Friday, March 05, 2010

Guns In Your Car!

Crow has never tasted so sweet. The Indy (fishwrap) Star scooped me; who know, it just may help to have boots on the ground at the Statehouse instead of relying on the legislature's website, crazy as that sounds. Of course, they've got all the positive quotes 'n' comments after the jump and all the negatives ones on Page One, above the fold. You stay classy, (Red) Star!

The measure made it through the Senate 41 Yeas to nine (9! read it and weep, Bradyites!) Nays. It's headed for the Governor, who is expected to sign it.

And here's an interesting item: way, 'wayyyy back, I had noticed the bill including language exempting facilities regulated by the Department of Homeland Security's anti-terrorism standards, which the paper points out just happens to include Eli Lilly; this means the hypocritical liar concerned citizen at the head of that firm was whining about a bill that wasn't going to affect him. D00d, hire better lawyers.

Also on the pants-soiling side of things, the president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Kevin Brinegar, vows to fight the law "all the way to the bitter end," claiming it infringes upon the rights of employers; he believes if your last name is "Inc.," your rights trump the rights of those pesky little flesh-and-blood peasants. It might be nice to contact the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and try to calm their misinformed panic; after all, it's hard to get the urine stains out of a thousand-dollar suit.


Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Guns in your car, snakes on a plane.

Same thing to these microcephalic idiots.

Guess there will have to be some educatin' done.

rickn8or said...

"Guess there will have to be some educatin' done."

Nathan is an optimist.

Mark Alger said...

WRT employer's property rights. Seems simple to me. The right of self-defense inheres to the individual. You don't want tools of self-defense on your property, don't hire individuals. Otherwise, you're engaging in unlawful discrimination.


Can't see how it could be simpler.


charles said...


He didn't say HOW the educating would be performed.

Rob K said...

The property rights issue is a load of bull. The government runs roughshod over business property rights in so many other ways that you never hear them complain about.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

I love the sub-head: "Divisive measure lets most Hoosiers take firearm to job; Daniels likely to sign it"

What struck me was the use of the word "divisive".

There ain't much "divisive" about a bill that passes 74-20 in the House and 41-9 in the Senate. I'd say that indicates a pretty strong, sensible, mainstream measure supported by a wide spectrum of political ideology. You simply don't get 74 votes in the Indiana House unless you convince people who don't belong to the soi-disant "conservative" party.

The only "divisiveness" resides in the fools who persist in the mistaken belief that disarming law-abiding citizens will end gun crime. Most of whom appear to write for and to the Indianapolis Fishwrap AKA Gannett Star.

jeff said...

this means the hypocritical liar concerned citizen at the head of that firm was whining about a bill that wasn't going to affect him. D00d, hire better lawyers.

Like politicians, he was just trying to protect you from yourself. Remember, he has your best interests at heart.

rickn8or said...

Right. Sometimes you have to "reinforce the learning experience".

And Mr. Employer, unless you're willing to provide an armed escort from my house to your parking lot, your property rights stop at the bottom of my tires.

Anonymous said...

I'm no legal scholar, but I believe that any employer that denies it's employees the right to defend themselves automatically becomes *legally* responsible for their employee's safety, and any failure by that employer to keep it's employees safe becomes actionable in a court of law.


staghounds said...

I am a bit surprised that none of the national news outlets are covering the murrain of National Park visitors since the legalisation of permitted carry there.