Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing

This is a discussion on Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Hopyard So, just for discussion sake, this part time fire chief, does he have authority over the property, the fire house? If ...

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 252
Like Tree359Likes

Thread: Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing

  1. #136
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So, just for discussion sake, this part time fire chief, does he have authority over the property, the fire house? If so, does he have authority to ask someone to leave for carrying or any other sufficient reason? Was that a volunteer fire department? Is that part time chief doing that out of civic duty? That all might make a difference. I just hate the idea of trying to bring criminal charges on folks who were trying hard to do their civic duty to the community.

    Suppose our local Mall made an area available on election day for a polling place. Does their no guns on my property policy prohibit the carrier (cc or oc) from voting? I don't think so.

    Who actually owns the fire station and who actually has say so
    about whether or not guns can be in there? We have plenty of volunteer units where everything is owned and controlled outside of the local government. Just asking. I don't know how things are done in IN and I don't know if this happened in a
    city, suburb, or rural community.
    Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    the asst fire chief has NO RIGHT to interfere with the voting process
    Spirit51 and Gun Bunny like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #137
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikeMI View Post
    nope. sorry, guess again. he has no authority to regulate firearms at the firehouse. that authority was removed from him about a year ago when Indiana enacted a preemption law that does not allow local units of government to enact or enforce firearms laws rules or ordinances.
    and in regards to polling places, they allow themselves to be under federal jurisdiction in regards to the rules of voting for the time they are open for voting. hence federal election law applies which does not allow states to enact restrictions on voting without first clearing it with the federal government. indiana has not requested permission to ban firearms from polling locations.
    I think you are more than a bit confused on the federal election law and voting rules, but I might be wrong. It is my understanding that only the 16 states (maybe the number is off a couple) which had previously engaged in horrific
    polling place discrimination are subject to the requirement that they get Federal Permission for all the might propose to do at
    polling places. I don't think IN is part of that group of states but I could be mistaken.

    Again, who owns the firehouse? Are you 100% certain it is a unit of local government and not a volunteer department?

    Anyway, trying to criminalize what is a minor misunderstanding that the person could have mitigated on his own and argued about later is wasting tax dollar money. Thanks alot. Its also downright immoral when applied to people who were merely
    trying to do a civic duty. Perfect example of "let no good deed go unpunished" just because one person wants to step outside
    the lines.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #138
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    I agree 100% on the portion I highlighted. The fact that something is a right and therefore legal does not mean it is a good idea to do it whenever or wherever you want. What it does do and this is the part some choose to ignore is that it prevents the Government from using its powers in an attempt to punish a person from exercising that right. Any attempt by the Government to do so would be unlawful.

    Michae
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    Just because something is a right, does not mean the action is 100% correct, noble or appropriate.



    Michael, both Vaquero 45 and you missed the point. Its not that it is 'right' it is a right and one that shall not be infringed upon. In essence you both are saying that our rights under the constitution are not to be exercised whenever or wherever one wants. The constitution does not dictate when and where one exercises their rights it simply allows them.

    One problem we face with our 2nd amendment rights(and other rights) is political correctness or as Vaquero 45 put it social appropriateness. Utopia is a beautiful dream but that is all it is.

    l
    I believe that you missed my point. The answer of mine that you quoted was a two part answer. I replied that I agree that exercising ones rights is not always the proper thing to do ant any particular time.

    The second part of the answer was the important part that many chose to over look.
    I agree 100% on the portion I highlighted. The fact that something is a right and therefore legal does not mean it is a good idea to do it whenever or wherever you want. What it does do and this is the part some choose to ignore is that it prevents the Government from using its powers in an attempt to punish a person from exercising that right. Any attempt by the Government to do so would be unlawful.
    Michael

  5. #139
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaquero 45 View Post
    Why can't I compare the two? Urination is natural, everyone does it. How dare the government tell me the manner in which I perform this necessary and vital biological function! People who don't like it need to get over themselves. When you gotta go, you gotta go. Unlike carrying a firearm, which is technically almost never really necessary, urination is ALWAYS necessary.

    Why is open tinkle even illegal? Because somebody said that it is inappropriate? Are these sheep ashamed to tinkle? I think I'll do it anyway. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits open tinkle, in fact, I seriously doubt that the founding fathers would consider it even possible to pursue happiness when you are painfully holding liquid in, just because some sheep might be embarrassed at this natural bodily function. Benjamin Franklin even wrote a book titled "Fart Proudly," so we know from historical evidence that he was not ashamed of bodily functions. In fact, since I don't even need a permit to fart in public, I think I'll start there and work my way up to open tinkle.

    If no one farts and tinkles in public, it will NEVER become socially appropriate.

    We need an Open Tinkle forum. I can't wait to post my first "encounter." What kind of voice recorder do I need?
    Ok, so you blast me for comparing LEO open carry to civilian OC, yet you think public nudity (which is necessary to urinate without soiling your clothes) and public urination are a good analogy to OC????

    Actually, Benjamin Franklin did NOT write the book Fart Proudly, it is a compilation of letters that Franklin wrote, in which there is a letter asking scientists to find a way to make farts smell good... you should check your facts before you post.

    Urination in public serves no lawful purpose. It smells bad, damages property, and can be considered vandalism, because you are defacing someone else's property. HOWEVER, if it were legal, I would support your right to do it, EVEN THOUGH I disagreed with it.
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  6. #140
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Anyway, trying to criminalize what is a minor misunderstanding that the person could have mitigated on his own and argued about later is wasting tax dollar money. Thanks alot. Its also downright immoral when applied to people who were merely
    trying to do a civic duty. Perfect example of "let no good deed go unpunished" just because one person wants to step outside
    the lines.
    Philly cops used to draw on open carriers, disarm them, arrest them, and then charge them with crimes, UNTIL an open carrier sued them. Surprisingly, after they had to pay him for his attorney fees to fight their trumped up charges, they trained all their officers on the fact that OC is perfectly legal.

    My point is that sometimes, it takes a bit of a government investment (which you call waste) to protect people's rights. You seem to forget that THAT is what government exists to do, make sure we are able to live and function as reasonably free people who can exercise our rights.

    Also, this man who was kept from voting IS a TAXPAYER, and as such, some of his money is going to fund the defense, AND he is also paying for HIS attorney fees. I would gladly pay more taxes to have my rights protected, as opposed to seeing them go to free cell phones for "the underprivileged."
    Bark'n and Spirit51 like this.
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  7. #141
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,519
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikeMI View Post
    your reading comprehension needs work. i said nothing remotely like that.
    I think I read it right. If you wouldnt mind explaining what you meant then....by this...


    if my brother intended to make a scene, he would have carried his 6 inch stainless gp100 on his hip or an AR slung over his back. as it stands, he carried his most subdued, every day carry gun, in a manner completely without ostentation.
    So im not to take it that your brother has never caused a scene (will use your words) or were you pounding on your chest, to make a different point...
    Hopyard likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  8. #142
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think you are more than a bit confused on the federal election law and voting rules, but I might be wrong. It is my understanding that only the 16 states (maybe the number is off a couple) which had previously engaged in horrific
    polling place discrimination are subject to the requirement that they get Federal Permission for all the might propose to do at
    polling places. I don't think IN is part of that group of states but I could be mistaken.

    Again, who owns the firehouse? Are you 100% certain it is a unit of local government and not a volunteer department?

    Anyway, trying to criminalize what is a minor misunderstanding that the person could have mitigated on his own and argued about later is wasting tax dollar money. Thanks alot. Its also downright immoral when applied to people who were merely
    trying to do a civic duty. Perfect example of "let no good deed go unpunished" just because one person wants to step outside
    the lines.
    one person? a lot more than just him open carried that day. and whose lines did he step outside. not the lines of the law. there were many people that crossed the legal line that day. clay was not one of them. if he didn't speak up, then the same thing would have continued in the november elections and so on.
    suntzu, Spirit51 and Gun Bunny like this.

  9. #143
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    I think I read it right. If you wouldnt mind explaining what you meant then....by this...




    So im not to take it that your brother has never caused a scene (will use your words) or were you pounding on your chest, to make a different point...
    your statement was:
    "So what you are saying is that, he will pull OC stunts, but this time he didnt."
    what part of this:
    "if my brother intended to make a scene, he would have carried his 6 inch stainless gp100 on his hip or an AR slung over his back. as it stands, he carried his most subdued, every day carry gun, in a manner completely without ostentation."
    says that my brother "will pull OC stunts"?
    i said exactly the opposite.
    Spirit51 likes this.

  10. #144
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikeMI View Post
    one person? a lot more than just him open carried that day. and whose lines did he step outside. not the lines of the law. there were many people that crossed the legal line that day. clay was not one of them. if he didn't speak up, then the same thing would have continued in the november elections and so on.
    IMO, what is being done is shameful. Next time your community needs volunteers on election day, or volunteer part time
    fire chiefs, the good guys will be aware that there are jerks just looking for an opportunity to criminalize ordinary actions
    and gain money too, by creating a set up, or being ever ready to pounce.

    You (or whoever that dude who pulled this stunt is ) and the lawyer who wants
    a special prosecutor, are not my idea of freedom loving people trying to protect their rights.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #145
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,519
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikeMI View Post
    your statement was:
    "So what you are saying is that, he will pull OC stunts, but this time he didnt."
    what part of this:
    "if my brother intended to make a scene, he would have carried his 6 inch stainless gp100 on his hip or an AR slung over his back. as it stands, he carried his most subdued, every day carry gun, in a manner completely without ostentation."
    says that my brother "will pull OC stunts"?
    i said exactly the opposite.
    You use the term "make a scene" I used the term "stunt" Once again, does he makes "scenes" by carrying his guns openly? Your statement would indicate that he has in the past and this time he was not doing so...
    Hopyard likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  12. #146
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    IMO, what is being done is shameful. Next time your community needs volunteers on election day, or volunteer part time
    fire chiefs, the good guys will be aware that there are jerks just looking for an opportunity to criminalize ordinary actions
    and gain money too, by creating a set up, or being ever ready to pounce.

    You (or whoever that dude who pulled this stunt is ) and the lawyer who wants
    a special prosecutor, are not my idea of freedom loving people trying to protect their rights.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
    Hi Hop Look, I do understand where you are coming from. But regardless whether someone is pulling a stunt or not they are entitled to exercise thier rights. And once their rights are denied whether it be free speach, voting, 2 A, 4th A or whatever it is the fault lies on the gvt. Not the individual. You or I may not like the way they go about what they are doing but it is within their rights to do so. And I can not believe that you can not see a failure in the governemnt when :election official to state officials got the law wrong. That in of itself is scary. Scary that you overlook it and scary that this can be happening to other people in other circumstances. I think this time regardless of his intentions someone in the government bear responsibility.
    Spirit51 and Gun Bunny like this.

  13. #147
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,298
    -
    I disagree with the accusations that this was a 'stunt'. The man was doing what he'd always done - excercise the rights afforded him by the Constitution.

    As the 'officials' in this case could not find a law that prohibited him from doing so at that particular polling place, I feel that they violated their duties & at least two of this man's very important constitutional rights per the 2nd & 15th amendments to the Constitution.

    The fact that he was a Marine makes these violations all that much more distasteful, due to the fact that not only was he an American, but one who had directly served his country in her defense.
    Spirit51 and Gun Bunny like this.
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

  14. #148
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    IMO, what is being done is shameful. Next time your community needs volunteers on election day, or volunteer part time
    fire chiefs, the good guys will be aware that there are jerks just looking for an opportunity to criminalize ordinary actions
    and gain money too, by creating a set up, or being ever ready to pounce.

    You (or whoever that dude who pulled this stunt is ) and the lawyer who wants
    a special prosecutor, are not my idea of freedom loving people trying to protect their rights.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
    I think you are way off base calling him a jerk! You know nothing about him. What I know about him is he is a former USMC Captain and currently a US Naval officer in the Chaplain Corps. I hardly think he goes around presenting himself as a jerk.

    I think this is a legitimate issue which needs to be settled. In no reports have I read where he acted in anyway which would be considered a jerk. Quite the contrary compared to other OC'ers who have risen to the public attention in the recent past in other states.

    What's significant about this case is that it's not like he was refused admittance to a local restaurant or grocery store because of an illegal gun buster sign. In this case, he was essentially refused of his Constitutional right to vote. Which is a felony.

    Yes, he could have disarmed, locked the gun in the car and then voted. But he was breaking no law by having his gun openly displayed. At what point does a person make a stand? A right not exercised is a right lost. How many times do we hear that? How many times is that preached here in this forum? How about all the friggon time!

    My only reason I do not open carry is my personal belief that I lose a certain tactical advantage I'm not comfortable with giving up. However, I am, and have always been in full support of those who do open carry.

    Yes, he could have disarmed and then gone in and voted. He could have cow-towed and given in to "The Man's" request. Funny thing about Marine Officers... I don't see them doing that. So, now he's a jerk for allowing people to commit a felony instead of going along with their ignorance and just blindly do what the nice officer says. No Sir. Negative. He chose to stand his ground, and press the issue. And managed to do it without making a spectacle of himself and being drug away in handcuffs. He was cordial and polite, and like a good warrior, allowed them to choose their own course of action. In this case, it appears, someone committed a felony. I'm all for letting it play out and see what happens.
    suntzu, Spirit51, Badey and 3 others like this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  15. #149
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    You use the term "make a scene" I used the term "stunt" Once again, does he makes "scenes" by carrying his guns openly? Your statement would indicate that he has in the past and this time he was not doing so...
    no, he just open carries. sometimes scenes are made, but it's always by other people. he can't be responsible for the rude or criminal behavior of others.
    Spirit51 likes this.

  16. #150
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    IMO, what is being done is shameful. Next time your community needs volunteers on election day, or volunteer part time
    fire chiefs, the good guys will be aware that there are jerks just looking for an opportunity to criminalize ordinary actions
    and gain money too, by creating a set up, or being ever ready to pounce.

    You (or whoever that dude who pulled this stunt is ) and the lawyer who wants
    a special prosecutor, are not my idea of freedom loving people trying to protect their rights.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
    walking from point a to point b with a gun is hardly a stunt. just got back from a packed home depot. i was open carrying. bought what i needed. left.
    no problems.
    Spirit51 likes this.

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

clay edinger

,

guy relford attorney

,
officer banicki
,
powered by mybb business license in washington
,
powered by mybb crystals story site
,
powered by mybb doing business in mexico
,

powered by mybb fire station

,
powered by mybb hard boiled
,
powered by mybb michigan state
,

powered by mybb state board

,

powered by mybb state department

,
powered by mybb state of california
,

powered by mybb state of oregon

,

powered by mybb texas state

,
powered by mybb washington state
Click on a term to search for related topics.