Indiana HB1028 and dirty deals

[txgho1911]

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
Senate.
We can have this done but it will take every phone call and personal meeting you
and I can make.

Gerald,

I was told that Sen. Garton released HB 1028 because he made a deal to
have it gutted. He is feeling the heat. He made some phone calls today
(saturday) on his day off. He contacted an associate of mine regarding the
issue. He told Sen. Garton that he didn't want to see the bill gutted. We
need to keep the heat on Sen. Garton.

thanks,

Jeff

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:
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/...ssion=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB&docno=1028

 

[beerslurpy]

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?

 

[antsi]

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

 

[carpettbaggerr]

[

]House Bill 1028

2006 Regular Session

Latest Information


DIGEST OF HB1028 (Updated February 1, 2006 4:46 pm - DI 84)

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. Excepts possession of a firearm: (1) on school property or a school bus; (2) on certain child care and shelter facility property; (3) on penal facility property; (4) on oil refinery property; and (5) in violation of federal law. Provides that a person who does not adopt or enforce such a policy or rule is not liable for resulting damages. Authorizes a civil action for damages, costs, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief to remedy a violation. Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2006&request=getBill&docno=1028


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...............

 

[Luku]

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?

 

[Flyboy]

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.

 

[IndyChris]

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:

 

[txgho1911]

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.