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 Bark'n I think you are way off base calling him a jerk! You know nothing about him. What I know about him ...

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 252
Like Tree359Likes

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

  1. #151
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    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.
    you got that right, buddy. and as a USMC SSgt, i concur with your opinion of officers. and for that matter, pretty much any Marine you meet is not going to bow down.
    Spirit51 and Gun Bunny like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #152
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    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.
    I think he will find that pressing the "felony" issue will be a complete non-starter.
    So, I'll sit back and watch the developments here, and look forward to hearing how this one develops, 'cause I think
    it is going absolutely nowhere as a valid complaint. To that extent I agree with your last sentence, "I'm all for letting it
    play out and see what happens." My prediction as to what will happen is nothing.
    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. #153
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think he will find that pressing the "felony" issue will be a complete non-starter.
    So, I'll sit back and watch the developments here, and look forward to hearing how this one develops, 'cause I think
    it is going absolutely nowhere as a valid complaint. To that extent I agree with your last sentence, "I'm all for letting it
    play out and see what happens." My prediction as to what will happen is nothing.
    STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE ST. JOSEPH CIRCUIT/SUPERIOR COURT ) SS:

    COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH ) CAUSE NO.

    IN RE: Potential violations of Ind. Code §3-14-3-4,

    Ind. Code§3-14-3-9 and/or Ind. Code §3-14-3-21.5

    by individuals employed by

    THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT;

    THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ELECTION BOARD;

    THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT;

    THE WARREN TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT;

    THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE;

    and/or other persons yet to be identified.

    VERIFIED PETITION REQUESTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A

    SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

    Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger, by counsel, pursuant to Ind. Code §33-39-1-6(b)(2), hereby petitions a judge of the Circuit or Superior Court of St. Joseph County, Indiana, for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether violations of Indiana law have been committed by employees and/or agents of the St. Joseph County Police Department, the St. Joseph County Election Board, the St. Joseph County Fire Department, the Warren Township Fire Department, the St. Joseph County Clerk’s Office, and/or other persons yet to be identified, for the reasons set forth below.

    I. Petitioner

    Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger (“Petitioner”), is a citizen of the United States and a resident of St. Joseph County, Indiana. Petitioner is registered to vote in St. Joseph County, Indiana. He has been married for eight years and has three children.

    Petitioner is currently a student completing his second year of a Master of Divinity degree in Chaplain Studies at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He recently served six and one half years in the United States Marine Corps, reaching the rank of Captain before being honorably discharged in July of 2009. He completed a tour of Iraq in 2005. Petitioner was commissioned an Ensign in the United States Navy in March of 2011 under the Chaplain Candidate Program.

    Petitioner possesses a valid License to Carry Handgun issued by the Superintendant of the Indiana State Police in full compliance with Ind. Code §35-47-2-3. Petitioner has devoted considerable time and effort in studying both Indiana and federal laws as they relate to the ownership and possession of firearms.

    II. Factual Background.

    On May 8, 2012, primary elections were conducted in St. Joseph County and overseen by the St. Joseph County Election Board. At approximately 9:40a.m. on May 8, 2012, Petitioner arrived at his designated polling station, the Warren Township Fire Station #2, located at 59330 Crumstown Highway, North Liberty, IN, 46554. At the time that Petitioner arrived at the polling station, and consistent with his daily practice, Petitioner had in his possession a legally-owned handgun in a retention holster on his belt. He also had in his possession his valid Indiana License to Carry Handgun.

    Petitioner entered the “chute” of the polling station and handed his valid Indiana driver’s license to a St. Joseph County poll worker who is currently unidentified. The poll worker accepted the Petitioner’s driver’s license and began to look up Petitioner’s name in the roll of registered voters.

    St.Joseph County Police Officer T. Vanoverbergh (who is also reportedly employed by the St. Joseph County Fire Department and/or the Warren Township Fire Department) approached Petitioner and informed him that he “could not have a gun in the building.” Petitioner inquired as to the authority that Officer Vanoverbergh was relying upon to make that statement. Officer Vanoverbergh responded with various and conflicting answers, including: a) “It’s against my policy because I’m in charge here;” b) “It’s against Warren Township policy to have a gun in a fire station;” c) “Federal law prohibits guns in polling places;” d) “It’s illegal to ‘open carry’ in Indiana;” e) “State law prohibits guns in fire stations;” and f) “State law prohibits guns at polling places.”

    Officer Vanoverbergh then ordered Petitioner to leave the polling station and Petitioner complied by walking outside the building. Petitioner requested Officer Vanoverbergh to call a supervisor. Officer Vanoverbergh then informed Petitioner that other members of the St. Joseph County Police Department were already in route to the polling station at the request of Officer Vanoverbergh.

    Thereafter, St. Joseph County Police Officer Banicki arrived and informed Petitioner that the reasons that Officer Vanoverbergh had refused to allow Petitioner to vote were valid and that Petitioner could not vote while in possession of a firearm. Officer Banicki also informed Petitioner that if Petitioner persisted in his attempts to vote without relinquishing his firearm, Banicki would “revoke your permit on the spot, confiscate your handgun and force you to appeal that decision in Indianapolis.”

    Another member of the St. Joseph County Fire Department then approached with a laptop computer and stated thathe was attempting to identify a law that Petitioner was violating by not concealing his handgun and/or possessing a firearm at a polling place and/or possessing a firearm at a fire station. No such law was identified by that individual.

    Sgt. K. Glueckert of the St. Joseph County Police Department then arrived and took possession of Petitioner’s Licenseto Carry Handgun and Indiana driver’s license. Sgt. Glueckert eventually received word, reportedly from an attorney at the St. Joseph County Election Board, that Ind. Code §35-47-2 prohibited Petitioner from carrying a firearm in a polling station. Petitioner knew that said statute was entirely inapplicable to the circumstances, but complied with the various orders that he not enter the polling station to vote.[1]

    Later in the day, Petitioner confirmed that Ind. Code §35-47-2 did not prevent him from carrying a firearm at a polling station or a fire station and returned to the polling station at approximately 5:40 p.m. in another attempt to exercise his legal right to vote. As Petitioner approached the building, the poll inspector, Mr. Gus Tillman, was standing at the door, blocking the way inside the polling station. Petitioner stated to Mr. Tillman, “I’d like to vote tonight. Will you let me do that?” Mr.Tillman responded, “I cannot let you come in. I had the election board call me. I cannot let you come in.”

    A few minutes later, Officer Chuck Flanagan of the St. Joseph County Police Department arrived and approached Petitioner. Officer Flanagan informed Petitioner that he could not vote while carrying a handgun. At that point, Petitioner again left the premises, having again been prevented from exercising his legal right to vote.

    Based upon statements made at the scene and in media interviews by Officer Vanoverbergh and others, the St. Joseph County Clerk’s Office and the St.Joseph County Election Board were involved in the decision to deny Petitioner’s right to vote on May 8, 2012.

    III. Overview of Legal Issues.

    An Indiana citizen’s right to vote is guaranteed by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana:

    Section2. (a) A citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and who has been a resident of a precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding an election may vote in that precinct at the election.

    (b) A citizen may not be disenfranchised under subsection (a), if the citizen is entitled to vote in a precinct under subsection (c) or federal law.

    In addition, Indiana law defines several crimes relating to the interference with a person’s right to vote:

    Obstruction of,interference with, or injury of voter or election officer

    Sec. 4. (a) A person who:

    (1) knowingly obstructs or interferes with an election officer in the discharge of the officer's duty; or

    (2) knowingly obstructs or interferes with a voter within the chute;

    commits a Class D felony.


    Ind.Code §3-14-3-4 (emphasis added).

    Failure to receive vote of legal voter

    Sec.9. A person who knowingly fails to receive the vote of a legal voter at an election commits a Class D felony.

    Ind.Code §3-14-3-9 (emphasis added).

    Voter intimidation

    Sec. 21.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally intimidates, threatens, or coerces an individual for:

    (1)voting or attempting to vote;

    (2) urging or aiding another individual to vote or attempt to vote; or

    (3) exercising any power or duty under this title concerning registration or voting;

    commits voter intimidation, a Class D felony.

    Ind.Code §3-14-3-9 (emphasis added).

    In addition, contrary to the assertions of the various individuals from St. Joseph County, there is absolutely no State, Federal or local authority that prevented Petitioner from possessing a legally-owned and legally-carried handgun while at the polling station. Subsequent statements to the media indicate that those individuals now admit that fact.

    Indeed,any local ordinance and/or regulation adopted or enforced by St. Joseph County is void and unenforceable under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act, Ind. Code §35-47-11.1-1,et seq., which prohibits political subdivisions (such as St. Joseph County) from regulating firearms – including the carrying of firearms.[2]

    As a result, there was no valid legal justification for any of the St. Joseph County authorities present at the polling station to interfere with Petitioner’s legal right to vote. Similarly, those authorities had no legal justification for conditioning Petitioner’s right to vote on the involuntary relinquishment of his legal right to carry a firearm.[3] Yet Petitioner was threatened with arrest and/or the revocation of his Indiana License to Carry Handgun and he was intimidated into leaving the polling station without exercising his Constitutionally-protected right to vote.

    Importantly,to the extent that the St. Joseph County Election Board has created a new qualification for the right to vote in St. Joseph County (the relinquishment of the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms), any such qualification is inconsistent with federal law, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42U.S.C. §1973C(a), et seq., which mandates a very specific procedure for the adoption of new legal restrictions on the qualification to vote.

    IV. The Need for a Special Prosecutor

    This matter involves the actions of various governmental employees of St. Joseph County, including the St. Joseph County Police Department. In addition, the officials present at the polling station on May 8, 2012, made several telephone calls outside the presence of Petitioner during their investigation into whether Petitioner could be charged with a crime and/or denied the right to vote. As stated, infra at p. 4, n.1, Petitioner does not know with certainty whether the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office was contacted during this investigation and/or whether the prosecutor’s office was involved in the decision to deny Petitioner his Constitutionally-protected right to vote. If the prosecutor’s office was involved, it clearly creates an actual conflict of interest in investigating and/or prosecuting this matter.

    As stated in Ind. Code §33-39-1-6(b)(2), a judge of the circuit or superior court may appoint a special prosecutor “if a person files a verified petition requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor,” and the court, after notice is given to the prosecuting attorney and an evidentiary hearing is conducted, “finds by clear and convincing evidence that the appointment is necessary to avoid an actual conflict of interest.” Id.

    The prosecuting attorney may also agree that a special prosecutor is needed. See Ind.Code §33-39-1-6(b)(1)(B).

    In this matter, if it is revealed at an evidentiary hearing that the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office participated in the interference with Petitioner’s legal right to vote,a clear conflict of interest would exist. As such, consistent with Ind. Code §33-39-1-6, a Special Prosecutor would be needed in order to avoid an actual conflict of interest and/or the appearance of impropriety in the investigation and/or prosecution of this matter.

    GuyA. Relford

    Attorney for Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger

    Attorney No. 6450-49

    The Law Offices of Guy A. Relford

    4181 First Flight Circle

    Zionsville, IN 46077

    (317) 450-8252

    (317) 873-9193 (facsimile)

    grelford@global-lit.com

    VERIFICATION

    Clay C. Edinger, having first been duly sworn upon his oath, under penalties for perjury, hereby verifies and affirms that the factual statements contained in the foregoing Verified Petition Requesting the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor are true, based on knowledge and belief.

    Clay C. Edinger

    State of Indiana )

    ) SS:

    County of St.Joseph )

    Clay C. Edinger personally appeared before me, , a duly authorized Notary Public for the State of Indiana, on this 11th day of May, 2012, and verified the foregoing Verified Petition Requesting the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor, after having been duly sworn upon his oath.

    Notary Public

    SEAL

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Verified Petition for the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor was served this 11th day of May, 2012, by hand delivery,upon Michael Dvorak, Prosecutor, 60th Judicial Circuit (St. Joseph County),Indiana, 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, IN 46601

    Guy A. Relford

    [1] Petitioner was detained for a total of ninety (90)minutes while the authorities present were investigating whether he could be arrested for possessing his firearm on the premises and/or whether he could be denied his right to vote. It is presently unknown with certainty by Petitioner whether the officials present at the polling station contacted the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office during their inquiry; however, it is reasonable to speculate that they did and Petitioner submits that it is necessary to investigate whether such contact occurred and – if it did – whether that contact and/or any involvement by the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office in the decision to deny Petitioner’s legal right to vote constitutes an actual conflict of interest.

    [2] Although Ind. Code §35-47-11.1-4 contains various exceptions to the general prohibition of the regulation of firearms by political subdivisions, none of those exceptions apply to a fire station or a polling place. Petitioner was in possession of a copy of the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act at the polling station on May 8,2012, and showed that copy to Officer Vanoverbergh and others, but it was ignored.

    [3] Petitioner’s right to possess a firearm is protected under both the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 32 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. That right is also specifically codified by Indiana law under Ind. Code §35-41-2-1, et seq.
    Last edited by Bark'n; May 12th, 2012 at 04:50 PM. Reason: fixed formating error

  5. #154
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Oh Hopyard, you may be right on that.

    And that's typical for today's political arena. Sweep things under the carpet, and ignore it. Hope it goes away. We can't have any public officials admitting to being dumb asses. And oh my lord, a felony? Well, it's gotta be someone else's fault. (And it sickens me that political people pass the buck, lie, cheat, and act like that). They have no honor or integrity.

    So yes, you may be right. Only time will tell. But I for one, am watching to see how this plays out.

    But just because nothing may come of it, doesn't mean a felony didn't happen, and a citizen's right wasn't infringed upon.
    Spirit51, Gun Bunny and 64zebra 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."

  6. #155
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    pay special attention to the bit in blue
    Spirit51 likes this.

  7. #156
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Oh Hopyard, you may be right on that.

    And that's typical for today's political arena. Sweep things under the carpet, and ignore it. Hope it goes away. We can't have any public officials admitting to being dumb asses. And oh my lord, a felony? Well, it's gotta be someone else's fault. (And it sickens me that political people pass the buck, lie, cheat, and act like that). They have no honor or integrity.

    So yes, you may be right. Only time will tell. But I for one, am watching to see how this plays out.

    But just because nothing may come of it, doesn't mean a felony didn't happen, and a citizen's right wasn't infringed upon.
    I'm sure we'll hear the outcome if it goes the complainant's way. Otherwise it will just disappear and we'll hear no more.

    Over and out. Ya all enjoy.
    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

  8. #157
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Sorry, just one more thought on this. The petition says, "Officer Banicki also informed Petitioner that if Petitioner persisted in his attempts to vote without relinquishing his firearm, Banicki would “revoke your permit on the spot, confiscate your handgun and force you to appeal that decision in Indianapolis."

    OK, in Indiana, how much discretion and how much freedom do officers have to make decisions to disarm someone on their own discretion? I'd guess that it is pretty broad authority as a matter of public safety.

    In many places that is pretty broad authority, and if there is broad authority to do that in IN as well, that will have a drastic impact on how a neutral party (judge) might view the voting complaint, which was entirely incidental to the officer's decision regarding whether or not this person should be removed from the polling place and or disarmed. I also think it will be a hard sell to a judge that what occurred resembles the situations the legislature was addressing when writing those exact words.
    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

  9. #158
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    i am beginning to get the sense that some people are just jealous that OC is illegal where they live... there are only a few states. they must feel all alone with their small group of 7, knowing that there are 43 other freedom loving states out there.

  10. #159
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Sorry, just one more thought on this. The petition says, "Officer Banicki also informed Petitioner that if Petitioner persisted in his attempts to vote without relinquishing his firearm, Banicki would “revoke your permit on the spot, confiscate your handgun and force you to appeal that decision in Indianapolis."

    OK, in Indiana, how much discretion and how much freedom do officers have to make decisions to disarm someone on their own discretion? I'd guess that it is pretty broad authority as a matter of public safety.

    In many places that is pretty broad authority, and if there is broad authority to do that in IN as well, that will have a drastic impact on how a neutral party (judge) might view the voting complaint, which was entirely incidental to the officer's decision regarding whether or not this person should be removed from the polling place and or disarmed. I also think it will be a hard sell to a judge that what occurred resembles the situations the legislature was addressing when writing those exact words.
    Hop,
    That sounds like a blatant attempt by the officer to threaten the plaintiff. Sounds like the plaintiff had his ducks in order and the officer at this point was realizing he was getting out of his league....but hey, I am not a mind reader. All the officer had to do was know the law and leave the man be. It really is that simple.
    Last edited by suntzu; May 12th, 2012 at 06:53 PM.

  11. #160
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    I have been reading this thread and just one quote sticks in my mind:

    If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  12. #161
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    For the sake of argument lets say this gentleman was doing this as a stunt. That he was attempting to bait police or cause trouble. I do not think its the case but lets say it was.
    How does any of that have anything to do with the law? There is no law preventing him from open carrying so how is it the business of law enforcement?

    Michael

  13. #162
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    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.
    Hmmmm, lets look at it from a different perspective. You and others consider what this person did (and others that open carry) are "pulling" stunts and their actions are shameful. You also state they are just trying to get money by their actions.

    OK, now the other perspective. If law enforcement would deal with a legal open carry situation as they should the opportunity to gain money would be nil. They can not be awarded anything if their rights were not violated. So maybe you are accusing the wrong people with pulling stunts and acting in a shameful manner.

    What is the sense of having rights if one does not exercise those rights. Keep in mind the phrase "Use It or Lose It". Do not for one moment think there are not those that want to take rights away from American citizens. FACT: over the years many of the rights we have as Americans have been watered down by our representatives(federal/state/local) and the courts(federal/state/local).

    As much as you, me and others might frown upon someone exercising their constitutional/legal rights we should not bash them. They and all of us have that right and by bashing others it only weakens all our rights.

    Not a perfect fit quote but it works.......
    "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."
    --Thomas Jefferson
    Last edited by Crowman; May 13th, 2012 at 04:17 AM. Reason: Edited for clarification
    Bark'n, suntzu and Gun Bunny like this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  14. #163
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,534
    [QUOTE=Vaquero 45;2258589]If there was no law against urinating in public, I bet I can pick the people who would do it while thumping their chests, just because it was their right.

    Just because something is a right, does not mean the action is 100% correct, noble or appropriate. QUOTE]





    ^^^^^^^In many countries^^^^^

    around the world, IT is socially acceptable. Does that mean you have to, or that some people are not gonna get squeamish when they see someone "doing it"?
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  15. #164
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,534
    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.



    ^^^^^^^^Rosa Parks^^^^^^^^


    Sure would have made it easier if only SHE hadn't pulled that wacky STUNT.


    What an attention getting little stinker she was, EH?
    What a rabble rouser, huh?
    Just couldn't leave well enough alone, Sheesh.

    Is this the headline, world changing event that was?
    No, but its very similar, and was a stunt, nevertheless.

    I guess for some of you guys, as long as it ain't your ox being gored, you don't care.
    Quite a shame.
    Bark'n and Crowman like this.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  16. #165
    Distinguished Member Array Burns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,330
    I'm wondering why the article stressed that he was a ex-marine so much when it has nothing to do with the story. Should people get treated any different because of what one of their occupations used to be or do they just want their article to get more attention?


    "Vanoverberghe, who admits to understanding Edinger’s legal right to bear arms and even carry it openly, cannot come to grips for Clay’s reason for refusing to simply take it off and go vote."

    ^ It's funny how they still don't understand why most of us refuse to go to places that don't let us carry. It is our right, our lives, and our loved ones we put at risk when we are unable to carry. Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't even take the slightest risk just to vote/eat/shop.

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... 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
,
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 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.