I had wondered whether Gov. Mitch Daniels was going to show himself more business-friendly or more Second Amendment-friendly regarding HEA 1065, the legislation allowing employees to keep guns in their locked cars at work. Now we know. He signed the bill today and made a few remarks about it. His statements are in an-email, so I'll just cut and paste the whole thing:
“Considering the clear language of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the even stronger language of Article 1 Section Thirty-Two of the Indiana Constitution, protecting these rights as provided in HEA 1065 is appropriate. I also am compelled to give great weight to the overwhelming consensus of both Houses of the General Assembly as they passed this bipartisan statute. The law does contain ambiguities that the General Assembly may wish to refine at some future date, to avoid unnecessary litigation, but the understandable concerns raised against the bill do not suffice to justify a trespass on a fundamental right so expressly protected by our founding documents.”
I'm guessing "understandable concerns raised against the bill" hints at what a tough call this might have been for him.
Comments
You and Mitch are driving me nuts with your Second Amendment talk. The Second Amendment (and the rest of the bill of rights) limits government not private individuals. A law restricting the ability of a private property owner to exclude guns from his property has nothing to do with the Second Amendment - though, I suppose it could theoretically be a Fifth (or Fourteenth) Amendment "taking" of private property without due process of law or just compensation.
But it's not a Second Amendment issue any more than requiring property owners to allow religious assemblies on their property would be a First Amendment issue.
I trust you were less nuts whenever I also confessed to having misgivings about the legislation precisely because of the private-property-rights issue. Be that as it may. It becomes a Second Amendment issue because, among other things, preventing someone from having a gun in his car at work prevents him from having a gun in his car going to and from work. Preventing me from having a religious assembly at work doesn't prevent me from having one outside of work.
Well said, Leo, that is exactly the issue - we're still trying to address it down here in Texas.