Forced to Remove NRA Cap to Vote

[Aguila Blanca]

Yeah, the rhetoric sounds cool, but he really didn't lose any rights.
They just asked him to remove his hat until after he voted

Sure he did. He lost his First Amendment right to freedom of [speech] expression.

Of course they are a political action group. You don't need to support a particular party to be one, but to be promoting a political agenda, which they most definitely are doing, Especially as a federally registered political action committee complete with a lobbying contingent and political-based fund raising, the NRA is most definitely a political lobbying group. There is just simply no way to deny this as factual.

But the law doesn't prohibit expressions of membership in political action groups. The law prohibits soliciting votes. How does wearing an NRA hat in any way attempt to solicit votes? The fundamental question would have to be, "For whom?"

(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign literature, newspaper, booklet, pamphlet, card, sign, paraphernalia, or any other written or printed matter of any kind, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition or conduct any exit poll or public opinion poll with voters on any day in which ballots are being cast:

 

[Snyper]

Quote:
(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method,

nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign literature, newspaper, booklet, pamphlet, card, sign, paraphernalia,

or any other written or printed matter of any kind,

nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition or conduct any exit poll or public opinion poll with voters on any day in which ballots are being cast:

Some want to imply only the first sentence terminology applies to the entire law, but you're overlooking the words that change that premise

It's about "display" as much as it is "soliciting votes", and it's about things that could be percieved as "soliciting"

Those seperate clauses mean what they SAY, whether you happen to agree or not

Lables IN your underwear is a ridiculous analogy unless you have your boxers inside out

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But the law doesn't prohibit expressions of membership in political action groups.

Nobody has claimed anything about expression of membership, but since you brought it up, Brady Campaign, NAACP, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian labels would all be just as illegal, regardless of "membership" which is a bit of a red herring consideration. Whether or not a person is a member of anything is immaterial to the display of said materials.

 

[Skans]

I say it's all a violation of our 1st amendment rights. Let it all in. If people want to wear pro-Republican shirts, pro-Democrat shirts, buttons, etc while voting, I see absolutely no reason to prohibit this. Yes, campaign workers need to keep their distance. Certainly, there seems to be no problem with the Black Panther party wearing their uniforms, hats etc. at polling places.

The bottom line, when the Black Panthers can show up in full uniform at polling places without even the attorney general looking into that, then there should be no problem at all with NRA members wearing their hats. In fact, I would have done this, and brought with me a portfolio of photos depicting Black Panthers at election polls with their hats on, but for the fact that I vote in a 90% Republican district.

 

[zxcvbob]

nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign literature, newspaper, booklet, pamphlet, card, sign, paraphernalia, or any other written or printed matter of any kind...

Wearing a hat that says "NRA" is not displaying campaign written or printed matter of any kind. "NRA" is not a campaign statement. Neither would a shirt that said "Proud to be a Democrat", although that one is getting close.

 

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

So, do you agree that this is campaigning? Should this be a message to the NRA that they need to broaden their appeal? Is the NRA simply supporting the politicians who support the Second Amendment and they just happen to be mostly Republican?

Frankly the NRA does promote and contribute too many Republican elections. More so to the Republicans then to the Dems. (that's known fact)
Contributing to promote the NRA agenda. Yes it also stands to reason the NRA (accepts) whatever other aspirations & views that politician may indeed believe in also.

I would remove my hat, shirt, shoes, & shorts if need be too accommodate a election judge (as we call them folk's here in this neck of the woods) I see little benefit in making a commotion over not being able to wear NRA paraphernalia in a polling place.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Some want to imply only the first sentence terminology applies to the entire law, but you're overlooking the words that change that premise

It's about "display" as much as it is "soliciting votes", and it's about things that could be percieved as "soliciting"

Those seperate clauses mean what they SAY, whether you happen to agree or not

Lables IN your underwear is a ridiculous analogy unless you have your boxers inside out

You're reading it the way you want to read it, not for what it says. The entire section is about impermissible campaign activities and materials. Try putting the emphasis where it more logically belongs:

(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign literature, newspaper, booklet, pamphlet, card, sign, paraphernalia, or any other written or printed matter of any kind, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition or conduct any exit poll or public opinion poll with voters on any day in which ballots are being cast:

The prohibition has to be against displaying or distributing campaign literature or materials, otherwise it would be a violation to enter the polling area with the morning newspaper tucked under your arm, or to hand a neighbor whom you happen to encounter there a copy of the most recent PTA announcement from the local middle school. All of the enumerated, prohibited items or classes of item are modified by the leading adjective "campaign."

The NRA isn't a candidate, and nothing about the acronym "NRA" on a hat in any way instructs or invites or encourages another individual to vote for any particular candidate or candidates.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The bottom line, when the Black Panthers can show up in full uniform at polling places without even the attorney general looking into that, then there should be no problem at all with NRA members wearing their hats.

So you are saying that if somebody breaks one law and gets away with it, the it is okay to break other laws? Really? The issue with the Black Panthers wasn't printed matter, but voter intimidation. The concern is a different set of laws.

 

[MtnCreek]

About anything can be considered a political issue because politicians have meddled into things that they should not. The fact that any of the amendments in the bill of rights is politically controversial is proof that this nation is not what it once was.

The Ten Commandments and Christianity are also a political issues nowadays. How would you react if asked to remove a cross or a shirt with the Ten Commandments written on it? I'm not comparing the NRA to religion, but the wearing of a hat or shirt expressing support for either is still protected by the first amendment.

The fact that the NRA supports far more republicans than democrats reflects more on the two mentioned parties than the NRA.

 

[Skans]

" The issue with the Black Panthers wasn't printed matter, but voter intimidation. "

No. Comparing apples to apples - the Black Panthers wore black panther hats, insignia, and uniforms identifying them as Black Panthers and were at polling places. No one told them "No". An investigation was requested. Eric Holder still refused to take action. A single voter was wearing an NRA cap. It's the same thing - couldn't be more similar. But, the NRA cap wearing man was required to remove his hat to enter the polling place and vote.


" The concern is a different set of laws. "

No its not, its the same law. The Attorney General for the United States has already legalized a person's ability to wear the uniform, insignia, garb etc. of a political faction that supports a particular candidate or candidates.

"So you are saying that if somebody breaks one law and gets away with it, the it is okay to break other laws?"

The precedent was set by Eric Holder and the President of the United States. NRA cap guy broke no laws; did nothing worse than the Black Panthers did. You can read that black-letter crap all day, but the NEW law is that the President of the United States and Attorney General have approved political garb to be worn by voters at polling places.

Yes, the chickens have come home to roost!

 

[saltydog452]

Same stuff, Election officials allowed, and wore Obama tees.

I'd make a wild guess, that it'd be hard to 'un-ring' a bell. Especially if that bell ring occurred in a National Election. Corrective/legal action not likely to happen.

Last Pres election, my polling place was manned and overseen by female workers who wore 'change' tee shirts. Ladies outside the polling place were more blunt and emphatic. There were very active.

This was at a church Polling place at Midway and Royal Lane, North West Dallas.

Kinda difficult to stop something that has already happened and won't happen again for a few more years.

salty

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The precedent was set by Eric Holder and the President of the United States. NRA cap guy broke no laws; did nothing worse than the Black Panthers did. You can read that black-letter crap all day, but the NEW law is that the President of the United States and Attorney General have approved political garb to be worn by voters at polling places.

If you had stopped at "NRA cap guy broke no laws," I could agree with you. But your follow-up about the AG and the Prez creating "new law" is well off the mark, IMHO. Read the law again. It does not even mention "political" literature or other materials. It prohibits "campaign" literature, newspapers, booklets, pamphlets, cards, signs, paraphernalia, etc. While it could be argued that a cap embroidered with the name of a candidate might be construed as campaign paraphernalia, I'll point out once again that the NRA is not a candidate. How can wearing an NRA hat be "campaign" anything, when it doesn't mention any candidate's campaign, and doesn't even mention a party?

 

[MtnCreek]

Nothing was said about the hat. I'm in GA, but this ain't Douglas County.

 

[olddav]

If you can't wear your NRA hat because it's a lobbying group then you better leave your AARP hat at home as well.

 

[Tom Servo]

Nothing was said about the hat. I'm in GA, but this ain't Douglas County.

I am as well. When I went to vote this afternoon, there was a sign prohibiting photography and cell phone usage, but it also mentioned hats or t-shirts advertising a position.

Couldn't snap a picture for the obvious reasons.

 

[MtnCreek]

To give a couple examples of what I've seen allowed and not:

'02, I wore a Confederate Flag hat due to a State issue at the time. Many others there did similar and nothing was said while I was there.

'04 I wore a partisan shirt that said 'Friends don't let friends vote (pol party). 80 something y/o lady (poll worker) asked that I take it off and turn it inside out (in a creepy kinda way, I was still in good shape then...). I said yes mam and complied.

Today I wore a NRA hat and no comments from the poll workers.

FWIW.

 

[buck460XVR]

Odds are the guy wore his NRA hat to the polls to make a political statement. One would have to been living under a pretty big rock the last half a decade to think that brandishing your NRA affiliation is not making a political statement, especially when recent elections have been won and lost over guns and their control. Why do you think the guy made such a stink over the deal? The reason the law was written in the first place is so folks would not be intimidated/influenced at the polls by folks obviously supporting a specific candidate or agenda. Again, most of us here know the NRA loudly supports specific candidates and agendas. Pretty simple. Where I voted, the little old ladies workin' there probably have no clue what the NRA is or what it stands for. They were too busy trying to keep from getting confused over finding names in the ledger and catching up on the local gossip from the other Blu-Hairs there to even notice what was on your head. They were just hoping they could get by without a nap before the polls closed at 8:00p.m.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you can't wear your NRA hat because it's a lobbying group then you better leave your AARP hat at home as well.

That would be correct.

Odds are the guy wore his NRA hat to the polls to make a political statement. One would have to been living under a pretty big rock the last half a decade to think that brandishing your NRA affiliation is not making a political statement, especially when recent elections have been won and lost over guns and their control. Why do you think the guy made such a stink over the deal?

Excactly...and why NRA-ILA responded to this incident.

To give a couple examples of what I've seen allowed and not:

buck460XVR is right. A lot of the folks working the polls are not there to enforce the rules outside of doing whatever their specific little job is. The folks taking your name, getting your signature, giving you a voting booth code, assigning you a voting booth, directing you to the voting booth, and giving you an "I VOTED" sticker afterwards may know very little of election laws and even if they know said laws, may be too busy to notice an infraction not related to their specific tasks, or not tasked with enforcing any particular rules outside of their tasks. That would likely be up to the election/poll judge who may or may not notice you.

It is hard to say that something was "allowed" just because it wasn't stopped from occurring just like speeding isn't "allowed" just because you didn't get ticketed for it.

 

[Evan Thomas]

buck460XVR is right. A lot of the folks working the polls are not there to enforce the rules outside of doing whatever their specific little job is. The folks taking your name, getting your signature, giving you a voting booth code, assigning you a voting booth, directing you to the voting booth, and giving you an "I VOTED" sticker afterwards may know very little of election laws and even if they know said laws, may be too busy to notice an infraction not related to their specific tasks, or not tasked with enforcing any particular rules outside of their tasks. That would likely be up to the election/poll judge who may or may not notice you.

All true. It's also worth keeping in mind that folks who work at the polling places are all volunteers; they're doing a vital job for no money and, usually, less thanks.

 

[Snyper]

You're reading it the way you want to read it, not for what it says. The entire section is about impermissible campaign activities and materials. Try putting the emphasis where it more logically belongs:

NO. I'm reading what it says, and NOT leaving out the phrases that state something other than "campaign material"

Where the emphasis "logically belongs" is on the words actually used.

All of the enumerated, prohibited items or classes of item are modified by the leading adjective "campaign."

Repeating that won't make it true.

The word "nor" tells you the subject changed from the first clause to something else.

"Any other material" means just that

It's plain English, and it's not only about "campaign" material, or they could have just ended the sentence there.