Gun bills on fast track

February 11, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Hoosiers are about to receive two new gun laws if support in the General Assembly is any indication.

One set of bills would allow employees to keep guns in their vehicles at work. Some of Indiana’s biggest companies, Eli Lilly and Cummins, testified against the Indiana versions for fear they couldn’t protect their property and employees. The House version shot ahead 76-21, and the Senate bill 41-9.

Now both chambers are hashing out minor differences in preparation for final versions.

Similar legislation has passed in 11 states. The momentum started several years ago when some Oklahoma workers were fired after they went hunting before work and, you guessed it, left guns in their vehicles. The Oklahoma statute has been upheld on appeal.

The other Indiana gun legislation would shut down public access to names and addresses of Hoosiers with permits to carry handguns in public. These bills were prompted by a story in The Indianapolis Star revealing that some rough characters slipped through the cracks and got permits. Nevertheless, even though the Star published no names or addresses of permit holders, proponents of the legislation say citizens are worried about public access to the database.

A House bill passed by an even wider margin than the “guns-at-work” bill, 85-11. Now it’s under consideration in the Senate and expected to get a similar reception.

Gov. Mitch Daniels probably would sign both pieces of legislation.

Ultimately, guns-at-work comes down to undergirding either the rights of property owners or of gun owners. In the case of the permit database, it’s between gun owners’ right to privacy and the public’s right to know.

What's your stance? And would these bills have been so popular in the Democrat-controlled House had the national political landscape not turned so harshly against the party in recent months?

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • About Time
    CarrollFebruary 11, 2010 1:32 PM
    It's about time something was done to protect citizens during their commute to and from work...and anywhere in between. As a female who travels through some "not so nice parts of town"--with high crime rates, I shouldn't have to do so without the ability to protect myself. With my company's policy of not allowing guns on work property, that means they are telling me I can't have my gun with me during my commutes...or anywhere I stop on the way.

    I normally hate government interferring with property rights, but when you become an employer that all changes. If my employer isn't willing to protect me during my commute, then they shouldn't tell me I can't have my gun with me.

    Further, for anyone who believes this will increase workplace violence, they should look at all the instances where someone came to a workplace and shot people...none of these happened because the worker got mad and went out to their car for a weapon. The person almost always came from home and had already been fired or laid off.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Law Abiding Citizens
      HoosierQFebruary 11, 2010 1:55 PM
      Remember that gun restrictions only affect law abinding citizens, not likely to commit crimes or acts of violence. Both of these laws protect law abiding citizens, in these cases gun owners, from needless harrassment that does no good from a public safety standpoint. These laws have nothing to do with the current partisan political climate. They are about the fundamental right supported by the second amendment. Gun ownership is legal in America and these are good laws.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • here here
      no kiddingFebruary 11, 2010 1:56 PM
      Carroll I couldn't agree with you more. At least for now...this is a free country with everyone having the right to bear arms. The vast majority of "legal" gun owners don't have guns to rob people or go "postal" at work. We have them for self protection, hunting, or many times just collecting them for their history.
      If someone wants to come to work and kill their coworker...no gun law is going to stop them from finding a gun ... or a knife...or a bat or just use their car.. or their bare hands for that matter. It is NOT the gun that kills....itâ??s the people. Inanimate objects don't do anything to anyone. Again people are looking to place blame on anything else except for where it belongs. On the individual who acted.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • A matter or risk
      Alternative ViewFebruary 11, 2010 7:41 PM
      The 2nd amendment is always an interesting debate. The side not being noted here is one of risk management and the requirements imposed by the insurance policies that cover company liabilities. If the legislature is interested in removing the private rights of businesses in favor of gun advocates, then they should also be willing to cover additional costs in insurance premiums and remove all responsibilities and liabilities for any damage or harm that may result as an effect of this law.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Liability; responding to Alternative View
      CarrollFebruary 13, 2010 4:07 PM
      Alternative: If you read the bill, you'll see that it does give immunity to employers for following this statute - thus, employers do not have any additional liability because of this proposed statute. Also, they will no longer have to worry about possible liability for assuming the duty to protect their employees during their commute. This bill is good for employers and employees alike.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Politics
      JTFebruary 13, 2010 4:11 PM
      A part of the question posed was whether or not these bills would have been so "popular" in a Democrat controlled House if not for the current political climate nationally. They would have been as "popular", but they would have been killed by the liberal Democrat Speaker, Pat Bauer, as they had been in prior years. He would have single-handedly denied a vote in the House if not for the perceived political peril in November.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Employer Liability Issues
      JTFebruary 13, 2010 4:17 PM
      Alternative View: You asked about "damage or harm that may result as an effect of this law." There is no evidence that firearm bans prevent workplace shootings - in fact in almost every instance of workplace shootings over the last decade or more, firearms have been banned in the workplace in question. That being the case, how could one attribute any future "damage or harm" in a workplace shooting to this proposed law?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Another View
      AndrewFebruary 18, 2010 3:45 PM
      Firearm bans at the workplace may not prevent workplace shootings... but, without them, aren't you enabling workplace shootings when a disgruntled employee can just run out to their car and grab a gun? Without workplace bans on firearms, it's making it easier for a disgruntled employee... in other words, a step is being eliminated for workplace shootings to occur. At least with workplace bans on firearms, a disgruntled employee may have to go home to get a gun... which in turn, could allow time for that employee to cool down. In my opinion, hopefully the bill does not pass.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Fast Track
      RichardNovember 30, 2010 12:42 AM
      Gun-free zones don't work - they never have and never will. School shootings have proved that beyond any reasonable doubt. Instead of stopping lunatics bent on mass mayhem, gun-free zones embolden such murderers. They may be psychotic, but they are still rational enough to know gun-free zones are where they can kill numerous people without the prospect of armed resistance. Many of these shooters intend to die in the event, either by suicide or "suicide by cop." It is ludicrous and absurd in the extreme to believe the prospect of a misdemeanor (or felony) gun possession charge will have the slightest deterrent effect and[url=http://fasttrackcashscam.org]fast track cash [/url] to the sellers of this guns.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    Post a comment to this blog

    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.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

    2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

    3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

    4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

    5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

    ADVERTISEMENT