IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: New gun, booze laws make no sense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

Happy New Year!

It’s that time of year when cocktails flow, parties proliferate and celebratory fireworks wake the kids.

OK, so it’s just the fiscal new year and the recent festivities probably have more to do with the Fourth of July than with the shiny promise of the next 12 months, but state lawmakers nevertheless have been kind enough to provide some resolutions—in the form of laws that took effect July 1.

Thing is, we can’t blow these resolutions off after a couple of weeks (or days), no matter how much we want to. And there are a couple we really want to blow off.

That’s probably not a good choice of words when referring to the most egregious new law, a measure we have opposed since it was just a bad bill floating around the General Assembly: Businesses no longer can prohibit their employees from bringing firearms to work. Sure, gun owners must leave their weapons locked in their vehicles, but that’s still a bad idea.

Employers should be ableto set their own rules for what happens on company property—and establish whatever policies they think are necessary to ensure worker safety, including banning firearms.

Emotions can run high during a tough day at the office—especially in a tough economy as workers are asked to do more with less—and having guns as close as a quick walk to the parking lot is just asking for trouble.

Officials at steelmaker ArcelorMittal USA, in fact, already have told workers at its mills in northwestern Indiana to leave their guns at home despite the state’s OK. And as IBJ.com reported July 1, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce is talking to at least a dozen companies about mounting a legal challenge to the law. We wish them luck.

And our second entry from the “What Were They Thinking?” department: Alcoholic beverage retailers now are required to check a photo ID for anyone purchasing alcohol. Yep, anyone.

So if Granny wants to buy that bottle of wine for Sunday dinner, she’s going to have to dig out the driver’s license that probably hasn’t seen the light of day since her last trip to the BMV. Seriously, folks?

The law is intended to cut down on the sale of alcohol to minors, but we just don’t see how sweeping obviously of-age folks into the dragnet is going to help. Let’s get real: Clerks should be checking IDs of anyone who looks anywhere close to 21, and those of us who are lucky enough to be asked to prove our age decades after our first legal drink can take that as a compliment. But now it’s just going to be a pain.

Another new law is right on the money: Microbreweries now are allowed to sell their products for carryout on Sundays, something farm wineries have been able to do for years. We’ll raise a glass to that decision—if we can find our IDs.•

__________

To comment on this editorial, write to edit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Kent's done a good job of putting together some good guests, intelligence and irreverence without the inane chatter of the other two shows. JMV is unlistenable, mostly because he doesn't do his homework and depends on non-sports stuff to keep HIM interested. Query and Shultz is a bit better, but lack of prep in their show certainly is evident. Sterling obviously workes harder than the other shows. We shall see if there is any way for a third signal with very little successful recent history to make it. I always say you have to give a show two years to grow into what it will become...

  2. Lafayette Square, Washington Square should be turned into office parks with office buildings, conversion, no access to the public at all. They should not be shopping malls and should be under tight security and used for professional offices instead of havens for crime. Their only useage is to do this or tear them down and replace them with high rise office parks with secured parking lots so that the crime in the areas is not allowed in. These are prime properties, but must be reused for other uses, professional office conversions with no loitering and no shopping makes sense, otherwise they have become hangouts long ago for gangs, groups of people who have no intent of spending money, and are only there for trouble and possibly crime, shoplifting, etc. I worked summers at SuperX Drugs in Lafayette Square in the 1970s and even then the shrinkage from shoplifting was 10-15 percent. No sense having shopping malls in these areas, they earn no revenue, attract crime, and are a blight on the city. All malls that are not of use should be repurposed or torn down by the city, condemned. One possibility would be to repourpose them as inside college campuses or as community centers, but then again, if the community is high crime, why bother.

  3. Straight No Chaser

  4. Seems the biggest use of TIF is for pet projects that improve Quality Of Life, allegedly, but they ignore other QOL issues that are of a more important and urgent nature. Keep it transparent and try not to get in ready, fire, Aim! mode. You do realize that business the Mayor said might be interested is probably going to want TIF too?

  5. Gary, I'm in complete agreement. The private entity should be required to pay IPL, and, if City parking meters are involved, the parking meter company. I was just pointing out how the poorly-structured parking meter deal affected the car share deal.

ADVERTISEMENT