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 suntzu I have no idea where you are going with this. Where are you getting this from "Why does the person involved ...

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 252
Like Tree359Likes

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

  1. #181
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I have no idea where you are going with this. Where are you getting this from "Why does the person involved here think he should be treated differently? Does he think a polling place is a sanctuary from the law?"
    And obviously a polling place is not a place to go for sanctuary since nobody there seems to know the law. As far as maybe disarming him while they interview him I can see where that can be up to an officers discretion. But not for the reason of voting. What I am saying is this: If they want to disarm him while they interview him I can see that. But at the point they realize he is not a danger to anyone (and they were not called for that reason, they all thought he could not vote armed) then I do not see how they can dis arm him for the purposes of voting. That is the issue. Even with your logic they should allow him to have his weapon and vote.
    Again, I want to know what IN law says on officer discretion in encounters with armed individuals. It has a direct bearing
    on the motive for the disarm and whether or not it was to prevent him from voting or to protect the public under general
    police authority in such matters.

    No more speculation. Officers were called for whatever reason. They were on the spot. Did they have the authority to
    disarm him or not?
    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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #182
    Distinguished Member Array DontTreadOnI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I don't want to speculate on the "why?" I want to know what IN code says about the discretion of an officer
    to disarm someone, and also the discretion of an officer to remove someone perhaps from a theater, or order someone to
    leave a locations---e.g., "move along" --that is, what discretion does IN law give to an LEO to act as
    an officer for the good of public safety as he sees it at that moment in time.
    So we've gone from "if there isn't a law against it, it's legal" to "if there isn't a law permitting it, it's illegal" now?

    You said you want to know, so look it up. If you can't find it, there may be a reason.
    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

  4. #183
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Why does the person involved here think he should be treated differently? Does he think a polling place is a sanctuary from the law?
    The person in question broke no laws. Why would he need sanctuary?

    Michael
    Spirit51 likes this.

  5. #184
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    The person in question broke no laws. Why would he need sanctuary?

    Michael
    Let me rephrase that. IF, and I don't know the answer to this, IN law give their police broad discretion to disarm
    someone for public safety or officer safety, that authority would extend into the polling place and the
    claim that his voting right was interfered with seems to me would go away.

    I do not know what authority and what discretion LEOs in IN have. The courts had made some of it very broad, so much so
    that their governor had to sign a brand new law that allows use of deadly force against an officer, as a result of the courts
    being very pro-LE. The courts had no sympathy for an innocent home owner
    and the violation of his rights by a mistaken entry in which the home owner fired at the officer and was charged for doing so.

    It seems doubtful to me that the courts will have much sympathy for the OC person we are discussing; but that could turn on the precise wording of the authority Indiana LEOs have when they are "talking to" an armed individual and investigating a situation.

    So, once again, does anyone have that code and care to post 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

  6. #185
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Let me rephrase that. IF, and I don't know the answer to this, IN law give their police broad discretion to disarm
    someone for public safety or officer safety, that authority would extend into the polling place and the
    claim that his voting right was interfered with seems to me would go away.
    I am no lawyer but I re-read this twice
    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.”
    That tells me they were not disarming him far any other reason than he was attempting to vote with it. Not for officer safety, not for public safety.
    mlr1m, Gun Bunny and Spirit51 like this.

  7. #186
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    OK: from INGunOwners...

    According to the case Washington vs IN I believe, once it has been established that you have a LTCH any line of questioning about it or your gun must cease. The LEO cannot take possession of your weapon unless you volunteer it or he has PC or RS.
    Not statutory law rather appears to be court precedent.

    In Indiana (born and raised Hoosier) you can not have a handgun outside your home without 1 of 2 licensees; hunting & target only allows transport to and from hunting and target practice and while so engaged, handgun must be transported unloaded and cased.

    The personal protection license allows loaded carry anyway you want, so if he was carrying other than hunting, target practice he had to have a personal protection license and that should have been the end of it.

    Contrary to common belief that Flori-duh had the first CCW law, Indiana's law dates back to the 1930s, in most of Indiana a carried handgun is nothing the LEO get excited about; BUT this was South Bend (actually in the north, a distant suburb of Chitcago), home of Paul Helmke, head of The Brady Bunch and former mayor, so I'm not too surprised about a bunch of pantie wetters.

    From HoosierGunClub.com

    Location Limits Persons with a license to carry a handgun cannot possess a handgun:
    In a commercial or charter aircraft (Ind. Code Ann. § 35-47-6-1);
    In an area of an airport where access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property (§ 35-47-6-1.3);
    In or on school property (including private schools and preschools; see section 35-41-1-24.7) (§ 35-47-9-2);
    In or on property that is being used by a school for a school function or on a school bus (§ 35-47-9-2);
    On board a riverboat gambling operation (see 68 Ind. Admin. Code 1-7-1);
    On the fairgrounds during the annual state fair (80 Ind. Admin. Code 4-4-4(b); any person properly licensed to carry a firearm must secure the firearm in a locked compartment of his or her vehicle, where it will not be visible, per 80 Ind. Admin. Code 4-4-4(d)); or
    In or on port areas or port property (see 130 Ind. Admin. Code 4-1-7 and 4-1-8(2)).
    Licensees also cannot carry in children’s homes and child caring institutions run or overseen by Child Welfare Services. See 465 Ind. Admin. Code 2-9-80(b)(3); 465 Ind. Admin. Code 2-10-79(b)(3); 465 Ind. Admin. Code 2-11-80(b)(3); 465 Ind. Admin. Code 2-12-78(b)(3); 465 Ind. Admin. Code 2-13-77(b)(3). In addition, child care centers must prominently post in places regularly viewed by parents prohibitions against the use or possession of firearms, unless such possession is required as a condition of employment. 470 Ind. Admin Code 3-4.7-19(a)(5)(C).
    Concealed handgun license holders may be subject to generally applicable possession prohibitions. Please see the Possession Restrictions and Transportation of Firearms subsections above for further information.
    Quite a pre primary discussion went on there http://www.hoosiergunclub.com/forums...ad.php?p=43468 Looks like a number of Hoosiers will be carrying at the polls, including those working the polls.
    Bark'n and Gun Bunny like this.

  8. #187
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    "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."

    Well Officer Banicki cannot "revoke" his LTCH, the ISP (Indiana State Police) is the issuing authority, they are the only ones that can "revoke" a persons LTCH, the LEO can contact ISP and tell them the situation and they would decide.

    That won't look good either to the Judge the LEO making empty threats! Goes to show you how much he really knows the law.

    In Indiana if there isn't a law against it, then it is legal. No law against carrying a loaded long gun either, so it is legal, and people have done it also.

    I just don't understand all the anti-OC on this carry forum, for most of us, guns are part of our everyday lives, whether we carry openly, concealed or in a vehicle. We all want to keep our right to be armed to protect ourselves, that is one of the great things about America, does it really matter how we choose to do it?

    To me, it is insane to have to give up a right just to exercise another. Why should a polling place be another "gun free zone"? To me the two can go hand in hand as Americans, us, exercising our rights to vote for who we want to represent us and showing those same people that we have the means to resist!
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  9. #188
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    If the law in IN is as some of you are suggesting it is, and a responding officer lacks discretion to keep the peace,
    you all better be careful what you wish for. What is that officer to do if the nice man with a gun seems agitated to him?
    Stand back and watch what occurs? Tell the newspapers the next day his hands were tied?

    You guys don't want to give officers needed discretion to be peace officers. You are hanging your arguments on very
    narrow wording, the exact turn of a phrase, and not looking at the big picture.

    The big picture is no voting rights were denied. An officer made a good faith effort to keep the peace at the polling place and insure safety to other voters. That's what peace officers do.

    We'll see what the judge says.
    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

  10. #189
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If the law in IN is as some of you are suggesting it is, and a responding officer lacks discretion to keep the peace,
    you all better be careful what you wish for. What is that officer to do if the nice man with a gun seems agitated to him?
    Stand back and watch what occurs? Tell the newspapers the next day his hands were tied?

    You guys don't want to give officers needed discretion to be peace officers. You are hanging your arguments on very
    narrow wording, the exact turn of a phrase, and not looking at the big picture.

    The big picture is no voting rights were denied. An officer made a good faith effort to keep the peace at the polling place and insure safety to other voters. That's what peace officers do.

    We'll see what the judge says.
    I'm not an attorney, and I only live in Missouri, but I don't believe there is any state in the union where the LEO is not allowed to disarm someone at their discretion, during the course of their interaction with an armed individual. That is an officer safety issue which I don't think any state would hamstring the individual officer on.

    In this case, the officer did not disarm the "disenfranchised" voter, so he obviously did not believe him to be a threat to his safety during the course of his interaction with him. (I believe he would be legally able to disarm him, at least for the course of their interaction).

    What the officer did do, was threaten to confiscate his weapon, and his license if he continued to try to go vote with the gun on his person. Which it is appearing to be outside his authority to do so.

    This issue isn't about officer safety, and whether he has the authority to disarm an individual based on that. I would imagine he has that authority. And again, it appears the officer did not feel threatened by the person. The issue was he was not going to be allowed to vote while carrying a gun.
    suntzu, mlr1m and Spirit51 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."

  11. #190
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If the law in IN is as some of you are suggesting it is, and a responding officer lacks discretion to keep the peace,
    you all better be careful what you wish for. What is that officer to do if the nice man with a gun seems agitated to him?
    Stand back and watch what occurs? Tell the newspapers the next day his hands were tied?

    You guys don't want to give officers needed discretion to be peace officers. You are hanging your arguments on very
    narrow wording, the exact turn of a phrase, and not looking at the big picture.

    The big picture is no voting rights were denied. An officer made a good faith effort to keep the peace at the polling place and insure safety to other voters. That's what peace officers do.

    We'll see what the judge says.
    Hop, what would you say if an officer said you need to take a shirt off that would most likely be offensive to people before being allowed to vote? He is setting a condition on a right. Is that OK. I know it sounds simplistic but it is the exact same issue and same situation.

  12. #191
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Hop, what would you say if an officer said you need to take a shirt off that would most likely be offensive to people before being allowed to vote? He is setting a condition on a right. Is that OK. I know it sounds simplistic but it is the exact same issue and same situation.
    I would turn my shirt around, vote, and then file a complaint.
    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

  13. #192
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I would turn my shirt around, vote, and then file a complaint.
    OK, would you be disenfranchised if you did not?

  14. #193
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    I'm not an attorney, and I only live in Missouri, but I don't believe there is any state in the union where the LEO is not allowed to disarm someone at their discretion, during the course of their interaction with an armed individual. That is an officer safety issue which I don't think any state would hamstring the individual officer on.

    In this case, the officer did not disarm the "disenfranchised" voter, so he obviously did not believe him to be a threat to his safety during the course of his interaction with him. (I believe he would be legally able to disarm him, at least for the course of their interaction).

    What the officer did do, was threaten to confiscate his weapon, and his license if he continued to try to go vote with the gun on his person. Which it is appearing to be outside his authority to do so.

    This issue isn't about officer safety, and whether he has the authority to disarm an individual based on that. I would imagine he has that authority. And again, it appears the officer did not feel threatened by the person. The issue was he was not going to be allowed to vote while carrying a gun.
    As I said, we'll see what the judge says. My hunch is that it will come down on the side of officer discretion to keep the peace.
    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

  15. #194
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post

    In this case, the officer did not disarm the "disenfranchised" voter, so he obviously did not believe him to be a threat to his safety during the course of his interaction with him. (I believe he would be legally able to disarm him, at least for the course of their interaction).
    Yup, as---"You There!!! I'm taking your gun. You can't have it while I'm here for my safety and I'm not leaving. Go vote. When you are done I'll give it back to you. That will be the end of our interaction. If you don't like it, go appeal."

    Instead the officer tried at first to be nice about it. Let no good deed go unpunished.
    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

  16. #195
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I would turn my shirt around, vote, and then file a complaint.
    All I can say is I am glad you were not in charge of the Civil Rights movement.
    sgb, smellslikeMI and Spirit51 like this.

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.