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 MP9NewMexico Carrying in a fire station = illegal. End of story. indiana = pre-emption. look into it. firearms in fire stations = ...
and for those of you who are interested in keeping up to date on developing news, here is a facebook page you can request to join. i created it yesterday for my little brother and it has swelled to over 400 members in less than 24 hours:
Just to re-enforce what has been said by SmellslikeMI:
1. Nothing Clay did was against Indiana law. It was perfectly legal to carry to the voting polls, legal to carry in a fire station and also legal to carry openly while doing all of those things in this state.
2. Clay was operating on legal advise when he went back the second time and was also not breaking any laws by recording anyone.
3. A formal motion was filed by his lawyer requesting a special prosecutor to file any potential charges against those who denied his right to vote.
This from Clay's lawyer on INGO:
"Today, the Law Offices of Guy A. Relford filed a Verified Petition Requesting the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor to conduct an independent investigation as to whether various criminal election laws were violated when St. Joseph County officials refused to allow Clay to vote.
More news to follow.
Man removed by PD for carrying at St. Joe County polls - Page 46 - INGunOwners
for those that missed my post #43:
Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing
I think I have a different angle on this whole discussion, so I'd like to elaborate. (sorry its long-winded)
I think its safe to say that ALL of us don't like the incidents that take place, causing grief to gun owners in general or cast us and the 2A in a negative light (whether CC or OC), ie: the idiots on youtube, etc. On that we should all agree.
The folks that don't like OC say so for several reasons, one being the tactical advantage in your weapon not being seen (applicable in some situations, but not all, they are free to that opinion).
The other reason is because of the incidents that take place that they think provides more ammo to antis, are negative towards 2A in their opinion. I agree that there have been some OC'ers that did things differently than I would have, just like there have been CC'ers do the same.
No matter what, I think we can all agree on the fact that we would like to carry whenever and wherever we want to. As a cop, I carry (most of the time concealed) everywhere I go off-duty, all day, everyday, including places that a Texas CHL holder can't (including my wife). As a CHL holder for years before I was LEO, I followed the law. When I became a LEO, there wasn't some magic transformation....I'm the same person I was before I became a cop. The antis would beg to differ....they think I'm now on some pedestal and should be able to carry when others may not. In Texas lingo, thats hogwash, bovine excrement, and horse hockey.
Maybe some day it will be different.
My point in all this is this: We would all like to see less restrictive laws on gun ownership, carrying, ammo, mags, whatever.
Of course, all of this is done at the legislative level, which begins with everyone at the polls deciding on city/county ordinances, state laws, voting for legislators at all levels.
Legislators need to be convinced by their constituents as to what direction they should vote.
Local/county ordinances are voted in/down by people that have been convinced on a particular topic.
Suntzu made a point "Government officials did not know the law in IN. I said I am not bothered so much by the scared soccer mom."....its true that the IDIOTS (including LEOs) at the fire station did not know the law and IMO were completely out of line, and I know that a lot of OC'ers hold that issue at heart, but we ALL should.
The second part of Suntzu's statement is the part I think the majority of us (CC & OC proponents) fail to remember or recognize....it is in fact the scared soccer moms (and other non-firearms folks) that are the ones at the polls doing what I described in the above paragraph.
THOSE are the people that see the incident that is the topic of this thread, and any other person with a gun story, whether CC or OC and they vote on city/county/state laws and legislators/councilmen/etc. Their opinions are swayed by perception, and this perception leads directly to how they vote. We do need to worry about them and remember the least 2A/firearms-educated folks are voters too and we need to convince them for our cause.
We all want to uphold and stand up for our rights. This does not necessarily mean we confront people at the time at the scene all the time. Sometimes that is necessary, but not always. Sometimes we may need to take the "after the fact" route which I eluded to in my post concerning the guy in IN taking it up with the LE agencies/election board, etc. I know some don't think thats right and shouldn't "give in" to gov't, etc. I understand that and agree to a point. But refer to my above paragraph for the end result we all want.
If this method will do more than some other ugly incidents that have taken place, and it sways the scared soccer mom to think that gun owners are responsible and the gun on the hip isn't a danger to everyone in public, then its a battle won for us all.
Certified Glock Armorer
not enough space for list, main gear: duty-G17, S&W 642 bug, 870, RRA AR-15; G30 off-duty
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?
Very well said 64 Z.
Now to the folks who cheer that someone hired someone to ask someone to appoint a special prosecutor.
Fantasy island folks. Its going no where. Wishful thinking. The man could easily have mitigated his own
damages and was never denied the right to vote per se. He had it within his power at all times to vote.
If you think a serious non-political local DA is gonna fool with something like this you are wrong.
Now, back to the accusation of stunt. The after action PR proves it. It is part of the stunt.
Now back to what 64 Z intimated. You don't endear yourselves to the voting soccer moms with these tactics.
You don't endear yourselves to the folks who will read the newspaper in the morning and see their tax dollars
tossed down the drain on pointless litigation over the authority to appoint a special prosecutor; who that should be; how
much he should be paid; and you don't endear yourselves to the MANY GOOD FOLKS who volunteer to work polling
stations, often as a pure civic duty with no pay or little pay. So now they want a criminal charge against a
good person who volunteered to man the polling station? Great publicity for the cause fella, 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.
And if I was harrassed today OC'ing minding my own business without having an agenda I might consider a law suit against that town after.
if my brother intended to make a scene, he would have carried his 6 inch stainless gp100 on his hip or an AR slung over his back. as it stands, he carried his most subdued, every day carry gun, in a manner completely without ostentation.