Former active duty Marine openly carrying handgun turned away from poll location

Status
Not open for further replies.
gunsmokeTPF said:
This ain't no 3rd world nation. Leave the damn gun in the car, or stick it under the shirt and only a moron would get insulted and cut off his nose to spite his face by not voting.
Click to expand...
While I agree that he should have voted and then pursued a complaint that his 2A rights were violated, that's his call. However, open carry IS legal where the incident took place, so why should he be expected to leave the gun in his car? The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2A is a "fundamental" right and that a "core purpose" of the 2A is self-defense. Rights that are not exercised are lost. If he has a right to open carry, the choice of whether to carry openly or concealed should be completely his option.

I would carry open if I were allowed, especially now that Summer is approaching. It gets hot, and always having to wear a cover garment gets uncomfortable.
 
I am not big on OC, but sometimes when I see the attacks on OC from TFL members, all I can picture is black people worrying that Rosa Parks might get the white folks all riled up if she doesn't move to the back of the bus - her insistence at keeping her seat could cause repercussions...
 
I have just completed poll worker training for my state. This issue was not mentioned. But my state, Arkansas, does not have an open carry law. So open carry might be considered suspicious. If someone came in wearing openly and did not have a badge I would call the Sheriff pronto but would not challenge the individual.
BTW, why is it that only "former Marines" are so identified in news accounts?
Never do you see "former Airman" or "former Seaman" or "former Soldier". Just Marines.
 
I am not big on OC, but sometimes when I see the attacks on OC from TFL members, all I can picture is black people worrying that Rosa Parks might get the white folks all riled up if she doesn't move to the back of the bus - her insistence at keeping her seat could cause repercussions...
Click to expand...


BIG +1
 
No one in this country should have to set aside one right in order to exercise another.
Click to expand...

Hence why he could have then made a big song and dance about it after having had to vote without his gun.....

I feel the underlying message he gave the staff at that poling station was, "carrying my gun into this building, for the next 5 minutes is more important to me than my democratic right to vote"

After all, polling day is just that: one day.
Miss that and you've lost your chance...

Personally, I see that as the wrong message.

However, open carry IS legal where the incident took place, so why should he be expected to leave the gun in his car? The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2A is a "fundamental" right and that a "core purpose" of the 2A is self-defense. Rights that are not exercised are lost.
Click to expand...

Is the Second Amendment specifically geared toward open carry?
 
If you wish to take things personally, gunsmokeTPF, that's your prerogative. However, you are putting words in the mouths of others. Please show me where Patriot86 or I told you that you (or any other TFL member - you were only singled out in your own mind) that you could not voice an opinion.

We obviously disagree with your (and some others') position. That is hardly the same as imposing a gag order.

If you have been admonished by the moderators for wording things in an intemperate manner, welcome to the club. I don't know what you wrote, that drew their negative attention. I know that the times I've received PMs from staff, I really couldn't take offense - some of my remarks had been provocative.

I still think that denigrating OC ultimately only helps to subvert a right. Do some engage in OC in a way that smacks of bravado or immaturity? Yes. Do some people speak in unwise or immature ways? Also, yes - and yet one does not see 1st Amendment supporters saying fools should not talk.

(Again, not a personal attack, just a general statement.)
 
Gunsmoke, The reason I sent you PM regarding your wording in a different post is I feel obliged to try and show others what is required as a member here at TFL...

You see, I am a "Poster Child" for the tolerance of the staff here... In my early days here, I was gleefully skating on some rather thin ice until I got past the "non-conformist" in my nature...

Since you are still here... you are just another of a long list of "Poster Children" for their tolerance... and patience...
Regards,
Brent
 
MLeake, I decided to erase my post to avoid getting into any deep discussion concerning this matter. I was suspended for responding to a personal attack on the Ted Nugent thread. That you can checkout if you'd like to. I'm sorry but I grew up defending myself and spending many years as a street cop also taught me to not back down to any kind of opposition whether it be verbal and physical.

I'm not going to argue with those controling this forum. Rules must be followed whether, or not liked, or disliked. We all bend and like I wrote before, gays have legal standing now, but it's wise for those individuals not to throw their preferences into people's faces, just as an example when the ex- grunt wouldn't put the gun away. Polling places are filled with very high emotions. People have their kids there, as well as elderly persons. Being stubborn is sometimes being very stupid.
 
The problem is that there is this "If I don't like it, it must be illegal" mentality that is gaining traction among govt functionaries. It must be called out and corrected.
The fact that they were either lying to him or incompetent doesn't really help matters.

But the officers could not find a statute that clearly outlined the situation they found themselves in.
After about an hour and a half; the officers, who had asked for assistance from the Election Board, were provided a state statute (35-47-2-1) and relayed it to Edinger, telling him that it kept him from being able to bring the gun inside.
Edinger was skeptical, however, and opted to return home to look the statute up, instead of the solution of locking his gun in his car and voting first as Vanoverberghe offered.
After Edinger left, we began to do some research of our own. We quickly found that IC 35-47-2-1 dealt with the regulation of handguns; specifically, the carrying of handguns without a license or by a person convicted of domestic battery, and the exceptions there in.
There was no indication, nor intimation, that Edinger has ever been convicted of domestic battery; and Edinger is licensed to carry the gun.
It was clear this statute did not apply in this situation.
We contacted the County Clerk’s office, elections department and were connected with the Clerk herself.
Terri Rethlake admitted they had passed on an incorrect statute, seemingly by mistake. She said they had been provided the information by one of the general consul for the Election Board, Leslie Barnes.
We contacted Barnes, who told us she had been given information by the Indiana State Police, and provided us a number to reach them at.
We contacted the State Police at the number provided, but the individual was unable to help us as his equipment was not allowing him to access the state statutes electronically.
He transferred us to the Indianapolis Division of the State Police, where two officers spent the better part of an hour looking for a statute that would prohibit Edinger from bringing the gun inside.
They even enlisted the help of an attorney, who also could not locate such a statute in the same time frame and given the resources they had at the time.
About 30 minutes before the polls closed, Edinger returned to the fire department and waited for a St. Joseph County officer to arrive.
The officer spoke to Edinger and told him that even he, the officer, could not wear his gun into the building to vote.
The officer said he had been told this while working for the South Bend Police Department four years prior.
He could not remember the State Statute that he had been shown.
Click to expand...
Come on. Seriously? Everyone involved either needs a new job that doesn't require reading or, at a minimum, remedial training.
 
Hogdogs, I thank you for your wise choice of words. You're correct in all you say. I never thought that this open carry thread would spread out to a different direction and that's why I erased my post, unfortunately not fast enough.

I just recently got into a little trouble cause I typed &^$%* instead of writing what I wanted in order to possibly avoid a warning. At the end of my post I deliberately stated to not perceive these to be curse words. I never use curse words on forums and don't like reading them, cause it lowers the level of the discussion. The words were descriptive and I didn't know if they'd be acceptable. I received no warning, just was given 2 points for words known only by myself.

By showing you now what I wrote might get me smacked in the head again and nothing surprises me. I'm not a non conformist, cause I've conformed my entire life. I don't enjoy breaking rules either. I'm on here to learn from others and maybe add to some discussions hopefully. I'm not coming on here to argue, cause I've been married 42 years and have an expert to argue with.

Anyway, that guy's gun should've been put away. There's a bigger fight across this country regarding just owning a firearm and concealed carry like in places like Illinois.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
But my state, Arkansas, does not have an open carry law.
Click to expand...
I think it does.

Anything that is not prohibited by law or regulation is legal. According to www.opencarry.org, Arkansas does not allow open carry. That means there must be a state law that prohibits open carry, so you DO have an open carry law. It's just not a law that authorizes open carry, but rather prohibits it.
 
Really?

The law in Connecticut is that you can't carry without a permit. Once you have a permit, there is no law, statute, ordinance or regulation that says you must carry concealed, yet people all over your state have been arrested when open carrying. Typically, once the officer figures out that he can't use the carry statute, he defaults to that old standby: "Disturbing the peace."

Are you prepared to tell us that no Connecticut State Police troopers have ever done this?

Not even going down this road with you. We have done this dance over and over again in other threads, whatever your opinion is, it's not changing. I have never even seen or heard of anyone being arrested by the State Police for OC. Only case of an OC'er getting arrested, that I have even heard about was years ago by a local PD. I have been here over 15 years and that's the only case I have heard of. I have heard recently of a bill to ban open carry, because of the OC crowd bringing it to light that it is not specifically illegal. We shall see how that goes.
 
No one in this country should have to set aside one right in order to exercise another.
Click to expand...
Hence why he could have then made a big song and dance about it after having had to vote without his gun.....
Click to expand...

Sigh. You would have him forfeit his 2nd Amendment right in order to practice his 15th Amendment right.

The former marine has the right to vote while wearing his gun but was prevented by authorities from doing so. Kowtowing to faulty authority is worse than not voting.
 
Sigh. You would have him forfeit his 2nd Amendment right in order to practice his 15th Amendment right.

The former marine has the right to vote while wearing his gun but was prevented by authorities from doing so.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
Forfeit his Second Amendment right for all of 5 minutes.

I believe that people "forfeit" their second amendment rights in order to practice their right to an education whenever they have to enter a Uni campus unarmed...

He's now lost his democratic means of expressing his views, until the next time.

Kowtowing to faulty authority is worse than not voting.
Click to expand...

That is your view, and yet voting is the main means for citizens of a country to voice their opinion of faulty authority, and he walked away from it...
 
Sigh again. You are so missing the point. If you are willing to voluntarily suspend a guaranteed right even for one second in order to exercise another guaranteed right, you open the door for someone else to suspend your rights indefinitely.
 
I'd like to see all states treat guns the way they do in Vermont. No license required and no registration. That's the way it should be and what happened with confiscations in New Orleans and forced sale of registered long guns banned in NYC won't ever happen. The strange thing is that Vermont has many liberals, but respect gun rights. Now isn't that just lovely?

I don't know how they'd react to someone coming into a polling place with a gun strapped on their hip, but under their living conditions if that was taboo it wouldn't bother me one bit. To keep and bare arms doesn't necessarilly mean they could be shoved in other people's faces. Sometimes even too much of a good thing can turn into a bad thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top