the presence of a different implement on hand?

[Randall Flagg]

44. One shot rings out and I'm going for my gun.

Fear + the easily accessible trigger make room for bad mojo.

You have 200+ people shooting to defend themselves and be heroes how are you going to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Seems like a law written by Quinton Tarratino.

[eqfan592]

45. Doesn't seem to be a problem in Florida.

Sorry, but there just doesn't seem to be evidence out there to support your assertions.

[rd_kent]

66. and that only happens in a movie, not real life.

[PavePusher]

89. To bad you live your life by the dictates of ficticious movies... n/t

[SteveM]

95. Perhaps you watch too many movies; bad for real social policy (nt)

[slackmaster]

103. Your problem is that you haven't been properly trained in the defensive use of firearms

One shot rings out and I'm going for my gun.

Take a defensive handgun class some time. You won't regret it, and you obviously need it.

[Euromutt]

60. Your hypothetical situation reminds me of a quote...

"'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes." -- James Morrow

In a similar vein, it strikes that your argument--that employers should be able to prohibit employees in shitty working conditions from carrying firearms--is an argument against shitty working conditions, not an argument against employees carrying in the workplace.

[slackmaster]

102. I don't work at places where I am abused by the bosses

If I feel like I'm being driven like an ox on a dusty trail, I quit.

[WheelWalker]

106. An armed workplace is

a polite workplace.

[WheelWalker]

104. I agree.

I do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. After all since there is a rule against it, I'm sure he won't go home and get it and come back.

Oh wait that's what the guy did in the story. Too bad they didn't have a rule back then or the whole thing never would have happened.

[PavePusher]

88. And why do you think this doesn't happen now?

Do you ever pay attention to the news?

[SteveM]

94. I think you miss the point...

The question is not over the actual workplace/station, but the parking lot; specifically, the workers' automobiles. I don't think an employer has the right or authority to search a worker's car. Therefore, any measure banning firearms in autos will have little meaning or enforceability, and certainly would NOT prevent a psychotic or otherwise flipped-out worker from bringing a gun into the lot -- or for that matter, into the workplace.

Before this latest chapter in the culture wars was written, I used to show up at work, leaving in my trunk a shotgun or deer rifle so I could make my quick getaway for a hunt without going home. A number of other people (including my Dad years ago) would do the same thing. I doubt anyone ever knew, other than those with the guns (we don't like to broadcast that we have guns in the car).

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Having a gun in the trunk of your care is NOT "in our union hall".

Try talking about what is actually proposed, instead of something else.

[logjon]

55. well

that says more about you than the rest of us.

[spin]

114. However, the guns are not inside your workplace or Union Hall ...

they are in cars parked in the packing lot.

You may argue that it is easy for a person to walk to their car, get their gun and return to the workplace.

I could argue back that such a person could merely drive home to get his weapon and then return.

[OttavaKarhu]

131. If you lack self restraint when angry or upset...

...you should seek counseling, therapy, and perhaps medication.

You might also not want to be around sharp things or power equipment.

[msongs]

3. the constitution does NOT bar serial killers from owning guns...or 4 year olds either nt

[logjon]

58. you're right

but state law does. seems the serial killers (read: gangsters) get them anyway.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. It does NOT bar hate speech either. n/t

[SteveM]

96. No, state laws do that. Laws which are -- ready for this? -- constitutional (nt)

[rwheeler31]

4. no

[bemildred]

6. "Let your boss know you aren't going to be pushed around." nt

[Matariki]

7. The kind of day I'm having...

that would be a BAD idea.

[PavePusher]

90. Well, I'm glad you know what your limitations are.

Please don't project your anger managment issues on me, however.

[onehandle]

8. It is nice to have a gun nearby when you're really mad.

And there's a lot of mad in the American workplace these days.

Makes sense to me.

[rd_kent]

67. If someone was going to snap at work, being armed won't make you snap sooner!

What basis you make the claim that being legally armed would make a person snap and that they would not snap under the same conditions if they were not armed?

Makes no sense to me.

[hlthe2b]

9. from the folks who insist on carrying their guns in church, on airplanes

in schools.... Guns... our nation's new population control...:eyes:

Me? I'm going to apply for CCW-- for my dog... (Don't leave home without her/it)









:sarcasm:

[spin]

117. I can never figure out why some people oppose carrying in church ...

Do they believe God puts a protective bubble over the church or something?

Read the news, church shootings happen.

During the last few years, churches have increased the amount of security they have. According to CNN, it's not uncommon for a church to have armed guards.

“We realized that, as the largest Baptist church in Kentucky, we’d be a little naïve to think something would never happen to us. We’re catching up in an era of terrorism and a church is no different,” Randy Record told CNN. Record is a police officer and pastor at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville.

Churches have been the scene of violent attacks on several occasions in the last few years. In November, a minister was shot and killed outside of a church in Kentucky, and another man was injured.

In 2007, four people were killed and another five were wounded when a man attacked two churches in Colorado. An armed volunteer stopped the attack, and is widely credited with saving dozens, if not hundreds of lives.emphasis added
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/2009/March/Latest-Church-Shooting-Underscores-the-Need-for-Security-.html

Note: I did notice the sarcasm thingie. My reply is just a question I've often wondered about.

Also, I wonder if you should have a have a CCW permit to carry a Chihuahua in a purse or bag.

[depakid]

10. Free Gilbert Arenas!

:applause:

[rd_kent]

68. You're an NBA fan?

Didn't know it was popular down there.

[NashVegas]

11. Is There Any Law In Indiana, Now, That Says You Can't?

Or is this just Tea Party assholes drawing another line in the sand?

[slackmaster]

19. No, but currently employers have the right to prohibit weapons on their property

They have the right to prohibit pornography on the property too, but I don't believe anyone is likely to get into trouble for keeping a copy of Hustler under the seat of their pickup.

[NashVegas]

79. Okay Then

It's a line in the sand, written up to draw people into opposing camps.

[SteveM]

97. Do you mean the OP? Maybe so. Haven't seen much problem...

where workers already are allowed to leave guns in their cars while at work. Is there any data out indicating otherwise?

[NJCher]

12. taking a gun to work

In the farthest stretches of my imagination, I cannot see why I would want to take a gun to work.

Yes, I teach at a university in NJ and sure, sometimes I think I might have a gang member or two in my class. In 15 years of teaching, however, I cannot think of a time when I thought I'd need a gun.


Cher

[pipoman]

80. I hope you never need one,

but one thing is for sure..you will not need one until you need one..76 year old Professor Liviu Librescu at VT likely had never needed one until...

But actually, this isn't about needing the gun at work at all, it is about people who are legally licensed to carry to not be prohibited from keeping their legal carry gun locked in their car and it is about employers overstepping bounds of their employees personal privacy. Your car is considered in many states to be an extension of your home, your employer has no right to search your home, nor should they have a right to search your car. Now with 40 states allowing concealed carry, should your employer be allowed to effectively remove your rights on your way to and from the work place? What if an employee of a company who prohibits ccw holders from having their weapon in their car is car jacked and killed on their way to or from work? Is the employer liable for having effectively disarmed that person?

[PavePusher]

138. Your "imagination" seems about as pliable as a chunk of 2x4. n/t

[GodDamLiberal]

13. If this law passes

They should make safe rooms mandatory for workplaces.
The cost of which should be paid for by raising taxes on guns and ammo.

[eqfan592]

34. Interesting that you don't think they should do that now...

...given the horrible track record "gun free zones" have of keeping people safe, any company that is going to strip a person of their ability to effectively defend themselves should provide similar protection for their employees. Perhaps such safe rooms now could be paid with a major increase on taxes on Brady Campaign propaganda?

[rd_kent]

69. Why is that? On what basis or facts do you make that claim?

[safeinOhio]

14. When I worked a the plant at least

one or two cars were broken into every day.

[doc03]

24. Same here we have cars broken into on a

regular basis.

[slackmaster]

29. For me that would be a great reason not to avail myself of the option

If it did become available. It's not likely to where I live.

[AngryAmish]

15. Works great at the Post Office

[eqfan592]

35. The post office is a typical "gun free zone."

So if your sarcasm is to underscore how poorly the current "gun free zone" system works, then you hit the nail on the head.

[rd_kent]

70. What does? The gun free zone? I think there have been some shootings there, so its not working.

[PavePusher]

91. Nice stereotyping.

Don't be a bigot.

[katandmoon]

17. The NRA just wants as many people as possible to buy guns. Human life? Pffft.

There's never any shortage of brainwashed cannon fodder.

[rd_kent]

71. The anti-second amendment people just want to impose their fear on everyone. Choice? Pffft.

There's never any shortage of brainwashed cannon fodder.

[Crowman1979]

20. Do a lot of these NRA members have old west fantasies or something?

They must have watched way too many westerns, never even bothering to read a book about that time in history.

[DeSwiss]

21. They're all afraid. n/t

[eqfan592]

36. Really? Seems to me like you fear your co-workers far more than these folks do.

After all, you're in favor of keeping them disarmed and defenseless.

[DeSwiss]

46. You just proved my point. n/t

[eqfan592]

57. Try to not act clever in the future.

It only works when you're actually...you know...clever. :P

[rd_kent]

73. The only people that seem afraid are you guys.

[SteveM]

99. I slept 9 hours last night. Got up and ate a pile of trucker's hash...

had a pot of hot tea and enjoyed some warmth as an arctic front moved in. And when I leave? I will lock up my home-defense gun.

You don't know me. But you do know culture war.

[Randall Flagg]

26. I think they use Guns and Ammo instead of Hustler.

:)

[rd_kent]

72. Neat-O! You put up that strawman and knocked him down all by yourself.

Whats your next trick?

[PavePusher]

92. Well, you apparently never have... n/t

[SteveM]

98. Uh, the only ones who bring up "old west fantasies" here are gun-controllers ...

They are the same ones who bring up (1) penis length as it relates to gun ownership, (2) "more guns = more crime" in the face of evidence which does NOT indicate a relationship, (3) gun-rights advocacy = right-wing freepers (despite many millions of liberals who have guns, (4) Gun-rights advocacy = suppression of blacks and women -- even as they ignore the HISTORY of gun-control as a means of disarming blacks in the South, and even as they ignore the current estimate that 30% of gun-owners are women.

Do you watch a lot of westerns? Read much history?

www.georgiacarry.org Search locally for the Heller brief submitted in the SCOTUS decision. Great history on how Jim Crow hopped the North-bound out of the South -- and headed for Chicago, D.C., NYC, and SF.

[muntrv]

22. In related news, Gilbert Arenas wants to be traded to the Pacers.

:evilgrin:

[michreject]

119. Threads bestest post

:)

[sam sarrha]

28. this is lame... company rules would over ride any legislation. i just park off the property.

[slackmaster]

30. That is exactly what I have done on a few occasions

When I wanted to go to a shooting range on the way home from work, I have left firearms in my locked vehicle parked on a public street in front of or near the building where I worked at the time.

Perfectly legal, no way your employer can hassle you about it. The down side is theft exposure.

[Endangered Specie]

40. Put your handguns in a tampon/maxi pad box.

how many thieves you think are gonna steal those?

[pipoman]

82. No, no they do not.

If your company made a rule that all hourly employees must work 65 hours per week and no overtime will be paid they would be in violation of wage and hour laws and would be made to comply and repay anyone who didn't get their required time and a half. Companies are as bound by state laws as individuals are. This has passed in several of the 40+ ccw states. The law prohibits employers from prohibiting legally possessed guns from being stored in a person's car while at work. I have heard of no problms in any of the states which have such laws, including my own. Here, Boeing prohibited legally licensed ccw holders from keeping their gun in their car, guess what? Now legal ccw holders can and do keep their ccw gun locked in their car at work and there isn't anything Boeing can do about it.

[PavePusher]

93. How so?

Can Sears ignore State law?

[Canuckistanian]

31. Corporate America doesn't want peons to have guns at work

In their houses, fine. On the streets, hey, go for it. But on the factory floor? Forget it.

I predict this bill will die a violent, bloody death in the IN legislature.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. Who is talking about guns on the factory floor? Only you.

We are talking about guns locked in the car.

[rd_kent]

74. I see you failed to understand the proposed legislation.

Otherwise you would not make ignorant statements like that.

[pipoman]

83. Similar laws have passed

in several if not most ccw states already..it will pass easily in IN too.

[spin]

37. We passed a "take your guns to work" law in Florida ...

several years ago.

Over fierce opposition from Florida’s business leaders, a House council voted Wednesday to allow employees to carry concealed weapons to work — provided they kept them in their vehicles.

The move was a major victory for the National Rifle Association, which has pushed unsuccessfully even stronger guns-at-work legislation the past two years. But in this election year, supporters may be satisfied with the latest measure (CS/HB 503).

"This is closer to where we want to be, but not where we want to be," said Marion Hammer, NRA lobbyist. "This is an important people issue…the constitution begins `we the people,’ not `we the Chamber of Commerce’ or `we the Disney’ or `we the Publix.’ It’s about everyday people and their lives."

The organizations cited by Hammer were among those opposing the legislation, which they cast as a blow against their right control their private property and set rules for employees, which include banning the presence of firearms.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/03/take-your-gun-t.html

But there is a catch, to leave your firearm locked in your car on your employer's property you should have a concealed carry license.

TALLAHASSEE — Employers and business owners can no longer bar workers and shoppers from bringing guns onto their property and leaving the weapons locked inside their vehicles under a bill signed into law today by Gov. Charlie Crist.

The new law allows employees and visitors who have concealed weapons licenses to leave their weapons locked in or to vehicles. But concealed weapons license records are not available for public inspection so businesses would have no way of verifying if employees actually have the licenses.

The business community objected to the bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, saying property owners should be able to have control over whether people can bring guns to work.

The NRA and gun-rights advocates argued that business rights do not trump the right to bear arms.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/15/0415gunsatwork.html emphasis added

Employees drive to and from work. Sometimes a firearm can help to insure that they are able to practice legal self defense while on the journey. Before I retired I lived in a questionable area of Tampa and since I often worked the late night shift, I felt a firearm was a good tool to have with me. Fortunately, I never had to use one for self defense. The company knew that I had a firearm in the car when the posted a rule that said no firearms in the parking lot. The rule protected their ass against a lawsuit. It was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Prior to the new law, you didn't need a concealed carry permit to have a loaded firearm in your car in Florida. In fact, a high percentage of people in the factory where I worked did have firearms in their vehicle.

Laws are merely words on paper. If a person wants to go berserk and attack those in his work place, the fact that his employer doesn't allow firearms in his parking lot will have absolutely no effect.

Since the law passed, work place shootings haven't sky rocketed in Florida. Every state that considers passing the same "take your gun to work" laws will hear the same bullshit propaganda from the anti-gun groups. Obviously, the anti-gun groups feel that people are not intelligent enough to do some research on the internet.

[slackmaster]

38. How many INNOCENT CHILDREN have been SLAUGHTERED because of that law, spin?

:cry:

[eqfan592]

41. Thanks for another awesome post, spin! (nt)

[Endangered Specie]

43. The way I see it, if employers are going to ban CCW on their property, they should be required

to supply armed and trained private security and have metal detectors set up... basically like a courthouse (where you can't CCW and I'm fine with that as they have REAL security)

[GreenStormCloud]

52. And provide armed escort to and from the employee's home. N/T

[spin]

110. Plus they should provide protection for the employees as they travel to and from work...

Before I retired, I carried a weapon to work and left it in my locked car in the company parking lot. I didn't really anticipate any problems at work, far from it as we had a guard force.

But I had to drive to and from work. That's why the handgun was in the car. Occasionally on the way to or from work, I would stop to do some shopping. I would then carry the handgun concealed as required by my permit.

[X_Digger]

47. We would have had this in TX..

..if the damn legislative session hadn't got clogged up with other stupid crap.

[aikoaiko]

48. By GA law, faculty and staff can keep guns locked in cars on univ property which I do.

I've never heard of a problem at any of the 30+ institutions of one of those guns being used criminally.

Last year GA passed a law that extended that same privilege to all workers. If an employer lets employees park their cars on their property then they really don't have any say about the contents as long as they are legal.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. This is part of a national wave of thought that views your vehicle as an extension of your home.

They want to afford you privacy right in your vehicle similar to the ones you have at home. In Texas our Castle Doctrine treats the car as part of your home.

[logjon]

56. so close the blinds

nt

[benEzra]

85. This all started when Weyerhauser demanded the right to search all employees' cars

in an unsecured lot on the first day of hunting season, and fired all employees who either had a legally possessed firearm in the vehicle or refused consent for a search of their property.

The laws passed in reaction to that generally prohibit an employer from searching the vehicles of employees in an unsecured lot without some legitimate reason to believe there is wrongdoing going on, but a lot of the Authority Uber Alles types here seem to be OK with random searches of private property OUTSIDE the workplace as long as the justification is "ZOMG teh gunz" or "ZOMG terrah".

[SteveM]

100. A positive side-effect of this gun legislation: strenthening privacy...

Several years ago, LEOs were routinely setting up road-blocks and otherwise using spurious reasons to get inside someone's car, looking for dope, and the courts weakened the car-as-extension-of-home rights. Hopefully, this will lead to a reversal of the trend.

[Euromutt]

59. I'm seeing a teeny flaw in the CoC members' argument

Business owners also said they don't want a repeat of two incidents earlier this decade.

In 2001, a disgruntled worker at a Goshen wood products factory went home to get a gun, came back and started shooting. He killed himself and a coworker and shot six others.

A similar incident in South Bend two years later left four dead.

I don't think I'm being obtuse in pointing out that prohibiting employees from keeping firearms in their vehicles in the company parking lot isn't going to do a thing to prevent a recurrence of workplace shootings in which the shooter "went home to get a gun."
Let me re-emphasize that: "went home to get a gun." Not "went out to the parking lot," no, "went home."

And exactly what measures have these business owners implemented to make it more difficult for a "disgruntled worker" who has gone home to get a gun, to re-enter the premises and start shooting his fellow employees? Have they established protocols for alerting police in the event of a suspected imminent workplace shooting? Have they provided security at the entrances to detect and halt any employee carrying a firearm? Have they provided bullet-resistant hiding places where other employees can take refuge?

Let's be honest, the most likely answer is "no" on all counts. If so, one can only conclude that while the business owners may say "they don't want a repeat" of the incidents, they aren't actually interested in doing anything substantial to achieve this. So using this as an argument against allowing employees to keep firearms in their vehicles is plain bullshit.

[rd_kent]

75. Great catch! Lets see someone try and argue that.

[proteus_lives]

76. I hope they get it passed.

It will make things easier for us Hoosiers who already take their weapons to work.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. What a bunch of drivel.

First off, the incidents the 'opposition' cites have nothing to do with firearms located in vehicles, parked at work. In both incidents, the murderer went all the way home to get a firearm.

And on the other side, the 2nd Amendment gives you no right whatsoever to keep and bear arms on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. It is no defense if the property owner does not want firearms there. Hell, I reserve the right to forbid certain people from entering my home armed, even though there are some individuals I do trust to do so.

[pipoman]

84. I think the question is,

not about prohibiting guns on their property, as there is no movement to require employers to allow ccw holders to carry on their person while at work. This is about privacy, and whether your rights to and from work can or should be curtailed by your employer, or if your vehicle should be an extension of your home. Should your employer be allowed to dictate what reading or music you have in your car when you park on their property? I don't think so.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. They can forbid anything they want on their own property.

They can throw out something like Purple Shelby Mustangs, GET OUT. It doesn't matter. As long as the parking lot is private property, and not public property, they can say what goes. You can ignore their demand, but you could be guilty of trespassing, or terminated if the employer finds out.

[X_Digger]

109. Not _entirely_ true..

There are public accommodations that have to be made, and working conditions that have to be met (assuming > x number of employees). Generally I'd agree though. Private properties have a wide (though not unlimited) latitude.

[pipoman]

127. I agree if we are talking about your personal private property

however employers and businesses in general have different rules. For instance discrimination...I can remove someone from my personal property because of religious or skin color..not so with employers. Another example might be smoking in restaurants and bars...I should be allowed to, as a restaurant owner, decide if I want to allow smoking or not, the state says I cannot. In this state (and several others), the state has made it a violation of employment law to disallow people who have ccw permits from keeping their lawfully possessed firearm in their vehicle while at work and parked on company property. As I said, in my state it was originally Boeing, our state's largest employer, who made a policy prohibiting firearms in vehicles. They opposed this law. The law passed. They now allow people to keep their ccw guns in their cars on company property. In getting a business license or an employer ID number, you agree to abide by employment law in your state.

[spin]

112. Do you tell your visitors that they can't have a legal weapon ...

in their vehicle when they visit you and park their car on your driveway?

Would you tell them that they can't have a Bible in their car?

Your house is your house, and like the owner of a place of employment, you can certainly forbid firearms or Bibles in your home - just as a business owner can set standards for possession of firearms inside his business.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. I could, and can think of a couple people I will.

I do not trust them with firearms, because they are reckless, and will not allow them on my property while armed, if for no other reason than liability concerns. I will not allow them to even park in my driveway, with a firearm, and it is my legal right to make such a demand.

You may be on my property if you meet conditions I set. If I don't want a bible on my property, I can indeed make that demand. I do it every time the mormons come a-knocking. If they overstay their invitation to leave, I will have them cited for trespassing.

[spin]

126. Interesting and a fair reply ...

If you were an employer, obviously you wouldn't hire the people you are talking about. If you did hire an employee and found him to be reckless, you would probably fire him.

Would you deny your other more trusted employees the right to carry a firearm to your workplace and leave it locked in their car while inside your business? Remember, they have to drive to and from your workplace. How would you feel if they were attacked during the trip and were defenseless because of your rules?

I supervised a late night shift before I retired. One of my employees irritated another driver on the way to work. When they stopped at a traffic light, the other driver got out of his car and approached my co-worker with a tire iron in his hand. My coworker was stuck on the inside lane with cars in front of him and beside him and a deep drainage ditch on his passenger's side.

When the other quite possibly drunk driver came up to his window, my coworker grabbed his 9mm pistol and placed it his his hand on the steering wheel. The angry individual noticed it and returned to his vehicle.

Had my co-worker not had a firearm he might have been severely injured. Fortunately, all ended well with no shots fired and no one hurt.

But if the company had a policy that said an employee couldn't have a firearm in a vehicle parked in the company parking lot, he would have been in a real bad situation. He was in his fifty's, overweight and out of shape. He might well have had the shit beaten out of him at the least.

My co-worker was a good citizen with a government security clearance and a concealed weapons permit. He was an extremely productive worker. His loss due to injury would have negatively impacted the production schedule.

So imagine that it's your company. If your policy had stopped him from being armed and he suffered injuries from an attack by an individual suffering road rage, how would you feel.

[Euromutt]

136. I'm hesitant to equate business premises to a private dwelling

It depends to some extent on the specific nature of the premises, and indeed the company; a "mom 'n' pop" operation that's housed in the same building as the owners' private dwelling is arguably a different story from a corporation that has dedicated business premises. Your home is... well, your home; it's your private space, where you can lounge around in your jammies, drink beer, pick your nose with impunity, boink your spouse, what have you. It's not a place where up to several hundred people come in five or more days a week to spend eight hours working.

In the case of businesses that are large enough to have an employee parking lot, we're probably talking corporations, which means there isn't even a natural person who owns the premises; the owner is strictly speaking a legal person only, to wit the corporation. In those situations, the employees are arguably more closely connected with the physical property that is the workplace than the actual owners of the company (i.e. the shareholders) are.

[AlinPA]

86. Looks like this post led to a lot of hyperbowl. nt

[SteveM]

101. So the workers sent on strike? Spare me. (nt)

[PavePusher]

139. At least we haven't rolled into the gutter.

Lets pin down some conclusions here. I think we can frame some good debate.

[Callisto32]

105. This issue should be let up to the individual property owners.

I support the right of a property owner/renter/lessee to ban whatever they wish on that property. Seems like a basic part of the right to "use and enjoyment" to me.

[pipoman]

134. What if they wish to ban

a certain ethnicity? or sexual orientation? or reading material? or..is that OK?

[Javaman]

111. Remember that now famous video of some guy in his cubicle going ape shit on his keyboard & computer?

Now imagine that same guy being allowed to take a weapon to work.

That's enough for me.

I work as a facilities manager and over the past 5 years, I have had to contact security to bar potential ex employees from regaining access.

These few were indeed potential nuts. I'm talking screaming and yelling on the way out types.

Just imagine if this guy had a weapon oh his hip.

If this moronic bullshit goes through, expect a spike in work shootings. Either people going crazy or those "defending" themselves.

[eqfan592]

116. Of course, no such "spike" actually has occured...

...where this "moronic bullshit," as you say, has been allowed. But please, don't let the facts get in your way. ;)

[Javaman]

118. Obviously you don't work in an office.

I have seen plenty of wild shit. and frankly, if this moronic bullshit passes, we will indeed see a spike.

The difference now is, people have to go home and think it over before doing something. That's why, although there are still shootings, (like today for instance), there aren't that many per say (sad that I have to even qualify that statement), because a moment of reflection goes a long way.

However, if some jerk off gets pissed off, it takes nothing to pull the gun and shoot in the heat of the moment.

sorry, but I stand by what I said.

[eqfan592]

120. I do, in fact, work in an office.

One with over 100 people in it, all in their own cubical. I've also seen what can happen when one of them looses their cool. But there's a difference between smashing a keyboard and shooting somebody. There's a difference between becoming belligerent and making the move to use lethal force. I'm not of the belief that we are all homicidal maniacs waiting for a gun to break us out of our cages.

As I've already said, a similar law has been in effect in Florida for some time now, with no such spike in office shootings.

[Javaman]

124. Well, knock yourself out. go and help pass the law.

Me, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop it. I live in Texas and there already to many morons shooting people down here under the "castle law", that go grossly under reported.

I still think this is just more moronic bullshit by people who have nothing better to do in their lives.

[eqfan592]

125. Thank you for demonstrating your capabilities for rational thought. Take care. :) (nt)

[spin]

129. Explain to me ...

Why while the number of firearms in our country has increased dramatically and many states now have "shall issue" concealed carry permits and many people now carry firearms concealed or openly, the violent crime rate has decreased. In recent years many states have adopted the "castle doctrine law" or "castle doctrine laws coupled with ""Stand Your Ground" laws.



I'm not going to state that More firearms = less crime. I will however argue that the equation More firearms = more crime is false.

The fact that violent crime has decreased may well be due to better law enforcement or a number of other factors.

But efforts to decease the availability of firearms and ammunition to honest citizens may well reverse the trend. I would go so far as to say that if states were to overturn laws that permit open and concealed carry, the "castle doctrine laws" and "stand your ground laws", the violent crime rate would increase.

Smart criminals fear armed citizens far more than police. The smart criminal avoids confrontation with an armed homeowner. He may well avoid mugging some tempting target walking down the street because of the possibility that the victim might be armed. Criminals support draconian gun control as it makes their chosen occupation safer.

While it's true that in some instances some homeowner might misuse "castle doctrine", overall it serves as a deterrent to criminal activity. If I were a criminal, I would avoid confrontations with honest citizens in states like Texas and Florida. I might move to Chicago. It's windy and cold but a paradise for an armed criminal.

[Javaman]

135. Not going to explain anything.

I prefer an unarmed society as opposed to an armed one.

[PavePusher]

141. Then you prefer unarmed, defenseless victims...

and the safety of criminals.

Interesting.

[spin]

142. Obviously you picked the wrong country to live in ...

Some estimates say the United States has 300 million firearms and 80 million owners.

Move to Great Britain. I know people who have and who have no interest in returning. I would consider it, but I prefer living in a armed society as opposed to an unarmed one. Different strokes for different folks.

[PavePusher]

140. Got anything other than invective and hyperbole? We'll wait.... n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

121. "Defending" themselves.

Because shooting an ex-husband who has come to your office to kill you and/or your co-workers is exactly the same thing as hunting the fucker down. :eyes:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

113. Bad timing

N.t.

[WheelWalker]

122. Really? Seems like impeccable timing, actually. n/t

[Owl]

128. This is fine if you work at home.