No Weapons in Beauty Salon allowed

[HoosierHelen]

Make no mistake, I totally support this bill, as another tool that a law abiding citizen can use to protect him or her self. That said, does anyone find it odd that our conservative friends, who usually are against government interference or control of any kind for corporations and business are perfectly happy to tell these same corporations and businesses that they no longer have the right to control of their parking areas, which of course are private property. Strange days indeed, mama.

I understand the irony you are pointing out Gray where conservatives support LESS government control, yet are in this case supporting government control over what privately owned businesses may have over their own property. The irony is obviously there, yet, I do support this bill after reading it's explaination.

A very important factor in the bill is the stipulation that the hand guns be out of sight in the locked vehicle. While I understand the intent behind excluding school parking lots from this bill, I can think of some high crime districts where a teacher may be justified in wishing to carry a handgun for their protection? This bill is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

[hairypumper]

The gov is between a rock and a hard place with this bill. The NRA, which has a strong political voice, is heavily backing it. Business and the Chamber of Commerce, where he gets most of his monetary backing, is pressuring him to veto it. Indiana: Governor Daniels Under Business Pressure to VETO Emergency Powers/Workplace Protection!
Please Contact Governor Daniels Today!

As we have previously reported, House Bill 1065 is currently pending consideration with Governor Mitch Daniels. Despite passing the Indiana House and Senate with broad bi-partisan support, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Manufacturer's Association are shamefully urging Governor Daniels to veto this important pro-gun bill.

Anti-gun big businesses are sending letters, calling and emailing the Governor, insisting on a veto. That’s why Governor Daniels needs to hear from YOU, and he needs to know you support HB 1065! Indiana would become the 27th state to enact Emergency Powers reform measures and the 13th state to enact Employee Workplace Protection laws.

HB1065 would prevent state or local government authorities from confiscating lawfully-owned firearms during declared states of emergency, such as occurred in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

Moreover, this bill would also prohibit employers from firing employees who safely and lawfully store a firearm in their privately-owned, locked vehicle while on an employer’s publicly accessible parking lot. Indiana has more than a quarter million Right-to-Carry permit holders, many of whom carry their firearm during their commute to and from work. This legislation would prohibit anti-gun businesses from punishing law-abiding gun-owners for safely storing their firearm in their vehicle should they carry a firearm for self-defense during their daily commute or have a firearm in the vehicle to target shoot or go hunting before or after work.

Please contact Governor Daniels TODAY and respectfully ask him to protect our Second Amendment rights in Indiana by signing HB 1065.

[hairypumper]

(Disclaimer) In case you're wondering, parts of my previous post came from the NRA.

[Thorman]

There are many exceptions. A few are schools, companies that deal with chemicals, and utilities. I'll try to dig up the bill. Not the bill but an explanation. http://www.in.gov/newsroom.htm. Scroll down to March 5 2010 Nugent; Bill protecting gun owners' rights moves to governor.

If the principle is that a "lawful" gun owner can carry a gun onto the private property of a corporation against the owner's will, then there should be no exceptions to the law. Let us at least be consistent on such rules. Let me see....guns in a courthouse during a trial, guns in Congress and the state capital... wait, that would potentially endanger the rule makers. Can't do that now. Only everyone else would be endangered by some whack job who brought his gun to work "to go hunting before or after work."

Why shouldn't private organizations be able to stop something they do not want on their own private property? Where are the teabaggers complaining about overreaching government on this one? Oh wait, they only complain when Democrats do it. I forgot. Sorry.

[hairypumper]

That's only part of the bill. I don't here anyone complaining about the other part. Put a gate up and give all your employees a key card. Then the parking lot is no longer accessable to the public.

[matt_s]

I'd be much more in favor of something that simply gave property owners the choice and laid out the rules for signage, notification, indemnification, etc.

[ColtsFan]

it now says, 'No Weapons allowed on these premises'.

Actually, it's not illegal. If you take your personal protection firearm with you, you can be asked to leave. If you do not leave, you will be charged with trespassing...but that is all.

I don't like the idea of a holstered gun because it is accessable to anyone in close proximity.

If it's not holstered, where would you suggest having it? Shoved in a lint-filled pocket or into a waistband with no trigger guard? BAD idea, Plaxico.

If the nutcase can't see it he is less likely to try to take it.

An occurrence of this sort ^ has never been revealed in any news story I've ever heard. If you've ever seen a story about a bad guy taking someone's gun away from them (other than in the movies), please link it. Thanks.

[hairypumper]

Actually, it's not illegal. If you take your personal protection firearm with you, you can be asked to leave. If you do not leave, you will be charged with trespassing...but that is all.


If it's not holstered, where would you suggest having it? Shoved in a lint-filled pocket or into a waistband with no trigger guard? BAD idea, Plaxico

An occurrence of this sort ^ has never been revealed in any news story I've ever heard. If you've ever seen a story about a bad guy taking someone's gun away from them (other than in the movies), please link it. Thanks.

Forgive me, I should have wrote "Openly Holstered", as in on the hip.
Just because you have never seen it on the news means it never has and could never happen?

[ColtsFan]

Forgive me, I should have wrote \"Openly Holstered\", as in on the hip.
Just because you have never seen it on the news means it never has and could never happen?

That is exactly how I carry. Daily. And I've never had my firearm taken away from me. It just doesn't happen...and if it did, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Brady Campaigners would spread it through the media like wildfire, and it would become THE poster incident for disarming law abiding citizens due to what a nutter *might* do.

[hairypumper]

That is exactly how I carry. Daily. And I've never had my firearm taken away from me. It just doesn't happen...and if it did, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Brady Campaigners would spread it through the media like wildfire, and it would become THE poster incident for disarming law abiding citizens due to what a nutter *might* do.

Well, it wouldn't be about what a nutter might do, but has done. It's not the law abiding and reasonable people we have to worry about. It's the criminal and infirm. It's too bad the anti gun crowd are completely unable to differentiate between the two groups.

[ColtsFan]

It's not the law abiding and reasonable people we have to worry about. It's the criminal and infirm. It's too bad the anti gun crowd are completely unable to differentiate between the two groups.

That ^, we agree on.

[HoosierHelen]

Well, it wouldn't be about what a nutter might do, but has done. It's not the law abiding and reasonable people we have to worry about. It's the criminal and infirm. It's too bad the anti gun crowd are completely unable to differentiate between the two groups.

I support gun rights Hairy (even though I don't have one). For the greatest part I do believe that private gun ownership is essential in allowing our citizens to defend themselves and their families. Criminals need to think twice before they attempt to break into a private citizen's home because they do not know who is armed and capable of defending their homestead. This is good.

Then we get these wild card cases such as the 15 yr old and two 12 yr olds who kill a stepfather in cold blood recently. It seems to me that these guns were not secured safely from the young fellows at the home. They have kept running this story on the news today and announcing that the young boys will be tried as adults. Geez! I have alot of mixed feelings. Of course this murder was horrible on the step father. Should 12 yr olds be tried as adults...or even a 15 yr old?? I'm not sure?

[ColtsFan]

Should 12 yr olds be tried as adults...or even a 15 yr old?? I'm not sure?

Yes.
Old enough to know right from wrong and act on it = old enough to bear the consequence of those actions.

Should 12 yr olds be tried as adults...or even a 15 yr old?? I'm not sure? It seems to me that these guns were not secured safely from the young fellows at the home.

"Young fellows"? How about "murderers"? They weren't singing Kumbayah in Sunday School, you know.