Parking Lot Bill company exemptions

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    I am a huge proponent of the infamous "Parking Lot Bill", even though some here have stated their objection to it. That`s another thread, so please don`t dredge that back up here. Unfortunately the company I work for has an exemption to this right and proper bill. Something to do with the so called, department of homeland security, which is outrageous because we`re simply a pharmaceutical company and it makes zero sense. I despise the fact that I`m involuntarily disarmed to and from work. What would it take to have this exemption removed by the Indiana Legislature? Is that even possible?
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    ...What would it take to have this exemption removed by the Indiana Legislature? Is that even possible?

    It would take some interest in securing our individual liberties, not really something most politicians are interested in.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    It would take some interest in securing our individual liberties, not really something most politicians are interested in.

    I just IM`d CM and asked if this could be moved to the General Political section since that`s likely where it belongs.

    But, since the exemption is supposedly established through the homeland security goons, would our Legislature even have the ability to change it?
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    I just IM`d CM and asked if this could be moved to the General Political section since that`s likely where it belongs.

    But, since the exemption is supposedly established through the homeland security goons, would our Legislature even have the ability to change it?

    The states each have the ability to repeal their state laws, yes.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    Well, since the Indiana .gov site isn't letting me copy/paste from the pdf, here's another site. And of course, it loses it's formatting, so I'll have to do that.

    Indiana Code Title 34. Civil Law and Procedure § 34-28-7-2 | FindLaw

    Sec. 2.
    (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection
    (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
    (1) prohibits;  or
    (2) has the effect of prohibiting; an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
    (1) on the property of:
    (A) a child caring institution;
    (B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
    (C) a private secure facility;
    (D) a group home;
    (E) an emergency shelter care group home;  or
    (F) a child care center;
    in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80, 465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78, 465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
    (2) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-232);
    (3) in violation of federal law;
    (4) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
    (5) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
    (6) at the employer's residence;
    (7) on the property of a person that is:
    (A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007;  and
    (B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
    (8) on property owned by:
    (A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power;  or
    (B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1;  or
    (9) in the employee's personal vehicle if the employee, including a contract employee, is a direct support professional who:
    (A) works directly with individuals with developmental disabilities to assist the individuals to become integrated into the individuals' community or least restrictive environment;  and
    (B) uses the employee's personal vehicle while transporting an individual with developmental disabilities. -


    So, which part is the exemption in?
    (A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    Well, since the Indiana .gov site isn't letting me copy/paste from the pdf, here's another site. And of course, it loses it's formatting, so I'll have to do that.

    Indiana Code Title 34. Civil Law and Procedure § 34-28-7-2 | FindLaw

    Sec. 2.
    (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection
    (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
    (1) prohibits;  or
    (2) has the effect of prohibiting; an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
    (1) on the property of:
    (A) a child caring institution;
    (B) an emergency shelter care child caring institution;
    (C) a private secure facility;
    (D) a group home;
    (E) an emergency shelter care group home;  or
    (F) a child care center;
    in violation of 465 IAC 2-9-80, 465 IAC 2-10-79, 465 IAC 2-11-80, 465 IAC 2-12-78, 465 IAC 2-13-77, or 470 IAC 3-4.7-19;
    (2) on the property of a penal facility (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-232);
    (3) in violation of federal law;
    (4) in or on property belonging to an approved postsecondary educational institution (as defined in IC 21-7-13-6(b));
    (5) on the property of a domestic violence shelter;
    (6) at the employer's residence;
    (7) on the property of a person that is:
    (A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007;  and
    (B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
    (8) on property owned by:
    (A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power;  or
    (B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1;  or
    (9) in the employee's personal vehicle if the employee, including a contract employee, is a direct support professional who:
    (A) works directly with individuals with developmental disabilities to assist the individuals to become integrated into the individuals' community or least restrictive environment;  and
    (B) uses the employee's personal vehicle while transporting an individual with developmental disabilities. -


    So, which part is the exemption in?
    (A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007

    I`ve never been clear on exactly where the exemption hides, or if it`s even directly in the bill. I just have been told, emphatically, that several companies, ours being one of them, has an exemption to the Parking Lot Bill, and we are expressly forbidden from having our carry weapons in our vehicles at work. If somehow, one would violate the ban and be found out, they would be terminated immediately. I have given my wife direction that should I be killed to, or from work, due to a situation that, were I armed, I might have been able to save myself, to sue the hell out of my employer. But really, I`d just like to have the exemption removed, so I can freely exercise my Natural Right to defend myself, even to and from work.
     

    AuntieBellum

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 4, 2009
    1,226
    36
    Rensselaer
    Do the Department of Homeland Security standards hold the force of law? If yes, then you're up against federal law. If no, then you're up against state law meeting arbitrary standards. Guess you gotta find out and proceed from there.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    Do the Department of Homeland Security standards hold the force of law? If yes, then you're up against federal law. If no, then you're up against state law meeting arbitrary standards. Guess you gotta find out and proceed from there.

    Yes, that is the question...and I would guess that this is a federal thing due to the homeland security designation...but I`m hoping someone knows...
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    Not meant to be snarky, I am sorry that you read it that way.

    Life is full of choices.....

    My sincere apologies if I misread the tone of your post. But my truck is my private property, even though it sits on my employers parking lot. Moreover, it is not proper to deny anyone the Natural Right to self-defense while traveling to and from work. It makes zero sense, that at a workplace that doesn`t have the exemption, that citizens are trusted enough to carry their carry weapon, locked up, and out of sight, but at a company with the exemption, citizens are not trusted to be safe...we know someone with malicious intent will do what they`re going to do regardless of the laws, or rules...I`m guessing that the real truth is, that because the company I work for is a big player in Indiana, and they are very liberal, that this is a political favor, and nothing more.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    Our plant first claimed that exemption because of a certain chemical we use in our process and homeland security, etc. Then quite surprisingly, a couple 3-4 years ago, they relented and posted signs (greatly paraphrased) about keeping them in your car, out of sight and in accordance with state law. I never was told what precipitated the change but am quite pleased they did.

    i think places where chemicals that are kept in large enough amounts that could be a hazard if compromised, might include pharmaceutical companies...that, or they're explicitly mentioned by homeland security.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    Our plant first claimed that exemption because of a certain chemical we use in our process and homeland security, etc. Then quite surprisingly, a couple 3-4 years ago, they relented and posted signs (greatly paraphrased) about keeping them in your car, out of sight and in accordance with state law. I never was told what precipitated the change but am quite pleased they did.

    i think places where chemicals that are kept in large enough amounts that could be a hazard if compromised, might include pharmaceutical companies...that, or they're explicitly mentioned by homeland security.

    Interesting that your employer reversed course with their policy. I still don`t know how to figure out though, if it might be changed with my employer via the Indiana State Legislature.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    I`ve never been clear on exactly where the exemption hides, or if it`s even directly in the bill. I just have been told, emphatically, that several companies, ours being one of them, has an exemption to the Parking Lot Bill, and we are expressly forbidden from having our carry weapons in our vehicles at work. If somehow, one would violate the ban and be found out, they would be terminated immediately. I have given my wife direction that should I be killed to, or from work, due to a situation that, were I armed, I might have been able to save myself, to sue the hell out of my employer. But really, I`d just like to have the exemption removed, so I can freely exercise my Natural Right to defend myself, even to and from work.

    If you don't know what exemption the facility falls under, there is no way that anyone can give you informed opinion as to whether or not the exemption is mandated by federal law.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    A LOT of companies said they were exempted. Then, after several companies lost $$$$ in court, they changed their minds.

    Steel Mills eventually changed their minds.
     
    Top Bottom