Indiana's HB 1065, the Gun in Your Glove Box and Property Rights

Every once in a while an issue comes up that pits some rights against others. HB 1065, which is legislation the Indiana State House passed and is now awaiting Governor Mitch Daniels' signature is one of those pieces of legislation.

The bill essentially makes it illegal for a business/employer to have a policy against employees bringing firearms, locked in a glove box or otherwise stowed away, onto their property.

Now, at first blush libertarians like myself might hail this legislation as a massive blow in favor of people's right to self defense. But, is this not also a massive blow against private property rights? Let's examine further and without getting tied up in the emotions of the gun issue. We'll also presume that we're addressing things from a natural rights perspective within the confines of Constitutional government (not what passes for the authoritarian government systems we have today).

Let's lay the ground rules first.

1. You have a right to your life, liberty and property.

2. Nobody may deprive you of these rights without your permission.

3. You have the right of voluntary association (you may not be forced to associate with people you do not desire to). Voluntary association and activity is always superior to that which is forced.

4. Government is the negation of liberty and exercises all authority by threat of force or violence.

5. Being on someone's property without their permission is trespassing.

6. The Constitution sets restrictions on what government may do.

7. Any private property owner could set a policy that nobody is allowed to park on their property. Or that only American made cars are allowed or only blue cars or whatever else.

Let's analyze the impact of HB 1065

Currently, an employer may set a policy that says that nobody is allowed to bring a firearm onto their private property, even if it is locked in the glove box of a car. Now, personally, I find this terribly offensive to anyone who has gone through the process and is licensed to carry a firearm or even more offensive to anyone that might be former military. BUT, if the private property owner sets this policy then:

1. It is not the government forcing one side or another to accept anything.

2. Voluntary associations are maintained (you may park elsewhere; petition the property owner for relief; do it anyway and keep your mouth [and glove box] shut; choose to no longer provide labor or professional services to a company, business or property owner that does not share your values)

3. The property owner's sovereign control of their property so long as nobody's rights are involuntarily violated is preserved (you volunteer to the restriction by continuing to park on their property or work there)

4. There is no Constitutional violation because government did not create this restriction, a private property owner did. Just like a private business owner might choose to fire somebody for saying something stupid, offensive or threatening - there is no "free speech" protection in the private sector.

If the government sets a law that requires property owners to allow this then:

1. Association is no longer voluntary. The private property owner must now accept your trespass against their wishes.

2. It reinforces the idea that the government, not property owners, is the final arbiter of what is permissible on your premises. (smoking ban advocates try and pretend that patrons are involuntarily deprived of their right to life by the cigar or cigarette smoke in bars, completely ignoring that people voluntarily walk in and expose themselves or voluntarily work there [SAME LOGIC APPLIES HERE - You believe in private property rights and voluntary association or you do not])

3. An employer might just add a line to their job applications - "Are you licensed to carry a firearm" and start denying employment based on the answer. If gun permit information is available as part of a background check that might also cause an employer pause if they are adamant in ensuring no firearms are on their property [note: payment for a permit to exercise a right is a ridiculous notion but, at least the General Assembly is working to protect that information by making it private via HB 1068]

4. Instead of somebody risking losing a job if discovered, the business owner is now a criminal if they attempt to retain control over their property.

So, while people may momentarily think they've won some kind a "take that you bozo employer I'll bring my gun if'n I wanna" victory, just remember that property owners just got a big, "government is the final arbiter of what you must allow and you'll shut up and take it" from big government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

As for me personally, I strongly support the right of people to be prepared to defend themselves but I abhor the idea that government has to tell me what must be allowed on my property. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to government restrictions not to private property owners.

The Trees

While browsing through some music earlier I was reminded of how much I like the lyrics to Rush's song The Trees. If you've never heard the song or are not familiar with the words, please take a moment to consider it and the message contained within.

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Self Defense in City Parks, Washington State Validates Right to Carry and Gun Free Zones Continue to Be Violence Magnets

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.

The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian - At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don't exist or are expiring this month.

Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let's consider the following.

You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally "open carry" into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!

Where should you feel unsafe? So-called "gun free" zones maybe?

This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All "gun free zones". Yet, that didn't stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves.

It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman's proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people.

Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people's natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn't feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.

There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn't jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We'll see.

The important thing to remember is that "gun bans" are "massacre enabling" restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can't protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.

Iranian Government Has No Monopoly On Violence Against Citizens

In considering all of the actions and violence committed against "anti-government protesters" in places like Iran, is it not worth considering whether or not the scenes here are often that much different? At the end of the day, Americans live under a system that steals from them, lies to them, commits fraud, illegally invades other countries, detains people, puts them on lists, sometimes allies itself with dictators and now threatens to make laws at the Federal level that REQUIRE you to buy products from insurance corporations or be threatened with fines and jail time?

G20 protesters get assaulted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3CYknz7FCQ

Police make a joke and laugh about shooting a peaceful protester (think about a culture where this is promoted as funny and worthy of reward):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63FEamhpA0

There is always a worthy discussion about new laws where ultimately, the question should be asked ... "Are you willing to shoot someone over this?"

People chuckle and say, "we're just talking about a fine or a warning or something minor." BUT, the ultimate enforcement mechanism of any law, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is that it presents additional opportunities for there to be potential armed aggression against citizens.

This puts police officers in the position of not being thought of as "protecting and serving" us, but puts them in adversarial positions with the general public. How many people can say they've never been pulled over for something? How many people felt they were posing a clear and present threat of immediate harm to someone else and thereby warranted being detained by someone with a gun, fined and otherwise inconvenienced? Why do we accept this as okay?

Think about tax enforcement. Being required, by threat of potential government force being used against you, to pay for sports stadiums, convention centers, transfers of wealth to private entities, for abortions or stem cell research, billions to foreign dictators or paying for research on the mating habits of butterflies. We must again ask... Are we willing to destroy people's lives, reputations or families? Are we willing to march armed soldiers to their door steps and even shoot them over their objections to this? Yes, even in America, the political elites are willing to do so.

And this is why we must always remember that "The Law" is there to protect our life, property and rights. It is not supposed to be used to take away our life, transfer our property to others or reduce, limit or undermine our rights.

Live your life as you chose so long as you do no harm to, or violate the rights of, others. There is a foundational principle to live by and one that nobody should have any objection to.

If Our Rights Are Natural, Then Everybody Has Them Not Just Citizens

I had a good back and forth discussion with one of our Indiana Tea Party Patriots today.

Our good patriot friend said:

I mean the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the natural rights bestowed upon us by God, our Creator. I believe our country does not/cannot give us rights..they are from God.

But then in a subsequent message added:

My concern is not to give terrorists the same constitutional rights that citizens have.

So, understanding that the debate over the current Guantanamo prisoners is terse and heated, I still waded in to the water a bit as I perceived a bit of circular logic here. I don't propose that true enemy combatants in a war should be granted the same privileges non combatant citizens enjoy; however, it did spark a train of thought related to the source of our rights and who has them. It occurred to me that there is a trap in the debate about the prisoners and whether or not they have rights. If you believe rights come from government and can be taken away, then you have to believe that the prisoners have no rights. If you believe we all are endowed with natural rights and that government does not grant them, then you have to accept that even prisoners accused of terrorism have a right to due process and fair treatment.

E-mail is never a great place for debate and for busy people the responses can often be quick, not well though through or riddled with typos, but here is what I responded with:

Do people have rights guaranteed by the creator or not? If the rights come from, as you state, God (or whatever creative force one subscribes to) and not from our Constitution then do these people have rights or not? (I'm not taking a position either way - just confused by the circular logic).

I would argue that anyone has a right to face their accuser, be presented with evidence, given a fair and speedy trial and then either required to provide compensation/restitution for their crimes or set free. I would also be curious as to how many people we have in Gitmo who were captured just, as far as they were concerned, defending their country and were not really "terrorists". I don't trust anything the government tells us about anything or anyone anymore.

You can't invade a country and then accuse everyone who fights back of being a "terrorist". Most of the problem we have with modern terrorism is that these folks feel they are fighting back against U.S. Hegemony. Unfortunately, they cross an unforgivable line when they target innocent people and private interests. Again, a lot of terrorism's roots lay in the response to actions most Americans are not even aware happened 'on their behalf'. The foreign foot soldiers may not know this, but their leaders and those that manipulate are keenly aware of their political and economic goals.

We fell right into their trap by spending trillions on these wars overseas that have contributed to tanking our economy and weakening our nation. They knew they couldn't win a military victory, but they knew they might get us economically eventually. They saw us do it to the U.S.S.R.

In all fairness, entitlements are ultimately the bill that we will not be able to pay; but, in an already weakened and debt ridden state tacking an extra couple (or few) trillion for war just isn't helpful. We should always be wary of the economic warfare, not just the physical warfare fought by troops and machinery.

Regardless of disagreements, it is oftentimes in conversations like these where thoughts, opinions, policies and approaches are forged. A far better source of belief, understanding and rationale than just parroting whatever the favorite partisan hack of the day is saying on the boob tube.

Indiana's Mark Souder (R - 3rd) Co-Sponsors FairTax Act

As always let me preface my FairTax post by saying that it is my second favorite tax reform plan. My favorite is to repeal all income taxes and replace them with pretty much nothing. But, in the meantime, I consider HR 25, The FairTax, to be the single largest potential transfer of power from government back to voters and taxpayers ever short of an armed insurrection.

When I first got involved with the grass roots FairTax movement in 2004 we had representatives Dan Burton (R - 5th) and Mike Sodrel (formerly R - 9th) as co-sponsors. Under the leadership of then State Director Ron Heilman and some support from Congressman Burton's office at that time, the Indiana team was able to get Rep. Mike Pence (R - 6th) on board. Sodrel ended up losing his seat to Baron Hill (D) but has continued to advocate for this important change to the tax system.

Now, under the leadership of Dan Higgins (and his wife Diana) and with the influx of energy and enthusiasm he and other FairTax leaders in the state have brought, it is exciting to see that Rep. Mark Souder (R - 3rd) has become a co-sponsor of HR 25. Out of the Republican delegation to the House of Representatives, Indiana now has all but Rep. Steve Buyer (4th) on the non-partisan bill as co-sponsors.

Below is a copy of the press announcement that the Indiana FairTax team has put out. I believe that a couple of us are scheduled to spend time with WXNT's Abdul Hakim-Shabazz at 7:30 AM

on Friday, December 11 [2009] (http://www.newstalk1430.com or 1430 AM out of Indianapolis) to talk about the FairTax and progress that is being made in gaining support.

The Indiana FairTax team maintains a site at infairtax.ning.com

FAIRTAX INDIANA

Press Release

CONTACT:

Sean Shepard, Media Contact

Email: sshepard94@gmail.com

317-513-2406

Dan Higgins, State Director

Email: fairtaxindiana@gmail.com

765-346-5029

GRASSROOTS FAIRTAX SUPPORTERS WELCOME ADDITION OF REP. MARK SOUDER (R – 3^rd) AS A CO-SPONSOR

FT. WAYNE, IN – Grassroots activists and supporters from Indiana of the bi-partisan tax reform legislation known as “The FairTax” (H.R. 25) applaud the addition of Congressman Mark Souder of Indiana’s 3^rd Congressional District as a co-sponsor.

Representative Souder joins Representatives Mike Pence (R – 6^th) and Dan Burton (R – 5^th) as co-sponsors of critically needed legislation to restructure the United States tax code from one based on productivity to one based on consumption that will completely un-tax the poor and improve America’s competitiveness in a World economy.

Congressman Souder praised the consistent and persistent efforts of grassroots volunteers and voters who ensured that their support for The FairTax was noticed.

Dan Higgins, State Director of FairTax Indiana, said “The current state of the economy and the need to ensure American competitiveness in the World is causing many to re-examine and embrace The FairTax as the best and most fair reform plan before Congress.”

ABOUT THE FAIRTAX

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

More information is available at http://www.fairtax.org/

###

Cuba Becoming More Capitalist To Save Socialism?

There was an article posted to McClatchy that appears to be by Frances Robies of the Miami Herald. Drudge linked it up today and when I read it I was reminded of George W. Bush saying that we had to become more socialist in order to save capitalism. Of course, this showed a complete misunderstanding of the state of capitalism and (what haven't been for decades) free markets in the United States.

But the article today was about Cuba becoming a little more capitalistic in order to save socialism. We know that increased socialism has led to some of the worst economies in the world (Cuba, Soviet Union) and that free market capitalism is what made America the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world well prior to the The Federal Reserve System, Income Taxes, FDR, The Welfare State, The Great Society and such. In fact, we can easily point to increased economic intervention as the root causes of the malaise which afflicts us now. Even the Communist Chinese had enough sense to keep their hands off their economy as possible to allow it to prosper, and now they make fun of us and our economic and fiscal policies. Strange how the tables have turned, yes?

From the article:

As the Cuban government struggles through a deep recession, its leaders have begun picking away at socialism in order to save it. But experts say the latest buzz by the Cuban government is simply another desperate fix to stem the slide of a failed economy that buckled long ago.

Even one of Havana's leading economists recently said Cuba's economy needed to be turned upside down -- "feet up." So taxi drivers got private licenses, farmers now have their own plots of land and government workers have to pack their own lunches.

"I think what they are trying to do is prepare the people for a hard landing," said Cuba expert Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado of the University of Nebraska. "The government is really saying in so many words: We've got limited resources and can only do so much. I think they are stuck."

Since he took office early last year, Raúl Castro has been saying that the country's severely battered economy needs fixing. In a widely quoted August speech, Castro said Cuba was spending more than it made.

"Nobody, no individual nor country, can indefinitely spend more than she or he earns. Two plus two always adds up to four, never five," he said. "Within the conditions of our imperfect socialism, due to our own shortcomings, two plus two often adds up to three."

As with any government redistribution of resources ... 2+2 always equals 4 no matter how much the politicians like to try and claim they can make 5 out of it. Just like Alchemists found out they couldn't turn lead into gold, so it is true with those who might pretend to be "economic alchemists".

State of the Libertarian Party in Indianapolis

On one of the local political BLOGs someone made a comment about Libertarians supposedly being absent on opposing the government funded construction of the Colts' stadium and the recent bailout (by tax increase and even more borrowing) of the entity that operates it. They tried to spin things as Libertarians suddenly coming out of the wood work over the silly nanny-state smoking ban garbage that comes up perennially. Clearly, they weren't paying attention.

It did prompt me to think about how much the party has grown, how closer as a group of friends and 'comrades in arms' it seems many of us have become and so I thought I'd repost some excerpts of my response to that individual.

Libertarians did go off the hook on Lucas Oil Stadium, but arguably had a smaller and maybe less organized Marion County presence at the time. Libertarians were all over the CIB bailout and mismanagement garbage, I personally appreciated the Libertarians being invited by Chairman Lutz (R) to speak before his committee on that subject. Unfortunately, the Chicken Little crowd won that battle.

A few years ago at some of the (not directly party functions - just social in nature) Libertarian MeetUp group we would get five to eight people. In the last year there have been up to 30 or 35 attendees and the group recently split into a North Side and South Side group (check out MeetUp.com for details). Tim Maguire has been very active as the Marion County (LPMC) Chair, there is a core group of bright and active people and there is now even a Libertarian Party City Councilor.

At a recent (July 31?) Friedman Foundation event downtown where State School Superintendent Tony Bennett (R) spoke, and I think Councilor Ben Hunter's (R) wife was one of the organizers, the Libertarian Party of Indiana's Exec. Director Chris Spangle took home the prize for bringing the most people to the event and, the LPMC filled more than four tables (40+ people) at the Stossel / Economics Club event this week.

Note: The sense is that the party is continuing to grow as more people realize the other two parties are continuing to field less than impressive and often outright anti-Constitution candidates. More people are recognizing that the economic and foreign policy positions of BOTH the typical Democrat or Republican are harming our country. There is also a sense that existing Libertarians are becoming increasingly organized.

The smoking thing is just continuing to prove that SOME Republicans on the council aren't REALLY for small, unobtrusive government and low-taxes. In fact, Vernon Brown (D - 18th) has voted better than every single one of the Republicans [at least through August he had]. But, it always helps being the opposition to whatever tax increases or tyranny those in power want to bring forward.

For what it is worth, Christine Scales (R - 4th) has the best voting record of the Republicans and is proving to be someone who is really trying to do her own homework on issues and do the right things. As you would expect, none of them are perfect though and that's understandable.