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

Indiana Bill HB1065

Discussion in 'Activism' started by teekay, Mar 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. teekay

    teekay Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    Indiana
    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:

    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
     
  2. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,612
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
  3. teekay

    teekay Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    Indiana
    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
     
  4. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,612
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    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."
     
  5. Grey54956

    Grey54956 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    IN
    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.
     
  6. Chrispy

    Chrispy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    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:
     
  7. teekay

    teekay Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    Indiana
    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
     
  8. kludge

    kludge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Indiana
    I sent my e-mail to the Governor asking him to SIGN HB1065.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page