Updating my Schrodinger’s Gun II: Electric Boogaloo post, HB 1065 contains the “bring your guns to work” language prohibiting an employer from adopting a rule that prohibits an employee from bringing a gun onto the employers property if the gun is locked in the employee’s car. Jim Shella tells us the conference committee report was approved by the House on a 74 – 20 vote. Johnny Cash tells us why this is a bad idea:
Update Almost on cue:
Police say an Indiana Department of Workforce Development auditor who had just received a poor job review shot at co-workers at the agency’s office in Portage. . . . Sgt. Keith Hughes says the 60-year-old man became upset during his job review and told his supervisor he needed to go to his car. After he retrieved a shotgun, a manager locked the front door and ordered the other 15 employees to the rear of the office.
Doghouse Riley says
Y’know, I’d really like to see the General Assembly work on something a little more pressing, like When Life Begins, what God thinks of gays, or the disturbingly alluring aroma of Play-Doh, or, my personal favorite, requiring that your freaking bill have some relevance to something which happened somewhere in Indiana, near Indiana, or its overseas possessions, sometime within the living memory of someone who lives here. Since the last obviously isn’t in the cards, can I just ask when we stopped being a Hire at Will state? I mean, assuming I was an employer who really didn’t want his employees keeping guns on his property, couldn’t I just require all employees to leave their cars unlocked? Make ’em all park five miles away and bicycle in? Absent contractual protection you can be fired because the boss doesn’t like which side you part your hair on. Assuming this was a problem, not a legislative lap dance for the terminally Oedipal, it wouldn’t change things for ten minutes.
Kurt M. Weber says
I can’t believe this is receiving such wide support. It is a blatant violation of sacred natural private property rights.
Given the number of auto break-ins in the parking lot where I work (including prying open glove boxes), I’d say this is a pretty good way to get more guns into the hands of criminals.
Love the Johnny Cash – Cash was the first non-classical musical act I saw live.
Whose sacred natural property rights? The owner of the real property where the place of employment is located or the owner of the personal property of the guns and/or vehicles?
How does one decide which property rights trump other property rights? Is there a chart somewhere?
Doghouse is making an interesting point. Yes you can bring your guns to work. But it will be at your next job because you don’t work here anymore.
Doghouse Riley says
Whaddya mean, Doug? Your right to swing your fist stops short of my nose. My right to proselytize includes the Courthouse steps, but not my employer’s lunchroom. In any other instance, short of contractual obligation or racial discrimination, the state tells the employee his rights involve–in fact, consist of–finding somewhere else to work if he don’t like it. I don’t see how this even begins to address an actual issue.
Oh, I was just working off of the sacredness of property rights. Right to bodily integrity ought to come at the top of the hierarchy (but often doesn’t, such as when someone wants to use their real property to pollute).
It doesn’t solve an actual problem. It’s just a legislative genuflection to gun fetishists.
“It doesn’t solve an actual problem.”
Just repeating what I’ve seen elsewhere, it actually does solve a problem for the gun owners. They want to take their guns everywhere, but if there are some places they can’t take them, they have to keep running home all the time to drop off the guns or pick them up. This was mentioned in the guns in parks issue on some blog or other (along with I’m protecting those in parks without guns from the criminals in parks with guns).
I’d like to take my dogs everywhere. But sometimes, that’s just too bad.
“It’s just a legislative genuflection to gun fetishists.” At first I read that as “gunuflection.”
Gunuflection is probably a word that needs to get used – reflexive deferral by legislators to any and all demands of gun rights advocates.
The new Conservative litmus test for Supreme Court Justices will be their record and views on gun control.This is what the Politico reporter predicted on the Morning Joe show(MSNBC) yesterday.
“I’d like to take my dogs everywhere. But sometimes, that’s just too bad.”
This isn’t my point of view but I imagine the pro-gun person’s response to this is that we were not provided the right to dogs in the Constitution. ;)
For my part, the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment is what I think gets overlooked too much.
Kurt M. Weber says
“Whose sacred natural property rights? The owner of the real property where the place of employment is located or the owner of the personal property of the guns and/or vehicles?”
It’s a simple matter.
If it’s my vehicle, I’m entitled to keep whatever I want in it. But I’m not entitled to take my vehicle onto someone else’s property, since it’s, you know, his property. If I do, I’m obligated to follow his rules for his property, whatever they may be.
Kurt M. Weber says
“For my part, the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment is what I think gets overlooked too much.”
It’s not relevant. It’s just background. Look closely at the sentence structure. It’s that way for a reason.
Of course, we’d still have the right to own weapons even if the Second Amendment didn’t exist or the Constitution expressly denied it, since the Constitution is not the source of our rights anyway.
Kurt said, “But I’m not entitled to take my vehicle onto someone else’s property, since it’s, you know, his property. If I do, I’m obligated to follow his rules for his property, whatever they may be.”
So you agree that this is a bad bill?
“Refreshing though it is to see punctuation at the center of a national debate, there could scarcely be a worse place to search for the framers’ original intent than their use of commas. In the 18th century, punctuation marks were as common as medicinal leeches and just about as scientific. Commas and other marks evolved from a variety of symbols meant to denote pauses in speaking. For centuries, punctuation was as chaotic as individual speech patterns.
The situation was even worse in the law, where a long English tradition held that punctuation marks were not actually part of statutes (and, therefore, courts could not consider punctuation when interpreting them). Not surprisingly, lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible.
Another problem with trying to find meaning in the Second Amendment’s commas is that nobody is certain how many commas it is supposed to have. The version that ended up in the National Archives has three, but that may be a fluke. Legal historians note that some states ratified a two-comma version. At least one recent law journal article refers to a four-comma version.”
So real estate rights trump simply because real property is immobile?
Kurt M. Weber says
It’s not a matter of “X Trumps Y.” It’s a matter of bringing one piece of property onto/into another piece of property. I get to control what my property contains, since it’s my property.
Name Required says
Results 1 – 7 of about 5 for Gunuflection; & one was from this site. Quick coin the term! It’ll fly under the radar long enough before they figure it out. Then, they’ll probably coopt it and you could make a million.
So a shopping mall management could,or couldn’t, outlaw concealed weapons in the mall if concealed weapons were otherwise allowed in public ?It looks like a battle of private vs private might be our next chapter in our Wild West History as a nation with pickets on both sides. Looks bad for business to me.
I’m an old guy ,but I would picket against concealed weapons in the mall, if it came to that,and I’d bring some of my old hippie buddies with me.
Paul K. Ogden says
Actually, Kurt, the City of Indianapolis through Mayor Ballard takes the position that the 2nd Amendment does not block a city like Indy from banning you from owning a gun. He, in fact, says the Second Amendment is irrelevant in terms of laws passed by state and local units because it does not apply.
I know. I’ve had to deal with those jokers in City Legal on the issue. I know very well what the City’s (aka the Mayor’s) position is regarding the Second Amendment.
Well, as of this moment, the 2nd Amendment hasn’t been incorporated via the 14th Amendment to apply to state and local government. I’d put my money on that changing with the 7th Circuit Chicago case the Supreme Court just heard arguments on. But, I believe that as of today, the law of the land is that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the city.
Kurt M. Weber says
“Actually, Kurt, the City of Indianapolis through Mayor Ballard takes the position that the 2nd Amendment does not block a city like Indy from banning you from owning a gun.”
Then the City of Indianapolis is wrong.
And again, the Second Amendment is irrelevant anyway, since it is not the source of the right in question.
I am retired now. As an IT contractor I worked in Indiana as well as several other States and the Federal government. There wasn’t a day that went by I didn’t have a handgun in my vehicle. I did not advertise the fact and no one knew the difference. Regardless of any law I have the primal right to protect myself.
The police protect society as a whole not any one individual. I never demanded or expected them to watch over my safety. That responsibility lies solely with me.
“When seconds count police are minutes away”
Kurt – Are you saying that you don’t recognize the Constitution as the basis of the laws of our country? If not, what is? I think I know what you’re going to say, but I’d rather not make assumptions and hear it from you directly. ;)
Yeah, Doug, grab the rights to gunuflection. Just make sure to give me half the royalties, bragging rights, and other benefits that may accrue from your claim on the term. ;-)
lets say there is no constitution at all, what gives anyone the right to say how ,when, and or if a person chooses to defend themselves. just because you have a piece of paper that says you own the dirt . its my god given right to protect myself and my family regardless of where i may be standing. i bet the bodyguards of big government are armed wherever they go weather they are at a school, a courthouse ,or a nuclear facility. why cant i
I’m not really sure what a “god given right” might be. Those strike me as less enforceable than those rights protected by government force.
But, in any event, I’d argue that your right to protect yourself and your family doesn’t extend to putting me and my family in danger. So, if you start blasting away when you feel threatened, the corollary would be that I have a right to set you on fire or otherwise subject you to physical harm until I feel like I’m safe.
And then we’re back to a state of nature, with man in a war of all against all where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
so you and your family are in grave danger when policemen are nearby because they are armed. as far as your government force,what tools do they use to ensure your rights. wouldnt be much of a force if they were armed with pencils. you sir are the very defination of sheeple good thing you didnt live a little over 200 years ago when an armed population used their god given right.
Yes, good thing. I am very happy that Real Americans such as yourself were available 200 years ago. Certainly I would have just sat down and cried myself into a puddle when the country was being founded. Your compelling arguments and bold ideas about capitalization and punctuation have convinced me. Thank you.
To me, the idea of my rights extend to the point where I take another’s away seems to cover the issue Doug and Larry are talking about.
I should be able to carry a gun, because the act of carrying a gun harms no one.
I should be able to use lethal force against someone who is attempting to take my life of the life of another.
If I misuse a firearm and wound or kill someone who was not attempting to harm someone, even if I felt justified it my use, the law should hold me accountable for what I have done.
That lays the groundwork for only using a firearm when trained to do so properly, and using other non-lethal forms of self-defense whenever possible to avoid an accident that may carry with it serious penalties.
Banning guns to stop crime makes as much sense as banning CDs to stop music piracy.