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 noway2 Hopyard, assuming that just going away or complying are not valid options and that a response is warranted, what type of ...

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 252
Like Tree359Likes

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

  1. #226
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,640
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    Hopyard, assuming that just going away or complying are not valid options and that a response is warranted, what type of response would you condone?

    Do you really believe that this cop should have been allowed to disarm the guy?

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
    It depends on what you mean by "disarm."

    As I said earlier, the newsy people would be screaming like maniacs
    for that officer's head if the MWG turned out to be a Jared Loughner and the officer was trying to defend himself
    by claiming he he had no authority to interfere.

    We have peace officers for a reason, and we give them great discretion for a reason.
    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. #227
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    Well this won't make Hopyard any happier! :

    "Please get this out. We are attending the Pancake Breakfast on May 20th to pass out free breakfast tickets, legally armed. We will be there at 8 A.M. Warren Township Fire Department 54837 Quince Road. We will peacefully support the very Fire Department that did not support the Second Amendment and provide free tickets for the pancake breakfast for the community. We have already received a commitment for $200.00 for ticket purchases. Please pass the word."
    Spirit51 and smellslikeMI like this.
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  4. #228
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,866
    By disarm, I mean tell him that he could not bring his gun into the polls, even after being unable to show a legal reason.

    Do you think that if this guy had intentions of going Loughner that he would have open carried like that? Yes, the media would have had a circus with it, but generally speaking the guy carrying openly in a holster isn't the one you need to worry about. Clearly, if the guys intention were to make someone dead, he could and would have.

    With respect to law enforcement having latitude, where do we draw the line? In this case, there was no evidence that a violation being committed. It is one thing to err on the side of caution when lacking information. It is another to deliberately disregard the information you have.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
    Spirit51 and smellslikeMI like this.

  5. #229
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    From the filing for a special prosecutor:

    "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 Petitione rcould 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.”

    "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 atapproximately 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.”

    "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)."
    Spirit51 and smellslikeMI like this.
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  6. #230
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Bunny View Post
    From the filing for a special prosecutor:

    "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 Petitione rcould 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.”

    "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 atapproximately 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.”

    "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)."
    Oh, and something the police are always telling everyone:

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
    DontTreadOnI, jag06 and Gun Bunny 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.

  7. #231
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    Sure, he could have put his firearm in his vehicle and voted, but he was legal in every sense of the law which makes his ability to vote "conditional". He was being intimidated, blocked or barred at the door from entering to cast his vote. That is a felony, they knew the law, they just wanted to show Clay their authority!

    As some have mentioned that he went down there so he could sue someone or cause trouble, well, they fell for it hook, line and sinker, didn't they? Still wouldn't make what they did right, does it? Regardless of Clay's intentions, they still committed a felony.
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  8. #232
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    here's the latest:
    Were laws broken when gun-carrying man asked to leave polling place? - wsbt.com
    it would seem that mum's the word
    Gun Bunny likes this.

  9. #233
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    .
    If there is no law allowing the Government to prevent someone from openly carrying a weapon then they have no legal power to prevent it. Some like to forget what suntzu has posted. That citizens do not need a Law to say that they are free to do something. On the other hand the Government does need a Law to legally prevent a citizen from doing something.

    Michael
    While I can agree with you unfortunately in many cases (pretty much such as this one) reality does not. Even though one does something that is perfectly legal they end up spending time and money in court to prove they were "guilty" of doing something legal and the government had no right to do what they did. And not to worry the government will do it over and over. I do not think I need to give any examples of the abuse of authority that goes on in America.
    "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."

  10. #234
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Get off it. Rosa Parks didn't try to set someone up for a felony charge to make her point. She set herself up for arrest.
    Big moral difference.

    Some of you have no clue that the end doesn't always justify the means.
    not much of a set up. if he were trying to pull off a stunt or a "set up" don't you think he would have taken an audio recorder with him in the morning and recorded his 90 minute interaction with asst chief and friends?

  11. #235
    Member Array smellslikeMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Hop, you keep saying this guy set up folks for a felony charge. First, where is your proof? That he had a lawyer? I have a lawyer in my contacts in case I need him for something. A matter of fact, we advise people to have a lawyer's contacts with them.

    If he wa heck bent on 'setting' them up he gave them ample time to research the law. Not only at the local level but higher. He left the area and came back and was still denied after being courteous and patient with the 'system' which BTW was wrong to begin with.

    No LEO felt the need to stop him or disarm him for their safety or the publics. In fact, that issue was never brought up.
    he didn't even contact a lawyer until he got home after his 90 minute ordeal in the morning. he then received advice about how to handle his evening return visit. he didn't retain the lawyer until the next day.

  12. #236
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikeMI View Post
    not much of a set up. if he were trying to pull off a stunt or a "set up" don't you think he would have taken an audio recorder with him in the morning and recorded his 90 minute interaction with asst chief and friends?
    Not necessarily. Once he was denied the right to vote, he didn't proceed with the voting process, which he could have easily done by placing his weapon in his vehicle. At that point he was determined to prove his point. That's when it transitioned from convenient carry to a crusade.
    Hopyard likes this.

  13. #237
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,837
    I am still trying to figur out what folks would have liked him to do. Comply then file a complaint with the police chief? Then what. The police chief would most likely say that he would give his folks more training. I could almost buy that if it was ONE officer stopping someone and then because of public safety or other reasons did not have time to verify if his decision in stopping the person was justified by law.

    What I don't buy is that more than one officer did not know the law, more than one official could not look up the law, one official gave the officer a bogus statute, and this process took place over hours not minutes and he was still refused to enter a polling facility for the sole reason of what he was wearing. The "system" had more than ample time to figure out what was correct and lawful. They failed miserably from the beginning.
    And though it is understandable that most folks would think you can't carry in a place of active voting, the election officials and the LEO present SHOULD have known the laws pertaining to what is legal and what is not. You would think out of a sense of professionalism that they would have known the law before hand or at the very least have the resources to figure it out. They failed miserably.
    noway2, BigStick and smellslikeMI like this.

  14. #238
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,279
    Quote Originally Posted by highvoltage View Post
    Not necessarily. Once he was denied the right to vote, he didn't proceed with the voting process, which he could have easily done by placing his weapon in his vehicle. At that point he was determined to prove his point. That's when it transitioned from convenient carry to a crusade.
    Once he got jerked about, it transitioned into a urination contest, with the outcome yet to be determined.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  15. #239
    New Member Array Dvorak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikeMI View Post
    not much of a set up. if he were trying to pull off a stunt or a "set up" don't you think he would have taken an audio recorder with him in the morning and recorded his 90 minute interaction with asst chief and friends?
    From everything I've ever read about OC, it would seem a voice recorder (or at least a cell phone to VM recording) is perhaps a mandatory piece of equipment.

    While they were waiting for "backup" and looking for a law to stop him from voting, he should have been calling the media.

  16. #240
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Once he got jerked about, it transitioned into a urination contest, with the outcome yet to be determined.
    Precisely.

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.