Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing - Page 14

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 OK, would you be disenfranchised if you did not? No. Not at all, so long as there was a reasonable way ...

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41011121314151617 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 252
Like Tree359Likes

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

  1. #196
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    OK, would you be disenfranchised if you did not?
    No. Not at all, so long as there was a reasonable way for me to go in and cast my vote.
    The shirt thing is quite different from telling someone with a tattoo that they can't vote, as the
    tattoo can't be removed.

    But we aren't talking about trivial cosmetic stuff here.

    I think one reason this is really frosting me as an issue is that the folks involved are attempting to make a felony
    criminal matter out of what seemed to me to be reasonable on-the-spot keeping of the peace; and that they
    are dragging volunteers who were trying to do their civic duty into the muck and mire of a potentially nasty
    and expensive fight; which is punishing the wrong people.
    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. #197
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    No. Not at all, so long as there was a reasonable way for me to go in and cast my vote.
    The shirt thing is quite different from telling someone with a tattoo that they can't vote, as the
    tattoo can't be removed.

    But we aren't talking about trivial cosmetic stuff here.

    I think one reason this is really frosting me as an issue is that the folks involved are attempting to make a felony
    criminal matter out of what seemed to me to be reasonable on-the-spot keeping of the peace; and that they
    are dragging volunteers who were trying to do their civic duty into the muck and mire of a potentially nasty
    and expensive fight; which is punishing the wrong people.
    I am torn on this issue. LEOs expect citizens to know the law, and ignorance is no excuse for violating it. If the voter would have committed a felony with a firearm, you can bet your boots he would have been charged. So why shouldn't the offenders in this case be charged?

    On the other hand, if they were truly acting in ignorance, I tend to advocate some mercy. However, it seems to me that the offenders knew that OC was legal, and chose to violate his rights anyway. So, again, if they knowingly broke the law, why shouldn't there be some form of reprisal?
    Spirit51 and Crowman like this.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  3. #198
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    I am torn on this issue. LEOs expect citizens to know the law, and ignorance is no excuse for violating it. If the voter would have committed a felony with a firearm, you can bet your boots he would have been charged. So why shouldn't the offenders in this case be charged?

    On the other hand, if they were truly acting in ignorance, I tend to advocate some mercy. However, it seems to me that the offenders knew that OC was legal, and chose to violate his rights anyway. So, again, if they knowingly broke the law, why shouldn't there be some form of reprisal?
    Its not just the LEOs apparently who are named, for whom they are seeking felony charges, if I understand it correctly. It is polling officials and a part time fire-chief; volunteers who were trying to do a civic good.

    That's the part that frost me.

    It strikes me as conscienceless.
    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. #199
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    What it boils down to is a person(s) didn't like the fact that he wanted to vote with his firearm, so for 1 1/2 hours they did everything to prevent him from doing so. They basically put a condition on his ability to vote, which is illegal, period!

    IC 3-14-3-21.5
    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.
    As added by P.L.103-2005, SEC.40.


    They at least seemed to know they could not arrest him:

    IC 3-5-4-4
    Immunity from arrest while at or going to and from polls
    Sec. 4. A voter is not subject to arrest while going to the polls, while in attendance there, and while returning from the polls. However, this section does not apply in a case of:
    (1) treason;
    (2) felony; or
    (3) breach of the peace.
    As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.1.
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  5. #200
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I am no lawyer but I re-read this twice


    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.
    they never took his gun in either encounter, so officer safety was obviously never at the heart of the matter. no one tried to stop anyone from concealing a firearm on premises either.
    Spirit51 likes this.

  6. #201
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    All I can say is I am glad you were not in charge of the Civil Rights movement.
    i imagine if hopyard were, there would still be a lot of people sitting at the back of the bus
    Spirit51 and DontTreadOnI like this.

  7. #202
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Its not just the LEOs apparently who are named, for whom they are seeking felony charges, if I understand it correctly. It is polling officials and a part time fire-chief; volunteers who were trying to do a civic good.

    That's the part that frost me.

    It strikes me as conscienceless.
    they seek charges against no one. all that has been requested so far is an investigation by a special prosecutor. it will be up to him.

  8. #203
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    i hardly consider felonious behavior a "good deed". i do, however, consider, lawful firearms carry without malice or showiness with the intent to protect self or others if the need arise, a good deed.
    Bark'n and suntzu like this.

  9. #204
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by Aiko View Post
    I "think" no weapons at all in polling places in SC. Seems like a time to CC to not create a problem.
    The entire thread seems to basically boil down to CC vs. OC.

    You know, I am pro OC but not because I plan to do it. If it becomes lawful for me in Oklahoma (which it sure looks like it will), the main use I will make of it is a) not to worry too much about accidental weapon exposure, and b) carry openly in my car whenever I like (which is supposed to be legal already but not all cops seem to know this). I like to carry openly while driving (I carry IWB appendix 1'oclock) and I just tuck my cover shirt behind the gun/holster, with the seat belt below the whole thing, and I can draw it very quickly that way. But 99% of the time I plan to conceal. However, I like it when others open carry, so as to bring our 2A rights to the forefront.

    All that being said, I just don't understand those that fight against open carry in favor of concealed carry. Each to his own, and try to remember we should all be on the same side.
    suntzu and Spirit51 like this.
    Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.

  10. #205
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Its not just the LEOs apparently who are named, for whom they are seeking felony charges, if I understand it correctly. It is polling officials and a part time fire-chief; volunteers who were trying to do a civic good.

    That's the part that frost me.

    It strikes me as conscienceless.
    I see what you are saying. I'm not sure how to take that part of the issue. For me it boils down to intent, which is difficult to prove. Did they intentionally (volunteers included) bar him from entering just because he was armed, while knowing that he was allowed to be armed while voting?
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  11. #206
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    I see what you are saying. I'm not sure how to take that part of the issue. For me it boils down to intent, which is difficult to prove. Did they intentionally (volunteers included) bar him from entering just because he was armed, while knowing that he was allowed to be armed while voting?
    It is likely hard to prove what they knew when. In my opinion, they (police, volunteers, etc) just assumed it MUST be unlawful and proceeded on that basis.
    Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.

  12. #207
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Bunny View Post
    What it boils down to is a person(s) didn't like the fact that he wanted to vote with his firearm, so for 1 1/2 hours they did everything to prevent him from doing so. They basically put a condition on his ability to vote, which is illegal, period!

    IC 3-14-3-21.5
    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.
    As added by P.L.103-2005, SEC.40.


    They at least seemed to know they could not arrest him:

    IC 3-5-4-4
    Immunity from arrest while at or going to and from polls
    Sec. 4. A voter is not subject to arrest while going to the polls, while in attendance there, and while returning from the polls. However, this section does not apply in a case of:
    (1) treason;
    (2) felony; or
    (3) breach of the peace.
    As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.1.
    If you read these dispassionately, the first code doesn't even come close to applying to the situation as described IMO.

    The second, well the man was NOT arrested, so it is inapplicable.

    We'll see what the judge says. Probably, get out of here.
    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. #208
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If you read these dispassionately...
    You're kidding, right?

    You seem to be about the most impassioned person in this thread.
    Spirit51 and suntzu 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."

  14. #209
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    ... 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...


    ...Instead the officer tried at first to be nice about it. Let no good deed go unpunished...
    Regarding the first section, isn't that how it always is? The specific words and exact meaning are exactly what is important in the law, and it is written as such. It works that way when we dissagree with it, so we should be able to interpret it that way when looking how to follow and apply it.

    For the second part, I have to shake my head and sigh again. I normally give LEO the benefit of the doubtm, and I don't like judging their actions because they are in a verry difficult position every day and have to make difficult decisions, but it is very clear to anyone looking objectively at this sittuation and the facts that have been presented that this officer was not being nice about anything, and was not doing any favors. He was threatening to do things he did not have the authority to do, and giving ultimatums dictating a citizens ability to vote.

    When people start issuing threats to get their way instead of explaining the sittuation, they are usually stretching the bounds of what they are allowed/authorized/capable of doing.

    Hop, you seem to keep intuitively knowing what people were thinking and their motives, and I keep for some reason (not just to argue) keep thinking that their motives were the opposite. I wonder which perspective the judge will have once he gets to talk to all parties involved.
    Bark'n and suntzu like this.
    Walk softly ...

  15. #210
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    I've noticed some posts saying let's see what the judge says about it all.

    Isn't it ironic that this person had a copy of the Indiana code with him at the time he went to vote and let's not forget the 2nd amendment. Now this person has to spend more time and money to "prove" that he is "guilty" of doing something that is legal.

    Since 49 states have some form of carry laws be it open/concealed maybe its time all the law enforcement agencies if those states need to train its officers on the carry laws to ward off such incidents. If I am not mistaken Indiana carry laws have been on the books for some time now.
    "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."

Sponsored 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 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.