1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Indiana HB1028 and dirty deals

Discussion in 'Legal' started by txgho1911, Feb 11, 2006.

  1. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    I understand this was a deal. More calls to Gartner's office to void the deal
    may work. Also with more cosponsors outside of this committee may result in
    offensive language to be recovered through an amendment on the Senate floor.
    If you care please get your own Senator involved.
    This bills protects the corp from liabilities."Provides that a person who does not adopt or enforce such a policy or rule is not liable for resulting damages."
    Senate 1-800-382-9467.
    Pressure is needed and support for this bill must be communicated to all the
    We can have this done but it will take every phone call and personal meeting you
    and I can make.
    Sen Gartner in the Indiana legislature is working for corporations and buissness before he works for the people. Given the right presure this can be bypassed.
    Please don't count on me and a few others. This will take everyone.
    02/01/2006 H Referred to the Senate
    02/01/2006 H First Senate Sponsor: Senator Nugent
    02/01/2006 H Second Senate Sponsor: Senator Steele
    02/06/2006 S First reading: referred to Committee on Rules
    and Legislative Procedure
    02/07/2006 S Senator Drozda added as cosponsor
    02/07/2006 S Senators Hume, Waterman, Waltz, R. Meeks, Bray
    and Hershman added as cosponsors
    02/09/2006 S Reassigned to the Committee on Corrections,
    Criminal, and Civil Matters

    Link to bill:
  2. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Nov 8, 2004
    Spring Hill, Florida
    What are you pissed about? If a corporation allows people to carry firearms on its property, is it bad to release them from liability resulting from this?
  3. antsi

    antsi Senior Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    Clarification, please. The original post is very confusing. What is the bill supposed to do? What got removed from the bill?
  4. carpettbaggerr

    carpettbaggerr Senior Member

    Nov 13, 2003


    What am I missing? You're mad that a company can't prevent an employee from leaving a firearm in his car while parked on company property? Or that a company is not held liable for damages which may result from an employee having a gun in their car? Or am I completely misreading the bill


    Elucidate please...............
  5. Luku

    Luku New Member

    Oct 27, 2004
    Evansville, IN
    Could someone tell me exactly what this bill does?

    Before you read this keep in mind I am not a lawyer and have no formal legal training. I could be incorrect about my interpertation below.

    From the link provided in the first post:

    Firearms and self-defense. Prohibits the adoption or enforcement of a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an individual from possessing a loaded or unloaded handgun or an unloaded rifle or shotgun that is locked in the individual's motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in or on the person's property.

    If I'm reading this right this prohibits the enforcement of a policy or a rule that states you can't have a gun that is locked in your motor vehicle on your own property. Something tells me I am not reading this right. Do we have any legal types that can help me out?:confused:
  6. Flyboy

    Flyboy Senior Member

    Apr 19, 2004
    Oklahoma City, OK
    If I'm reading it right, it looks like the law that's currently under challenge here in Oklahoma. It forbids employers from enacting rules that would forbid employees from keeping their firearms in their vehicles while parked on company property.

    This is a sticky issue.

    On one hand, it is company property; on the other, it's my vehicle. There is a serious and legitimate debate about whose property rights are stronger here. Bolstering the individual case are the facts that such a policy affects me outside of work (driving to and from work, and any errands or stops I make en route), restricts my off-duty life (I can't have my skeet gun in my truck to go shoot after work; I have to go home first and then go to the range, adding about an hour and a half to the trip; particularly problematic in winter, with early sunsets), and exposes me to danger in the same way as any other "unarmed victim zone" policy. Parking off-property is frequently not an option, either.

    On the other hand, it is the company's lot, and there's a legitimate argument in giving the owner the right to control his property, particularly where liability might be incurred. Indemnifying the owner against liability resulting from employees' storage of firearms mitigates that, but still doesn't address the fact that it is the company's property. How many of us would like it if the government passed a law telling us what we can and can't do with our own property (I know, I know, and we don't).

    I know what I want as an outcome--let's face it, I have a strong self-interest in one particular result--but I've struggled for quite some time about the competing interests, and which is a morally stronger case.
  7. IndyChris

    IndyChris New Member

    Dec 16, 2004
    Middle of BFI (Central Indiana)
    The main thing I see is the "duty to retreat" clause that they added. It will be the main source of any gutting IMO.... The current law is very vague, and this addition makes it very clear. Seems to make it more like FL's current law.

    Somedays, I wish I paid more attention in school! :banghead:
  8. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    the deal

    A senator in Indiana is railroading the bill. the bill does several things.
    Spells out in state law that no one has a duty to retreat is they are legaly where they are.
    Allows for car storage in company parking lots. This bills protects the corp from liabilities."Provides that a person who does not adopt or enforce such a policy or rule is not liable for resulting damages."
    The latter part of this bill caused the senator grief from a group of corp folks in his dist. Columbus In.
    It has been discussed that the "no duty to retreat" is more pre-emptive in nature than needed with current Indiana case law. So the car storage part of this bill is the biggest bennifit to Indiana.
    My problem is the Senator Gartner who is allowing corporations to direct his actions.

Share This Page