ArcelorMittal throws down gauntlet on gun law

July 1, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The first round in a likely legal shootout over Indiana’s new guns-at-work law was fired this week by ArcelorMittal, the Luxembourg–based steelmaking giant that operates mills in northwest Indiana.

Workers cannot bring guns to work despite the new law, which took effect July 1, the company warned in a letter to its employees, and any worker who brings a gun to work could be fired.

ArcelorMittal said federal law trumps state law, but in a statement to The Times of Munster, a company spokeswoman didn’t specify which law. However, ArcelorMittal might fall under an exemption granted under a maritime security law.

The law, which sailed through the General Assembly, allows leaving guns and ammunition in locked vehicles out of plain sight.

It’s hard not to imagine this conflict tumbling into the courts. Indiana Chamber of Commerce President Kevin Brinegar said several companies are considering challenging the statute. Read IBJ's story here.

Ice Miller labor attorney Paul Sinclair suspects a couple of years or more will pass before property-rights complaints from businesses reach an equilibrium with those of gun owners.

Lawsuits, or even complaints that could lead to suits, might be taken up the Legislature, Sinclair says. Or a court decision could force the General Assembly to tweak the statute. If an ArcelorMittal worker sues, a court decision would be anticipated within about 18 months, he predicts.

“It’s hard to tell,” he says. “The arguments haven’t had the opportunity to be filtered through, which ones make sense and which ones don’t.”

Ultimately, Sinclair adds, companies will want to know what they’re obligated to do to protect employees while meeting the law. They’ll also want to know why some types of businesses fall under the statute and others, such as day cares, do not.

As an aside, Indiana actually isn’t a huge gun state, if an assessment by The Daily Beast online site is any indication. The Hoosier state ranked 27th last year based on FBI background checks on gun purchases. There were 11,614 checks per 100,000 population.

That was nothing compared to top-ranked Kentucky’s 134,028 checks and even No. 2 Utah‘s 30,315. A caution The Daily Beast acknowledges: Not all states report the data consistently. Kentucky, for instance, does some checks on a monthly basis. So make your own guesses on the actual rate of gun ownership.

Any thoughts about guns and work?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Questions
    I have a few questions about the law allowing employees to brings guns into a workplace (although locked in vehicles out of plain sight).

    1. Are employers at extra risk from civil lawsuits should an employee fire a gun at the workplace? Or does the statute alleviate some safety responsibility, if only slightly?

    2. Are employers' insurance rates rising because of the new law?

    3. Can employers require workers to report whether they are bringing guns onto the premises?

    4. Can employees' guns be stored on a motorcycle? Bicycle? Evidently, if an employee walks to work, the law doesn't apply.
  • bikes
    can my job make me give them a copy of my gun permit and make a copy to carry my gun to work under new law and put a sticker on my car saying i have a gun and park away from every body
  • They are already there
    The guns are at work now, you would be surprised to know how many people take guns to work now.The ones you need to worry about are the ones that are there illegally.The law doesn't address those, only the ones the law abiding citizens bring to work

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.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. something to take iman's mind off CART,,,the league itsownself doesn't do it

  2. Someone mentioned a green roof. Every designer of a new urban building should be required to at least explore the feasibility of a green roof. The ability to cut carbon dioxide, save precious rainwater (drought this summer??) and re-use grey water, cool the building cheaper, and improve the view for neighbors, should be, not only the good neighbor thing to do, it should be the responsible neighbor thing to do. Too bad the city didn't require it when they gave up downtown green space for the Simon Building. Surprised they aren't requiring it now.

  3. About the same means down, like the TV ratings.

    My favorite tradition that needs to be brought back is the 25/8 rule.

  4. Your stats are incorrect. The 85k Government employees working in Marion County includes all government workers in Marion county. That is state, federal, non profit agencies, city and county. The stats the article list is the number of employees for all of the city/county employees and it is correct. That number includes the library, airport, convention center, and so on. The policy of extending benefits to domestic partners is consistent with private sector companies of the same size. Isn't the mantra of most conservatives "run the government like a business."

    Also, too say the "fiscal proposil is huge" without considering the actuarial factors involved is a bit of an overstatement. We really don't know if it is huge or not. If all of the people added to the plan are healthy and don't have claims then it could bring cost done or hold them neutral.

  5. There are 85,346 government employees in Marion county according to Stats Indiana.

    My understanding is that this proposal covers not only same sex partners and children, but opposite same sex partners who are not married and any kids.

    It also covers all city and county employees, plus municipal corporations which use city/county benefits packages including Health and Hospital Corporation (Wishard), Indianapolis Airport Authority, Indianapolis Convention Center,Lucas Oil,Bankers Life, Indianapolis Marion County Library, and Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo).

    Certainly Indianapolis Public Schools will also want more benefits also.

    The fiscal cost on this proposal is huge.

ADVERTISEMENT