Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

And like I stated in my previous post. Government officials did not know the law in IN. I said I am not bothered so much by the scared soccer mom. But is it so hard to expect civil servants to know their job and for them to educate the soccer moms

BTW: I just got back from the range. I OC'ed not to make a point. I did it because it was convenient for ME. And unlike Hopyard and what a lot of other folks think, very few OC to make a point (not that it matters). Thet OC becasue they like to for whatever reason.

---

They do not know all the laws...Hell, most of the population doesn't even understand what there rights are. That being said, most LEOs do not understand the constitution that they are sworn to uphold...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Since no one is a mind reader, the true intentions were
certainly unclear and intimidating. That of course is why the officials called the cops in the first place.

I think the Phila example is quite the proper parallel for understanding what this man did was wrong.

---

That is flat out wrong. The uniformed cops were called becasue the election officials and the off duty airport cop helping out at the polling place THOUGHT he was not allowed to enter with a weapon. And then the uniformed LEO's thought it was against the law and then the folks they called thought it was against the law. Nobody mentioned anything about him causing a stir or being intimidating or whatever. It defintily was not becasue they did not know his intent. As far as mind reading....you seem to do a lot of that when it comes to the intent of OC'ers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Ah, but that example shows precisely why our OC er was wrong.

Those "thugs" you speak of were not arrested because they broke no law. None were charged if memory serves. A few folks got their panties in a knot over nothing.

Their presence however was seen by some as threatening to people who chose to participate in the voting process at that precinct.

Do you not think a man with a gun presents a similar appearance of a threat?

Many people posted here regarding Phila incident hat they would have simply proceeded to vote and not been intimidated. I'm sure there are many at the polling place where this man was carrying who also simply proceeded to vote and did not feel intimidated.

But, neither of these examples of poor judgment, what was done in Phila and what this OC er did, can honestly be
said were done without some intent to intimidate; even if the latter was perhaps "softer" intimidation--- and it was softer intimidation only because of his appearance and politeness--which mean nothing when someone is flaunting a gun at a polling station or other government sanctioned activity. Since no one is a mind reader, the true intentions were
certainly unclear and intimidating. That of course is why the officials called the cops in the first place.

I think the Phila example is quite the proper parallel for understanding what this man did was wrong.

---

Come on Hop, I think you are stretching a little here. The sittuations are nothing alike. First, just because they were not arrested does not mean no laws were broken, I don't think we want to get into the corruption in the Justice Department that allows things only if you are the right skin color. That's a whole different issue.

The NBP guys were there specifically to intimidate and were handling/gesturing with their weapons. This former active duty marine (whatever that means) went with the intent to vote and then leave. The only delay came from those trying to prevent him from exercising his rights. Trying to equate the actions in the two different scenarios sounds like media spin or intentional misrepresentation of facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Ah, but that example shows precisely why our OC er was wrong.

Those "thugs" you speak of were not arrested because they broke no law. None were charged if memory serves. A few folks got their panties in a knot over nothing.

Their presence however was seen by some as threatening to people who chose to participate in the voting process at that precinct.

Do you not think a man with a gun presents a similar appearance of a threat?

Many people posted here regarding Phila incident hat they would have simply proceeded to vote and not been intimidated. I'm sure there are many at the polling place where this man was carrying who also simply proceeded to vote and did not feel intimidated.

But, neither of these examples of poor judgment, what was done in Phila and what this OC er did, can honestly be
said were done without some intent to intimidate; even if the latter was perhaps "softer" intimidation--- and it was softer intimidation only because of his appearance and politeness--which mean nothing when someone is flaunting a gun at a polling station or other government sanctioned activity. Since no one is a mind reader, the true intentions were
certainly unclear and intimidating. That of course is why the officials called the cops in the first place.

I think the Phila example is quite the proper parallel for understanding what this man did was wrong.

---

If the OC fellow in Indiana had been decked out in his KKK regalia, faced toward approaching voters, your analogy would be more accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigStick

Right so keep AND BEAR arms. Almost as clear as "shall not be infringed". Yes it is a right to carry.

And it sounds to me like what you are wanting everyone to do is put the blinders on, not take them off.

---

I can only think of 3 possibilities behind this statement;

1) you didn't understand the spirit intent of the message.
2) you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said
3) you are a concrete thinker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike1956

If the OC fellow in Indiana had been decked out in his KKK regalia, faced toward approaching voters, your analogy would be more accurate.

---

+1,000 :congrats: :congrats: :congrats:


I have been thinking about the "Why didn't he just put his gun in his car and vote?" crowd. I have looked into the requirements for a federal civil rights law suit in the past. One hurtle that has to be crossed is "harm"; was the plaintive substantially harmed? If he had put his gun in the car and voted I can see the Stasi arguing before a judge for summery dismissal that "no substantial harm was done" and any legal action being blocked.

Because he was "harmed" (if this is his line of thought) he should have an easier time of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike1956

If the OC fellow in Indiana had been decked out in his KKK regalia, faced toward approaching voters, your analogy would be more accurate.

---

I'm not at all sure you meant to convey the message I'm getting, in fact I think not, but what that is saying is
that "appearances" count. If "appearances" count we had a man who appeared by normal standards to be doing
something quite out of the ordinary. That he may have been Caucasian and crew cut and tattooo free (I've no clue what he looks like) is irrelevant.

To persons not totally immersed in gun law and polling place law he would certainly have appeared
menacing.

Truthfully, right or wrong, legal or not, I'm surprised he wasn't Tased and slammed and dragged out feet first.
You know that is probably what would have happened to a NBP pulling the same stunt. And stunt is the proper word for the incident.

Over and out.

Carrying in a fire station = illegal. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MP9NewMexico

Carrying in a fire station = illegal. End of story.

---

Location, location, location.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

I can only think of 3 possibilities behind this statement;

1) you didn't understand the spirit intent of the message.
2) you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said
3) you are a concrete thinker

---

I recognize that your statement asking if our right is to have guns or carry them was not a statement of how you feel, but referencing your fear that others may ask that question and attempt to go down that path. My first sentance was meant to express that they can try to go that route (and they are), but fear of their attempts and potential success should not make us live in fear of exercising what rights are clear and plain. If we can not exercise our rights, then we do not have them.

I would say that in some ways and areas, I am a concrete thinker, although I'm not sure exactly how you meant that and in what way you would be applying it in this instance. Saying that you wanted others to put blinders on was not directly related to that specific post, but the conversation. I was refering to the idea that from what I can tell you are advocating that we just take what "rights" we are granted by our permits and cover up our firearms, blinding ourselves to the infringement of our rights and blinding others to the fact that we are normal law abiding citizens and that carying guns is normal.

I will say in general though, this has been a good discussion, it is ok that we dissagree, and my statement probably came across more confrontational and spitefull than intended.

I plead the 9th......:hand5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

If the shoe fits...until then, I do not know of one OC incident that has turned out favorably for the OC community on it's current path. How's OC in California working for you now, with the current tactics being deployed?

---

Well, I went to the range today and back and got a bagel on the way home. No incident or nothing in the news. Maybe next week when I do this I will call the local paper to follow me around..ya know, just to keep us wild crazy OC'ers in check. Just kidding.
You only read about bad stuff in the news (mostly). You really don't want is to list all of the CC'ers who have broken laws by carrying where they are not suppose to or more cases like Zimmerman. These folks actually break laws or cast gun owners in a bad light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MP9NewMexico

Carrying in a fire station = illegal. End of story.

---

Not in Colorado; one of the places you claim to be from!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I'm not at all sure you meant to convey the message I'm getting, in fact I think not, but what that is saying is
that "appearances" count. If "appearances" count we had a man who appeared by normal standards to be doing
something quite out of the ordinary. That he may have been Caucasian and crew cut and tattooo free (I've no clue what he looks like) is irrelevant.

To persons not totally immersed in gun law and polling place law he would certainly have appeared
menacing.

Truthfully, right or wrong, legal or not, I'm surprised he wasn't Tased and slammed and dragged out feet first.
You know that is probably what would have happened to a NBP pulling the same stunt. And stunt is the proper word for the incident.

Over and out.

---

Vague ambiguity isn't one of my strong suits. Two NBPs in the uniforms of their order and brandishing clubs really did pull a stunt intended to menace and intimidate, and all charges were dropped by the current administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

OK, since no one can seem to think of a pro active way to promote OC without the chip on your shoulder and the gun on your hip, let me help you.

Start a grassroots OC organization in your home town. Appear before the members of your city council during open forums and tell them who you are and what you are about. Invite them to meetings, get to know them on a personal level.
Also invite the Sherrif, Police Chief, Public Safety Commisioner.

Allow them to feel a part of your movement. Ask for their assistance.
Bring in the local press, and slowly aclimate the local population to their rights under the 2nd amend.

Get involved in helping local charity organizations.

Stop trying to make a statement by yourselves. The more people of affluence you have on your side, the quicker OC will become acceptable to the public.

It starts with a small town. Then a big city, then a state...

---

Huh! I'm surprised no one has thought of this before! That's why we should follow the lead of the CC group! Actually there are many groups already doing this. Since there is no "Confrontation" involved they don't seem to get must publicity.

OC at the polls is legal in Idaho, I intend to oc next tuesday.