Man removed by PD for carrying at St. Joe County polls

[CarmelHP]

So, when are the poll workers who called the cops going to jail?

IC 3-14-3-9
Failure to receive vote of legal voter
Sec. 9. A person who knowingly fails to receive the vote of a legal voter at an election commits a Class D felony.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As soon as the special prosecutor files the charges.

Again, this is not kicking a person out of Diary Queen. It's the right to vote they just screwed with.

 

[NDguido]

There are some that are saying this gentleman was just trying to make a statement by open carrying in a polling place. I say if it was legal to do so then it doesn't matter if he was or not. I would submit that the actions of the ones trying to stop him from legally carrying at a polling place on election day to vote we're also trying to make a statement. The only difference is that they had no legal grounds to do so.

You're exactly right. If he was, indeed, trying to make a statement, then good on him. I hope this incident sheds enough national light on SJC and SB to cause them to stop infringing on our rights.

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been some very positive progress made in bringing to light the anti-gun attitude SJC and South Bend has. First, the South Bend Parks Department, and now this. Keep up the good work!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Maybe we'll have a talking one day about how I almost got suspended during an instance involving a guy burning a flag on his grill.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You're exactly right. If he was, indeed, trying to make a statement, then good on him. I hope this incident sheds enough national light on SJC and SB to cause them to stop infringing on our rights.

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been some very positive progress made in bringing to light the anti-gun attitude SJC and South Bend has. First, the South Bend Parks Department, and now this. Keep up the good work!

He just normally OC's. He has his own reasons I'm sure but he just went to vote, not to start anything.

That being said this guy is NOT one to back down once challanged on his Rights. (Obviously)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Within the US already, there are a number of states that restrict the right to carry at polls.

I don't care what they do down South. They do all kinds of goofy crap down there. South Bend is not in the South; it is in Indiana and the laws of the Indiana Code and the United States Code apply.

I'll be honest guys, the notoriety this instance may gain has me worried.

Someone has a blackletter civil rights violation involving all kinds of federal and state criminal and civil statutes and you are worried?

If we do not exercise our rights, then we lose them. What on earth could you be worried about?

If we held a referendum tomorrow, about this, I think we'd have our butts handed to us.

I don't care. It does not matter what the majority thinks, it matters what the Constitution says.

Federal and state law are very clear that this was a violation of a citizen's civil rights. A man's civil rights are not put to referendum.

but it's not a stretch to see both options taken away from us, as this is something that anti could surely seize upon.

Lessons learned: do not fight back because you may win.

I don't understand the surrender before fighting mindset. To win one must attack. When victorious, we then attack. When attacked, we attack.

We don't stop attacking because we will always be fighting. We can stop fighting when we have destroyed the enemy and they no longer exist to fight.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

While I understand that there are many laws to know, I can't excuse the behavior of all the polling place people involved in this travesty.

It's not like the polls are open every day. The voting dates are always the same, the dates are well known ahead of time.

While the voting laws aren't dealt with on a daily basis, I would expect those designated to operate the polling places would be educated on the laws before the voting begins.

They should be dealt with harshly and to the full extent of the law to provide an example to those in power that would prefer to make **** up as they go, elevate opinion to law or to rely on "instinct" to intervene where intervention is illegal.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

as this is something that anti could surely seize upon.

Seize upon what, and do what exactly?

A veteran, a father, a citizen was denied the right to vote and the anti-gunners will do what?

He was exercising one civil right while attempting to exercise his civil right to the franchise. No crime was committed other than the alleged crimes of the government officials from a myriad of agencies.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I think something got Kirk ALL fired up! Go Kirk!

 

[88GT]

Sorry to say that I see this differently. I watched the newscast, and I agree that the media went way overboard on this, but...

The Clown, and I mean this in every sense, went to the poll with his gun on display and was well aware that the open carry would cause an issue.
Me? I went to my polling place too, and I was carrying also. But mine was concealed...I voted and left.
I maintain that those who carry openly are attention seekers. Maybe they don't get enough attention at home.
It has been my experience that those who most often carry openly are the newly licensed youngsters who want to strut and show off and say to the world, "Hey...Look at me! I have a gun on my belt and I want you to see it!"

They are silly fools. Immature.

I think this is absolute make-believe on your part to justify an opinion for which you have no evidence.

I am neither newly licensed, young, or attention-seeking. For that matter, I am not male either and thus lack the heterozygosity of sex chromosomes that make me want to show the whole world my gun.

But on the chance that all your broad-brushing were true, so what? If women can show their boobs, men should be equally entitled to showing their guns. I for one don't have a problem with it.

 

[Rookie]

All I got from your thread was boobs. Sorry.

 

[TaunTaun]

You're exactly right. If he was, indeed, trying to make a statement, then good on him. I hope this incident sheds enough national light on SJC and SB to cause them to stop infringing on our rights.

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been some very positive progress made in bringing to light the anti-gun attitude SJC and South Bend has. First, the South Bend Parks Department, and now this. Keep up the good work!

I live one county over in Goshen, but work in SB. I open carried my gun to vote yesterday. Why didn't I leave it at home? I live pretty close to a higher crime rate part of town. We have more going on in the west side of Goshen then almost anywhere else in town. I open carry. Almost everywhere. I take my gun off and lock it in the truck in a safe while at work. I'm semi-comfortable with this as the property is access controlled, but that is neither here nor there. I get off work and the first thing I do is put my gun back on. I drive home, or stop to fill up gas. The particular gas station on the way has had two shootings in the past year or so, and a couple attempted abductions. I go home, get out of my truck and go inside. I still have my gun on me. I keep it on while cooking dinner for my family. I take it off when I go to bed. It sits within arm reach. I do this day in and day out. I even wear it when I go to Church and the houses of my family members. I wear it when mowing the grass and working on the truck/car/bike. I wear it to walmart, I wear it to the theatre...

To the point: I don't wear my gun to make a statement like "Lookit me!!! I've got a gun! YAHOO!!!! I'm JOHN MOTHER F'ING WAYNE!!!" I wear it for protecting myself and my family. Anyone that happens to be within eyesights starts to have that bubble of protection shimmer over them as well (I'm also one of those guys that goes TOWARDS fires, not away). I don't start fights, I try not to get into arguments. However I WILL stand up for what is right, what is legal, and what the word of the law is (not always the same thing). I carried to vote yesterday. Not because I wanted to make a statement. Not because I wanted to have everyone stare at my "Foooh-taaaay!", but because I am a responsible citizen that takes pride in myself and my community. Open carry is my prefered method of carry because of the deterent effect (my opinion) even if that makes me first target (better me than my wife).

Voting while having one of your god-given, constitutionally protected rights dimished or "temporarily suspended" in the name of getting along just to get along, or think of the children, or OH MY, That man has a GUN! Those are evil and makes me uncomfortable! is one of the highest ethical indignities that can be put on us. It's like taking a US Flag and p*ssing on it infront of a WW2 vet. What is right is right. What is legal is legal. What is morally right may not be socially palatable to a lot of people, but they can kiss my *ss.

I also will not submit to voluntary restrictions on any of the other of my rights in the name of getting along.

The Bill of Rights is there for a reason.

Comprimising those values and traditions is saying, "That's okay, I don't really need those anyway...go ahead, keep em as long as you want."

So it doesnt matter if he was making a statement or just carrying out his daily routine with the added plus of getting to vote.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think this is absolute make-believe on your part to justify an opinion for which you have no evidence.

I am neither newly licensed, young, or attention-seeking. For that matter, I am not male either and thus lack the heterozygosity of sex chromosomes that make me want to show the whole world my gun.

But on the chance that all your broad-brushing were true, so what? If women can show their boobs, men should be equally entitled to showing their guns. I for one don't have a problem with it.

I like your attitude today young lady.

 

[NDguido]

He just normally OC's. He has his own reasons I'm sure but he just went to vote, not to start anything.

That being said this guy is NOT one to back down once challanged on his Rights. (Obviously)

It sounds like he is an ideal representative. Somebody mentioned a benefit earlier. I think this is a very good idea.

 

[45fan]

I again, want to caution those about this. And so far, I'm the only person that has brought up this point.
Within the US already, there are a number of states that restrict the right to carry at polls.
I'll be honest guys, the notoriety this instance may gain has me worried. I think legally, this specific situation will bode well however, I don't think we have the votes to win the overall battle concerning this.
If we held a referendum tomorrow, about this, I think we'd have our butts handed to us. We've always had the ability to carry at a polling place (OC or CC), but it's not a stretch to see both options taken away from us, as this is something that anti could surely seize upon.
I don't question the motives, but I do question the timing.

Seize upon what, and do what exactly?

A veteran, a father, a citizen was denied the right to vote and the anti-gunners will do what?

He was exercising one civil right while attempting to exercise his civil right to the franchise. No crime was committed other than the alleged crimes of the government officials from a myriad of agencies.

I don't care what they do down South. They do all kinds of goofy crap down there. South Bend is not in the South; it is in Indiana and the laws of the Indiana Code and the United States Code apply.



Someone has a blackletter civil rights violation involving all kinds of federal and state criminal and civil statutes and you are worried?

If we do not exercise our rights, then we lose them. What on earth could you be worried about?



I don't care. It does not matter what the majority thinks, it matters what the Constitution says.

Federal and state law are very clear that this was a violation of a citizen's civil rights. A man's civil rights are not put to referendum.



Lessons learned: do not fight back because you may win.

I don't understand the surrender before fighting mindset. To win one must attack. When victorious, we then attack. When attacked, we attack.

We don't stop attacking because we will always be fighting. We can stop fighting when we have destroyed the enemy and they no longer exist to fight.

I think that the middle ground here is to point out that this will very likely be a battle to anticipate. While the lay makers havent yet stepped to the plate with this, the idea has been freshly put into their minds, and as such, those that would seek to limit our freedoms will try to warp this instance into a reason to take more of our rights.

 

[bobzilla]

All I got from your thread was boobs. Sorry.

+1. Mind/eyes focused on "boobs" and everything else became irrelevant.

 

[88GT]

All I got from your thread was boobs. Sorry.

What! Not even the awesome gun pun? Dang.

 

[NDguido]

I think this is absolute make-believe on your part to justify an opinion for which you have no evidence.

I am neither newly licensed, young, or attention-seeking. For that matter, I am not male either and thus lack the heterozygosity of sex chromosomes that make me want to show the whole world my gun.

But on the chance that all your broad-brushing were true, so what? If women can show their boobs, men should be equally entitled to showing their guns. I for one don't have a problem with it.

Don't expect a response until he looks up "heterozygosity"

 

[TaunTaun]

What! Not even the awesome gun pun? Dang.

Sorry 88, you found the lowest common denominator word for men in the english language. All other things go out the window.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think that the middle ground here is to point out that this will very likely be a battle to anticipate

What?

The GOVERNMENT is the one allegedly committing the crimes here.

The prospective voter did NOTHING wrong.

Any bill introduced in the General Assembly will be laughed out onto Market Street.