Another Indy Star Anti-Gun Column

[sharkey]

I do not understand what the Star is complaining about.

Rights are for the established media and duly appointed, unelected government agents. Not the People.

What's not to understand?

 

[88GT]

...corporations must recognize and protect the constituional rights of citizens.

How's that? Employment is voluntary. Any abdication of one's rights at the behest of the employer is done voluntarily as a condition of employment.

Of course, you could be speaking of the bastardization of the first ten amendments that has permeated judiciaries for a few generations now, and not the "way it was meant to be" intentions of the people who wrote those hallowed words.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How's that? Employment is voluntary. Any abdication of one's rights at the behest of the employer is done voluntarily as a condition of employment.

How? Because of the Constitution.

That voluntariness argument was unsuccessful in Heart of Atlanta and should be unsuccessful here as well.

Of course, you could be speaking of the bastardization of the first ten amendments that has permeated judiciaries for a few generations now, and not the "way it was meant to be" intentions of the people who wrote those hallowed words.

I am speaking of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is their intentions that control.

 

[KG1]

Seems to me that it would be in violation of the law on the part of a potential employer to request that a potential employee abdicate their rights via an illegal policy as a condition of employment.

 

[Caleb]

Yeah but the gun handling transpired OFF the employer's property.

Peas on this side, carrots over there.

I do not understand what the Star is complaining about.

They are just pissed that people are allowed to own guns...

 

[TTravis]

I use to carry the Star and News when I was a kid. I think I delivered around 100 or so papers and it didn't take long, because every house in my neighbourhood was a subscriber. That would have been around 1976. I had no idea what liberal or conservative meant back then.

It has been years since I had a copy of the Star delivered to my home. I think one of my kids took a class in HS where they had to have it for a short while and I was mad because they could get the same thing free on the Internet, The teacher was an extreme liberal and the Star was a good source for liberal articles.

My mother, when she was living, got coupons from the Sunday Star, but anyone with a smart phone can do just as well these days. I would not be surprised to see them stop printing any day now. I get all my news online and from a variety of sources. Printed news is just obsolete as soon as it hits the doorstep. I would like to see a graph of their circulation over the years.

 

[TopDog]

If the Red Star were not such a commie rag with extremely biased liberal slanted writing they might stand a chance. But in today's world with an outdated medium its not wise to try to push your own unwanted agenda.

I came back to Indianapolis in 2000, started taking the Red Star, cancelled the subscription within a few months. It will be good to witness the demise of such a useless rag.

 

[sht4brnz]

I am curious how an employer can be sued for the negligence of an employee. I am speaking in relation to this incicdent.
The employer is always looking to protect the company from frivolous lawsuits, thats a given.
So say the employee accidentally discharged their firearm and someone in the parking lot was injured.
Is the employer equally at fault for someone getting injured in their parking lot with a privately owned vehicle?

And wouldn't 'demanding knowledge of their presence' put the employer at a greater risk? Because being aware of this potential accident and not having some sort of safety measure in place, like making everyone wear bullet proof clothing, makes them liable, right? In the same respect of having to wear a safety hat.

 

[yotewacker]

I just cancelled my subscription also.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I am curious how an employer can be sued for the negligence of an employee. I am speaking in relation to this incicdent.
The employer is always looking to protect the company from frivolous lawsuits, thats a given.
So say the employee accidentally discharged their firearm and someone in the parking lot was injured.
Is the employer equally at fault for someone getting injured in their parking lot with a privately owned vehicle?

And wouldn't 'demanding knowledge of their presence' put the employer at a greater risk? Because being aware of this potential accident and not having some sort of safety measure in place, like making everyone wear bullet proof clothing, makes them liable, right? In the same respect of having to wear a safety hat.

First thing's first. 2 .

Good. Now that that's out of the way, you might want to go back and reread the pertinent posts. He's not suing because he had an ND. Indeed, the ND is a non-factor in this whole fiasco of a firing. He's suing for the reason they stated for firing him, namely, the keeping of private firearms secured in his private vehicles on company property (or not, as the case may be), while first questioning him about them. Each phase of that, the reason for firing and the questioning, are contrary to black letter Indiana state law.

We move pretty fast here on INGO. Please, try to keep up.

 

[sht4brnz]

First thing's first. 2 .

Good. Now that that's out of the way, you might want to go back and reread the pertinent posts. He's not suing because he had an ND. Indeed, the ND is a non-factor in this whole fiasco of a firing. He's suing for the reason they stated for firing him, namely, the keeping of private firearms secured in his private vehicles on company property (or not, as the case may be), while first questioning him about them. Each phase of that, the reason for firing and the questioning, are contrary to black letter Indiana state law.

We move pretty fast here on INGO. Please, try to keep up.

Sorry to confuse. I am aware that the incident didn't even happen on the property of the employer. I am aware that the employee is suing because he was fired. That wasn't the lawsuit i was referring to.

I was referring to the hypothetical lawsuit that would arrise from an injury caused from an employee's neglegence on the business's property. Getting shot accidentally by an employee of a business while on their property would certainly get all sorts of lawyers chsing that ambulance.

I am just trying to ration the thoughts of the column's writer.

Thanks for calling me SLOW. An excellent way to greet someone.

 

[Raskolnikov]

What the writer of this editorial does not understand is the fact that people have just as much right to bear arms as they do to speak freely or practice their religion (or lack thereof). I have no legal duty to disclose my religious beliefs to my employer, and they have no right to tell me that I cannot have a copy of my religious text in my car. Likewise, they have no business knowing if I have a firearm in my car.

Unfortunately, the writer of the editorial does not like firearms, and because of his uninformed opinion, he erroneously believes that he has the right to oppress others with his ignorance.

 

[Titanium Man]

Indy Star...............what's that? They aren't relevant..........never were.

 

[Caleb]

Sorry to confuse. I am aware that the incident didn't even happen on the property of the employer. I am aware that the employee is suing because he was fired. That wasn't the lawsuit i was referring to.

I was referring to the hypothetical lawsuit that would arrise from an injury caused from an employee's neglegence on the business's property. Getting shot accidentally by an employee of a business while on their property would certainly get all sorts of lawyers chsing that ambulance.

I am just trying to ration the thoughts of the column's writer.

Thanks for calling me SLOW. An excellent way to greet someone.

Nowhere in her post did she call you "slow."

 

[SSGSAD]

I have not seen this mentioned, so I will, THEY are OWNED, by Gannett, the same people who bring you USA Today..... Now does everyone understand ????? Class Dismissed .....

 

[Raskolnikov]

Indy Star...............what's that? They aren't relevant..........never were.

I beg to differ, Sir. While most of us, gun owning, freedom loving folks fully understand that Indy Star cannot be trusted to have a quality opinion on the Second Amendment, many of the "sheep" are reading their articles and editorials. The majority of voters are severely uninformed and believe whatever the mainstream media tells them. This is why I feel we all have a duty to speak out in favor of our rights.

 

[KLB]

Sorry to confuse. I am aware that the incident didn't even happen on the property of the employer. I am aware that the employee is suing because he was fired. That wasn't the lawsuit i was referring to.

I was referring to the hypothetical lawsuit that would arrise from an injury caused from an employee's neglegence on the business's property. Getting shot accidentally by an employee of a business while on their property would certainly get all sorts of lawyers chsing that ambulance.

I am just trying to ration the thoughts of the column's writer.

Thanks for calling me SLOW. An excellent way to greet someone.

Would you expect a lawsuit against the company if the employee ran someone over with their car in the parking lot?

 

[bwframe]

I am curious how an employer can be sued for the negligence of an employee. I am speaking in relation to this incicdent.

This deal is a bit messed up. The newspaper has their own agenda as do some INGO members who feel that no wrong has been done.

We have only heard one side of the story and that was before the ND was even brought into the story at all. So, who really knows?

 

[bwframe]

...I'm canceling my subscription.

I've cancelled my subscription as well.

When will this rag die?

I just cancelled my subscription also.

If you guys really want to have an effect, get your together and organize an advertiser boycott. This has been successful in other sorts of campaigns, it could be here too.

You could start it on INGO and broaden from there. It would be simple to start with a list of establishments that "Gun owners don't recommend."

 

[sht4brnz]

Would you expect a lawsuit against the company if the employee ran someone over with their car in the parking lot?

Sure, with an employee behind the wheel, on the business's property. Especially if the employee were on the clock.

Lawyers don't waste much time if there isn't any money. They will always go for the big score. If you're in a position of being sued and there's way to connect you to some entity or person on site that has money there will always be an additional suit filed against that entity or person of value.