FEIGENBAUM: Debate rages over the right to bear arms

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As we approach the procedural halfway point of the legislative session over the next week, with some key pieces of legislation already approved in their respective chambers of origin, the kinds of measures we told you about recently—those with sound and fury behind them—are receiving consideration.

One such bill, the statewide ban on smoking in all public places except casinos, was shelved by its author, Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, after it became evident it was going to be weighed down with assorted amendments that would either kill it or effectively neuter the ban (think back to the last pair of attempts to move a smoking prohibition through the Indianapolis City-County Council and you’ll see why Brown is holding back, at least for now).

HB 1065, authored by Rep. Bob Bischoff, D-Greendale, would bar business owners from prohibiting an employee from keeping a legally owned firearm in his or her locked vehicle at work.

Despite serious concerns expressed by the Indiana Manufacturers Association and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, the bill passed the House Committee on Natural Resources on a 10-1 vote.

Why was the business-related bill heard in that panel? Because Bischoff chaired the panel, and sought some political credit in what will likely be a tough re-election race in a politically marginal and conservative district.

While several amendments were heard on the House floor, only two were adopted. The amendments added specific locations, such as child care facilities and penal facilities, to venues exempt from the legislation.

Business groups sought to convince legislators that the Second Amendment rights at stake here applied only to restrictions imposed by government units, and not by private employers. They emphasized the rights of employers to control acts on their private property over the rights of individuals to carry arms onto that property, but the bill passed 76-21.

Expect the bill to be heard in the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters, where it is likely to face a receptive group of senators. A similar bill, SB 25, passed the Senate 41-9.

While there will be strong lobbying against this bill by business interests worried about workplace violence and liability, the National Rifle Association has sought to assuage such fears, and the bill should easily pass the Senate, given concerns about limiting Second Amendment rights.

Betting money is on the gun bill’s ultimately being signed by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Another business issue is of big interest to consumers of alcoholic beverages—even though they might not understand (or care about) the mechanics.

Even after a legislative interim study committee recommended no major changes in alcoholic-beverage laws after a two-year study, a war that would significantly alter the way alcohol is sold and distributed in Indiana is being waged. The combatants are, effectively, National Wine & Spirits, the state’s principal alcohol wholesaler, and Southern Wine & Spirits, a national powerhouse that has been shut out of Indiana business under state law, but has pursued judicial remedies to become licensed.

The battle has meant new work for a bevy of beverage lobbyists, energized a drinking public that is concerned about potential price hikes, and turned on its head some traditional assumptions about who supports or opposes a given monopoly business and under what philosophy. Also at issue: the appropriateness of the Legislature’s requiring a given business entity to reimburse a competitor over lost business (which you may have thought only happened in the casino, horse racing and racino world).

Any legislative action that results in a new law is likely to be challenged in court. The lack of legislative action may also mean acceleration of administrative action and litigation, so don’t assume either way that the alcohol-distribution issue ends with adjournment sine die.

Legislators are also taking the first steps toward addressing some major outstanding gambling-related issues that will have a major impact on thousands of jobs; hundreds of millions of dollars of private equity; tens of millions of annual state tax dollars; and the future of a few large companies, cities and counties.

More on that next week.•


Feigenbaum publishes Indiana Legislative Insight. His column appears weekly while the Indiana General Assembly is in session. He can be reached at edf@ingrouponline.com.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1