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. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT