Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing

[Hopyard]

Did it occur to you that NONE of this would have happened if they just ignored him and let him vote? If that was his intention then wouldn't the prudent thing to do is let him legaly carry? Hop, you seem to fault everyone or at least this individual while ignoring the fact that the election officials and LEO's are idiots who did not know the law. WHy don't we start there.
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.

The volunteers, you know-- the good neighbors in his precinct-- who went out of their way to make the polling system work
did the best they could do with the training they had. They saw something out of the ordinary and called the cops. What else should they have done? Now he wants criminal charges against his neighbors for doing a good deed? The election officials are not idiots and they don't deserve the name calling. They don't deserve the grief. They are civic minded folks who did the best they could with a goofy situation which was a set up so someone could make a point. The rapidity with which some lawyer comes on the scene after to demand a special prosecutor pretty well suggests there was some forethought to creating a situation.

There is more blame to go on the LEO and those in charge of them than on the election officials, but even so this man made his situation extra difficult through his own actions.

I'm probably gonna go on a couple hundred mile drive tomorrow. I could legally leave my pistol in the center console, and sure
enough get myself stopped for a rolling stop, and get my wife arrested because someone didn't know the law and thought she
needed a license. Ya know, I'm not pushing the buttons to clean up the universe of folks who don't know the law. I just want
to get on down the road to my destination. It will remain in my control on my person even though that isn't strictly necessary under the law. That's not the best analogy, but I'm not in the stunt business.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[smellslikeMI]

So what you are saying is that, he will pull OC stunts, but this time he didnt.

your reading comprehension needs work. i said nothing remotely like that.

[smellslikeMI]

The volunteers, you know-- the good neighbors in his precinct-- who went out of their way to make the polling system work
did the best they could do with the training they had. They saw something out of the ordinary and called the cops. What else should they have done? Now he wants criminal charges against his neighbors for doing a good deed? The election officials are not idiots and they don't deserve the name calling. They don't deserve the grief. They are civic minded folks who did the best they could with a goofy situation which was a set up so someone could make a point. The rapidity with which some lawyer comes on the scene after to demand a special prosecutor pretty well suggests there was some forethought to creating a situation.

There is more blame to go on the LEO and those in charge of them than on the election officials, but even so this man made his situation extra difficult through his own actions.

I'm probably gonna go on a couple hundred mile drive tomorrow. I could legally leave my pistol in the center console, and sure
enough get myself stopped for a rolling stop, and get my wife arrested because someone didn't know the law and thought she
needed a license. Ya know, I'm not pushing the buttons to clean up the universe of folks who don't know the law. I just want
to get on down the road to my destination. It will remain in my control on my person even though that isn't strictly necessary under the law. That's not the best analogy, but I'm not in the stunt business.

that's not at all what happened. the volunteers did nothing of the sort. the part time fire chief, part time airport cop (who should have known better), is the one who initiated contact with clay and summoned the police. you know, when his "police instincts kicked in". it's reminiscent of the mall ninja.
Shrine of the Mall Ninja » LonelyMachines

[Hopyard]

that's not at all what happened. the volunteers did nothing of the sort. the part time fire chief, part time airport cop (who should have known better), is the one who initiated contact with clay and summoned the police. you know, when his "police instincts kicked in". it's reminiscent of the mall ninja.
Shrine of the Mall Ninja » LonelyMachines

So, just for discussion sake, this part time fire chief, does he have authority over the property, the fire house? If so, does he have authority to ask someone to leave for carrying or any other sufficient reason? Was that a volunteer fire department? Is that part time chief doing that out of civic duty? That all might make a difference. I just hate the idea of trying to bring criminal charges on folks who were trying hard to do their civic duty to the community.

Suppose our local Mall made an area available on election day for a polling place. Does their no guns on my property policy prohibit the carrier (cc or oc) from voting? I don't think so.

Who actually owns the fire station and who actually has say so
about whether or not guns can be in there? We have plenty of volunteer units where everything is owned and controlled outside of the local government. Just asking. I don't know how things are done in IN and I don't know if this happened in a
city, suburb, or rural community.

[Vaquero 45]

If there was no law against urinating in public, I bet I can pick the people who would do it while thumping their chests, just because it was their right.

Just because something is a right, does not mean the action is 100% correct, noble or appropriate. I have a right to wear t-shirts with racial slurs, preach religion to people passing by on the street, and to put truck nuts on my trailer hitch, but I don't do these things because I have some sense of social appropriateness.

I just want to know one thing. Why does it seem that all of these OC "victims" carry XD's? That just confirms that something is not right with these folks.

[Badey]

So, just for discussion sake, this part time fire chief, does he have authority over the property, the fire house? If so, does he have authority to ask someone to leave for carrying or any other sufficient reason? Was that a volunteer fire department? Is that part time chief doing that out of civic duty? That all might make a difference. I just hate the idea of trying to bring criminal charges on folks who were trying hard to do their civic duty to the community.

Suppose our local Mall made an area available on election day for a polling place. Does their no guns on my property policy prohibit the carrier (cc or oc) from voting? I don't think so.

Who actually owns the fire station and who actually has say so
about whether or not guns can be in there? We have plenty of volunteer units where everything is owned and controlled outside of the local government. Just asking. I don't know how things are done in IN and I don't know if this happened in a
city, suburb, or rural community.

I don't know about IN, but in PA, I cannot be legally asked to leave public property for OCing, due to state-wide preemption, which disallows anyone other than the state from regulating the lawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The volunteer fire department where I vote is owned by the township, thus it is open to firearms.

[Badey]

If there was no law against urinating in public, I bet I can pick the people who would do it while thumping their chests, just because it was their right.

Just because something is a right, does not mean the action is 100% correct, noble or appropriate. I have a right to wear t-shirts with racial slurs, preach religion to people passing by on the street, and to put truck nuts on my trailer hitch, but I don't do these things because I have some sense of social appropriateness.

I just want to know one thing. Why does it seem that all of these OC "victims" carry XD's? That just confirms that something is not right with these folks.

You can hardly compare public urination to OCing.

The way something becomes socially appropriate is through exposure. 60 years ago, it used to be inappropriate for women to wear pants. Some pioneering women did it anyway, and now it is mainstream. Same with women's suffrage, married women in the work place, etc. If no one OCs because it is socially inappropriate, it will NEVER become "socially appropriate..."

[Vaquero 45]

You can hardly compare public urination to OCing.

The way something becomes socially appropriate is through exposure. 60 years ago, it used to be inappropriate for women to wear pants. Some pioneering women did it anyway, and now it is mainstream. Same with women's suffrage, married women in the work place, etc. If no one OCs because it is socially inappropriate, it will NEVER become "socially appropriate..."

Why can't I compare the two? Urination is natural, everyone does it. How dare the government tell me the manner in which I perform this necessary and vital biological function! People who don't like it need to get over themselves. When you gotta go, you gotta go. Unlike carrying a firearm, which is technically almost never really necessary, urination is ALWAYS necessary.

Why is open tinkle even illegal? Because somebody said that it is inappropriate? Are these sheep ashamed to tinkle? I think I'll do it anyway. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits open tinkle, in fact, I seriously doubt that the founding fathers would consider it even possible to pursue happiness when you are painfully holding liquid in, just because some sheep might be embarrassed at this natural bodily function. Benjamin Franklin even wrote a book titled "Fart Proudly," so we know from historical evidence that he was not ashamed of bodily functions. In fact, since I don't even need a permit to fart in public, I think I'll start there and work my way up to open tinkle.

If no one farts and tinkles in public, it will NEVER become socially appropriate.

We need an Open Tinkle forum. I can't wait to post my first "encounter." What kind of voice recorder do I need?

[smellslikeMI]

So, just for discussion sake, this part time fire chief, does he have authority over the property, the fire house? If so, does he have authority to ask someone to leave for carrying or any other sufficient reason? Was that a volunteer fire department? Is that part time chief doing that out of civic duty? That all might make a difference. I just hate the idea of trying to bring criminal charges on folks who were trying hard to do their civic duty to the community.

Suppose our local Mall made an area available on election day for a polling place. Does their no guns on my property policy prohibit the carrier (cc or oc) from voting? I don't think so.

Who actually owns the fire station and who actually has say so
about whether or not guns can be in there? We have plenty of volunteer units where everything is owned and controlled outside of the local government. Just asking. I don't know how things are done in IN and I don't know if this happened in a
city, suburb, or rural community.

nope. sorry, guess again. he has no authority to regulate firearms at the firehouse. that authority was removed from him about a year ago when Indiana enacted a preemption law that does not allow local units of government to enact or enforce firearms laws rules or ordinances.
and in regards to polling places, they allow themselves to be under federal jurisdiction in regards to the rules of voting for the time they are open for voting. hence federal election law applies which does not allow states to enact restrictions on voting without first clearing it with the federal government. indiana has not requested permission to ban firearms from polling locations.

[kb2wji]

^^

(edit: laughing was in reference to the open tinkle post, not the above. I was too slow on the keyboard)

[Mike1956]

Why can't I compare the two? Urination is natural, everyone does it. How dare the government tell me the manner in which I perform this necessary and vital biological function! People who don't like it need to get over themselves. When you gotta go, you gotta go. Unlike carrying a firearm, which is technically almost never really necessary, urination is ALWAYS necessary.

Why is open tinkle even illegal? Because somebody said that it is inappropriate? Are these sheep ashamed to tinkle? I think I'll do it anyway. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits open tinkle, in fact, I seriously doubt that the founding fathers would consider it even possible to pursue happiness when you are painfully holding liquid in, just because some sheep might be embarrassed at this natural bodily function. Benjamin Franklin even wrote a book titled "Fart Proudly," so we know from historical evidence that he was not ashamed of bodily functions. In fact, since I don't even need a permit to fart in public, I think I'll start there and work my way up to open tinkle.

If no one farts and tinkles in public, it will NEVER become socially appropriate.

We need an Open Tinkle forum. I can't wait to post my first "encounter." What kind of voice recorder do I need?

I have been arrested exactly once in my life. Care to guess what it was about?

[Crowman]

If there was no law against urinating in public, I bet I can pick the people who would do it while thumping their chests, just because it was their right.

Just because something is a right, does not mean the action is 100% correct, noble or appropriate. I have a right to wear t-shirts with racial slurs, preach religion to people passing by on the street, and to put truck nuts on my trailer hitch, but I don't do these things because I have some sense of social appropriateness.

I just want to know one thing. Why does it seem that all of these OC "victims" carry XD's? That just confirms that something is not right with these folks.

Your fantasy examle of urinating in public is absurd. Your others are so-so at best. With that said the issue of open carry (in states that allow it) is not only the law of that state but a right of the 2nd amendment. To bash open carry people is an affront to the 2nd amendment and to those that truly support the amendment.

Many of those that bad mouth the open carry stories state why didn't the person do this or that to avoid the hassle or the time consumed to show they are not breaking the law. I find it ironic that such talk comes from those that say the advocate for the 2nd amendment. There was a time in our history when open carry was no big deal and then it evolved into less and less until for the most part it disappeared. I am sure one reason for the decline of open carry was it started to become socially inappropriate.

In reality isn't concealed carry hiding the fact that one supports the 2nd amendment. Maybe it is time to come out of the closet and openly support open carry. Yes I have heard all the talk of I conceal so the bad guy does not know I carry, I do not put NRA or gun related sticker on my vehicle because "they" will know I have weapons and will try to steal them. One could easily state that such talk is merely a cop out. One thing in favor of the anti gun folks is that the 2nd amendment advocates are "fighting" with each other over the open carry issue. In-fighting in any group, organization, etc., weakens it.

[mlr1m]

If there was no law against urinating in public, I bet I can pick the people who would do it while thumping their chests, just because it was their right.

Just because something is a right, does not mean the action is 100% correct, noble or appropriate. I have a right to wear t-shirts with racial slurs, preach religion to people passing by on the street, and to put truck nuts on my trailer hitch, but I don't do these things because I have some sense of social appropriateness.

I just want to know one thing. Why does it seem that all of these OC "victims" carry XD's? That just confirms that something is not right with these folks.

I agree 100% on the portion I highlighted. The fact that something is a right and therefore legal does not mean it is a good idea to do it whenever or wherever you want. What it does do and this is the part some choose to ignore is that it prevents the Government from using its powers in an attempt to punish a person from exercising that right. Any attempt by the Government to do so would be unlawful.

Michael

[BigStick]

Why can't I compare the two? Urination is natural, everyone does it. How dare the government tell me the manner in which I perform this necessary and vital biological function! People who don't like it need to get over themselves. When you gotta go, you gotta go. Unlike carrying a firearm, which is technically almost never really necessary, urination is ALWAYS necessary.

Why is open tinkle even illegal? Because somebody said that it is inappropriate? Are these sheep ashamed to tinkle? I think I'll do it anyway. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits open tinkle, in fact, I seriously doubt that the founding fathers would consider it even possible to pursue happiness when you are painfully holding liquid in, just because some sheep might be embarrassed at this natural bodily function. Benjamin Franklin even wrote a book titled "Fart Proudly," so we know from historical evidence that he was not ashamed of bodily functions. In fact, since I don't even need a permit to fart in public, I think I'll start there and work my way up to open tinkle.

If no one farts and tinkles in public, it will NEVER become socially appropriate.

We need an Open Tinkle forum. I can't wait to post my first "encounter." What kind of voice recorder do I need?

Well, up until this point we were at least having a mature discussion. I guess that is out the window now. Thanks for being a good example of how overdramatization and extremism destroy open debate and idea sharing.

Let's continue with what we were talking about please. It sounds like we have someone here with actual knowledge of the details and insight into the motivation of the person in question. Maybe we should listen to him instead of guessing and conjecturing about motives and intent. I would be interested SmellslikeMI to know more about the lawsuit being filed.

Contrary to the way the anti OC people here are making it sound, I don't think he is sueing anyone or attacking the voter station volunteers. It sounds like he is requesting the prosecutor to investigate if any laws were broken. Oh no! What a horrible stunt! How dare you ask for an investigation of the laws and actions of police!

[Crowman]

Just because something is a right, does not mean the action is 100% correct, noble or appropriate.

I agree 100% on the portion I highlighted. The fact that something is a right and therefore legal does not mean it is a good idea to do it whenever or wherever you want. What it does do and this is the part some choose to ignore is that it prevents the Government from using its powers in an attempt to punish a person from exercising that right. Any attempt by the Government to do so would be unlawful.

Michael

Michael, both Vaquero 45 and you missed the point. Its not that it is 'right' it is a right and one that shall not be infringed upon. In essence you both are saying that our rights under the constitution are not to be exercised whenever or wherever one wants. The constitution does not dictate when and where one exercises their rights it simply allows them.

One problem we face with our 2nd amendment rights(and other rights) is political correctness or as Vaquero 45 put it social appropriateness. Utopia is a beautiful dream but that is all it is.

5329.jpg