Indiana Bill HB1065

[teekay]

I read today how the Indiana Chamber of Commerce is urging people to contact Gov. Mitch Daniels to veto HB1065 (Emergency Powers/Workplace Protection).

This bill passed easily through both the State Senate (41 to 9) and House (74 to 20).

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce posted this to their web site:

Guns in the workplace lead to tragic consequences. Despite that reality, the Indiana General Assembly has passed legislation that would make it legal for employees to bring guns to work (technically, the legislation prevents employers from having a policy that bans the weapons from workplace property). A veto by Gov. Daniels is now the last line of defense in stopping this misguided legislation. Let the governor know that property owners should have the right to say “NO” to firearms on their property AND have an obligation to provide a safe workplace for their employees!

Indiana Chamber of Commerce - "Grassroots" Website

This continued policing of 99% of the population for the sake of the foolish 1% is getting old very quickly. Because one person makes a bad decision, everyone else is required to make a change?

-TK

 

[hso]

What's your plan of action here? You've given us an FYI so how do you propose to oppose this?

Perhaps the thing to do is use their own electronic form to send a message supporting signing the bill - http://www.indianaprosperity.org/issue_alert.asp?g=indiana&issue=Firearms_Bill&parent=INDIANA

 

[teekay]

Good call, hso. Apologies for not posting an "action item" in my message.

The Chamber says the Governor is "last line of defense" -- that line is true for both sides. I will send a message to reinforce my "in favor" status of this bill.

Using that form is certainly one step (thank you for adding it to your reply).

Another would be to directly send a message to Gov. Daniels via his web form -- Click Here

For those who are interested in contacting the Chamber might also consider sending a message through this web form.

Cheers,

-TK

 

[hso]

Emails might want to point out that the Chamber is acting on bad information and that the "September 2009 study by University of Pennsylvania researchers" they referred to has been severely criticized in the scientific community for using a biased population from a higher crime area to prove their theory than using an unbiased population from across the state to more accurately get a cross section of gun owners.

Of course, short and sweet "I support HB1065 as the vast majority of the Senate and House did and encourage you to sign it in support of the citizens of the State of Indiana as they did."

 

[Grey54956]

Interesting.

It seems that every few weeks we see another workplace shooting. However, it doesn't seem that someone gets angry and retrieves a weapon from his car or truck. Usually, he gets fired and shows up a few months later looking for trouble.

Maybe having a few folks with guns in their cars might dissuade such behavior? Or at least give someone a chance to stop the crazies once they show up.

 

[Chrispy]

I'm against this bill and others like it. I don't agree with the Chamber of Commerce that allowing guns to be stored in cars necessarily creates an unsafe work environment (and of course allowing them doesn't automatically make a workplace safe, either). But I totally agree that "property owners should have the right to say 'NO' to firearms on their property."

I like how Jacob Sullum puts it when he points out that the 2nd Amendment is a constraint on government, not individuals:

The Second Amendment does not mean a private employer has to welcome guns in its parking lot, any more than the First Amendment means I have a right to give speeches in your living room.

 

[teekay]

It's difficult to debate some of these bills. This bill isn't just the ability to store your firearm in your car, it's also a provision that prevents law enforcement from confiscating your firearm during times of emergency.

I agree businesses should have a say -- but, I also don't see a compromise. People should be allowed to legally protect themselves, this includes their drive to/from work. Companies can allow/disallow guns in their buildings and grounds all they like. At the risk of being over-dramatic, the companies say they care about the safety of their employees, thus they don't want guns on their property. Does that same concern not extend beyond the parking lot as well?

An employee, that under normal legal conditions would have a gun for protection, gets injured during an illegal act on the way home/to work still effects the company's bottom line. The people storing guns in their cars are (hopefully) legal CCL holders. To use the ruse of "gun owners solve their issues by pulling the trigger in a crowded room" is ridiculous. Guns don't kill people...people kill people.

-TK

 

[kludge]

I sent my e-mail to the Governor asking him to SIGN HB1065.