Indiana Code 34-28-7-2

[jgreiner]

Stupid law, it is their property, should be their rules.

their rules shouldn't be allowed to deny you of your constitutional rights.

 

[cbseniour]

I say keep it in your car and keep your pie hole shut. Worry about it if you get in some type of trouble or fired.

WHAT HE SAID
I've worked in places that didn't allow guns on the premises but tactedly knew I kept one in my truck. It's pretty common practice.
IF the need to use it ever comes up you will loose your job but hopefully you will keep your life.

 

[CathyInBlue]

That's just my general response to rights being trumped by rights when in reality they are seldom found to be actually conflicting in the given analogy.

Point taken.

 

[japartridge]

If you came to my home, I can ask you to leave your firearm outside and not violate your 2nd Amendment rights. My rights to what I want to happen on my property trump your rights. You, however, are free to NOT come to my house. See the point?

IMHO this argument does not hold water... If a person has a firearm and the employee states they are not allowed on property... I comply be leaving said firearm secured in my vehicle, which is my property, there is no reason for the employer to complain. My vehicle, my property, their building, their property, their parking lot, their property... do you see the line there? If they try and be hard-asses about it, they will have to provide transportation to their employees, or lose their employees!

If you ask me not to carry in your house and then ask me not to leave my firearm secured in my vehicle, then, IMO, you have crossed a line and are now violating my rights.

 

[japartridge]

One thing to be aware of is that many employers only lease their premises. Some have common area parking with the public and other businesses. The law may not protect you if the owner of the parking lot has a no firearms policy.

But again, not sure how anyone would find out unless you leave things in plain sight or talk about it.

IANAL, but I think, the law would still protect you... the only places that it would not apply are fed property, some state properties, schools, various other DHS listed places. otherwise IIRC no one can tell you what legal items you can legally have in your property.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I have a few comments to throw in here and responses to make for your honorable consideration.

I agree but maybe someone should explain this to the Supreme Court who proclaimed in Citizens United that corporations are considered "persons" under the law.

To Tsigos,

I agree with this legal conclusion. What I disagree with is their premise. I believe only sentient, living, biological organisms have rights. While a corporation is considered a "person" under the law for legal purposes I do not believe a corporation should be afforded rights. Power, authority, and interests? Yes. Rights? No. I do realize that current legal thinking is opposed to me on this issue.

Correct a business does not have rights, neither does my home and yard. But the owner of the business does, just like I have rights regarding my home and yard.

And why would a sole proprietorship make any difference? If I own my home by myself, or if I own it in conjunction with my wife we both have rights regarding it. We share those rights, same as partners in a business do, or shareholders in a corporation. What is the difference?

To Tim,

I disagree with your thought that your home and yard do not have rights. I believe that you, as a sentient living organism who does have rights have those rights extended to your property. Your property is a product of your "self", or rather, of your person. As you have rights to private property you have rights to control that property. Ergo, while "your home and yard" do not in and of themselves have rights you have rights to control them and what occurs on them as you have rights.

A sole propriatorship is not seeking an artificial legal construct to protect itself. It can be, basically, one person doing a job. Example: I, Doug, decide I need more money this summer and walk around my neighborhood offering to mow yards for $10. If Doug causes damage anywhere then Doug is personally on the hook for it. Doug will reap the rewards of his work while being exposed to all liability of his recklessness.

If Doug decides to call Kirk Freeman after Doug almost runs over a clients poodle to ask Kirk to draw up papers to form a corporation to protect my personal assets, then we are no longer in the realm of a "person" but now an artificial legal construct. I am not saying I am completely right or wrong, but I can see a potential argument one way or the other and am simply too lazy to work the thing through mentally, so I left myself an "out" by putting in the caveat.

I'm going to ask for a cite on this. I have never heard that, nor have I seen it in IC or IAC. I haven't really looked but since your the one claiming it......

To Tim,

I cannot promise but I will try. I will tell you this was mentioned specifically by a labor lawyer at the 15th Annual Beckman Lawson Employment Law Forum to a group of several hundred human resources managers. I have attended the last two (2) of these as an HR student. If you ever get the chance to attend one here in Fort Wayne (they are free) please do so. You can learn a lot.

The lawyer did say it was an obscure law so I don't know if it came out of a lawsuit or if it is actually codified. All they said was that if an HR manager EVER received a letter from an employee demanding to know why they were fired that #1) it must be answered, and; #2) to call them or their own lawyers before responding.

To quote from their handout that we all recieved on page #12 under the heading - Termination Without a Valid, Objective Reason

"An employer who fires an employee without a valid, objective reason can expect to be exposed to the wrath of agencies, judges, and juries. Few, if any, will accept that an employee can be fired without a valid, objective reason."

To continue, same page:

"Subjective Reasons - Subjective reasons usually don't stand up in court cases. Agencies, judges and juries increasingly are rejecting subjective statements such as 'poor attitude' or 'disruptive' and are requiring objective facts to support employment decisions. They are demanding factual, behavioral observations in which the manager descibes the exact behavioral problem of the employee.

In many cases, supervisors who terminated employees for reasons such as 'incapability', 'disloyalty', and 'poor attitude' have faced courts that found their subjective statements thin disguises for unlawful discrimination."

I will to Email them to get an answer to your question, but it probably won't be fast.

On individual scales, our rights are balanced against one another. My right to my private property trumps your right to bear arms when the two come into conflict. I have the power to ban you from my property while you are bearing arms, should I so choose. I cannot ban you from bearing arms off my property, because those rights do not conflict then.

It's not my ideology[sic], and the Constitution does protect our rights as individuals... from the government!

I agree with Cathy 100% on the concept that our rights are always in balance and some will be infringed to allow for others, hopefully to a minimal extent.

As an example I have the right to freedom of speech. This does NOT mean that I get to stand outside of your home (on public property) and scream into a bullhorn how everyone should worship Jesus who will lead them to glory. My freedom of speech is infringed by the community as to where, when and how I cannot express myself.

their rules shouldn't be allowed to deny you of your constitutional rights.

To Jgreiner,

I somewhat disagree. Do you think Walmart has the right to stop a greeter from wearing a hat that says "All non catholics are going to burn in hell?" The greeter has freedom of speech and the right to his opinion, but the company should be allowed, to some degree, to limit such expression while in their employ. Or would you disagree with this?

WHAT HE SAID
I've worked in places that didn't allow guns on the premises but tactedly knew I kept one in my truck. It's pretty common practice.
IF the need to use it ever comes up you will loose your job but hopefully you will keep your life.

To Cbsenjour,

These are some of the easiest employers to sue and win when they actively ignore enforcing the rules on one employee while choosing to enforce them on another. Employers do not realize the level of liability they may face when the arbitrarily enforce rules because this makes it so tremendously easy to sue, and win, in court.

This is where sloppy management can lead to costly expenses.

----

To All,

I am very pro business and believe it is the backbone of every society but I have come to the opinion that far too often a business fails to remember that the protections it seeks under a variety of legal systems comes with RULES that they must follow as a business. Far too often do good, decent, well intentioned people go off to start a business and then want to ignore the very rules that regulate them.

Friends, these rules are not secret booby traps that are sprung on them! These laws have been codified and organized. There are a variety of small business organizations and free assist there for the asking. Some of the rules seem to be too intrusive and some are. But others are good, decent rules there for important reasons that have been in place for decades. While it would be cheaper for a restaurant owner to still serve food that was accidentally dropped on the floor I for one am glad there could be punishment if such were to happen.

Regards,

Doug

 

[sannerboy55]

Any suggestions

Recently an employer did a sweep thru a few parking lots at a Railroad (In Indiana) and under company policy no one is allowed fire arms on the property. 3 people have to go to an investigation because of having a weapon. (It was in their vehicle locked up) Are railroads exempt of the indiana law somewhere ? We all have been looking and will go farther if anyone gets time off as no one knows what is going to happen yet. Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[Doinsure]

It is interesting to me how companies will attempt thru the use of "company policy" to limit our ability to protect ourselves while setting up technological fences for themselves. No gun for you or me while the people they choose get the protections.

At the company I represent they have such protections while their angerred customers can access my office with guns if they chose. No protection for me or my employees.

Do not give up your gun. Do not flash it either. Be decreet.

An employee at a local grocery store recently saved lives violating "commpany policy" and thereby saved the lives of managers and fellow employees. He excercised his 2nd amendment right and when the store was being robbed by an armed indiviual, he shot them. The same grocery fired the employee but he walked away alive, as did his manger and fellow employees....he was fired. Nutnfancy's sheepdog pholosophy worked though he isn't at this employer anymore.
Remember why you carry in the first place.

 

[ModernGunner]

It's NOT 'their' property. My car is MY property, and the employer has zero right to know what's in it as long as it's legal. That's the POINT to the law.

File a complaint in writing with the State that the employer is willfully and intentionally (ONCE you have that hard copy in writing) violating the law. Mail it either Delivery Confirmation or Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested. Of course, keep a copy of that complaint, with the mail receipts.

Then you have the protection of the "Whistleblower Law". Makes it a whole lot more difficult, and actionable, if they try and fire you for blowing the whistle on their law-breaking.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Actions of employers like this are being fought in court. If you suspect you may have been fired because of a weapon in your car.. Do not talk about it online. Record and document everyrhing then seek the counsel of an attorney or firearms loving court room god like fuy relford.....

 

[T2D4]

Are railroads exempt of the indiana law somewhere ?

probably not, but in general, railroads are the strongest corporations in the US, and they have the easiest time skirting laws.