Open Carrier denied his Right to Vote in Indiana

[Adyta]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

I think he will lose. This may be problematic for him:

In other words, the poll workers can say that his actions in legally carrying a gun was intimidating to either the other voters or to the poll workers.

If you read the statute, it doesn't matter if he intended to intimidate them or not - all that matters is if he KNEW that his actions were intimidating to others.

So, I think he will lose his lawsuit, and may be charged with a crime. Especially when you see that he went back to the polling place later in the day, still carrying - that can be seen as trying to intimidate the poll workers who already turned him away.

Doesn't matter if they felt intimidated. He was exercising his legal right to carry a firearm. Other peoples irrational fear doesn't trump our second amendment rights.

Originally Posted by Titanium_Frost

Did you actually read anything or just not understand it? Do you really think that you stumbled upon a loophole that several lawyers and students of Indiana law overlooked when filing not only a lawsuit but a motion for special attorney to look for felonies committed by the people who denied him the ability to vote?

In other words: it was legal.

Reason: Indiana has complete state preemption of firearm laws so it would be illegal for them to ban firearms in property owned by the county. I know this has already been posted here and I am just yet again wasting my breath/fingers.

A lot of people here don't read. They may read the first line of a post (if even that) and instantly feel the need to throw in their bit of "knowledge" like any second this thread is going to disappear.

Also, another hilarious trend on this forum is to completely cast your OP aside and offer up absolutely useless information that does little more than infuriate and annoy even the most mild-mannered of us.

"What should I buy, a 9mm or .40"
"EEERRRR A .45!!!"
"............"

Don't try having an intelligent conversation here, you'll only be disappointed. I usually just talk guns here and save the adult conversation for IRL or another forum.

[barcode]

"Vanoverberghe, who admits to understanding Edinger’s legal right to bear arms and even carry it openly, cannot come to grips for Clay’s reason for refusing to simply take it off and go vote."

What part of Shall Not Be Infringed do these people not understand

[Titanium_Frost]

Thanks for the advice Adyta! That's exactly what it seems like.

[partdeux]

Originally Posted by barcode

"Vanoverberghe, who admits to understanding Edinger’s legal right to bear arms and even carry it openly, cannot come to grips for Clay’s reason for refusing to simply take it off and go vote."

What part of Shall Not Be Infringed do these people not understand

The part where they get scawed
or the part where guns go off all by themselves

[M1AG30]

Originally Posted by Titanium_Frost

but it is well documented that he was denied his right to vote.

No he was not........ He was denied his right to carry on those premises ...he then decided not to vote..... no one told him he couldnt vote they told him he couldnt carry.

[Russ7777]

Originally Posted by Titanium_Frost

Did you actually read anything or just not understand it? Do you really think that you stumbled upon a loophole that several lawyers and students of Indiana law overlooked when filing not only a lawsuit but a motion for special attorney to look for felonies committed by the people who denied him the ability to vote?

In other words: it was legal.

Reason: Indiana has complete state preemption of firearm laws so it would be illegal for them to ban firearms in property owned by the county. I know this has already been posted here and I am just yet again wasting my breath/fingers.

One all I did was ask a question; you don't have to be nasty. Second here is a link and it specifically states the state of Indiana does allow counties to pass local ordinances to restrict handguns from public buildings.
http://www.in.gov/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf

I do not know the county, or if they have such local ordinances or not, once again I simply asked a question.

[Tattooed Bard]

Originally Posted by Adyta

Don't try having an intelligent conversation here, you'll only be disappointed. I usually just talk guns here and save the adult conversation for IRL or another forum.

Maybe this is your fault, as there are plenty highly intelligent people on this forum and have been for many years. There has been intelligence and adult conversations here consistently since I joined. So if this is your opinion, then maybe just maybe, its not the rest of here, but you

[Adyta]

Originally Posted by Tattooed Bard

Maybe this is your fault, as there are plenty highly intelligent people on this forum and have been for many years. There has been intelligence and adult conversations here consistently since I joined. So if this is your opinion, then maybe just maybe, its not the rest of here, but you

I'm sure there are some smart people here, and I'm sure there are also some intelligent posts. I'm speaking about the majority of people here. The amount of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, and "wittyness" I see here is absolutely mind-blowing.

Just look at any thread with more than 3 pages. The same questions keep getting asked and answered over and over again.

[Titanium_Frost]

Originally Posted by Russ7777

Is is legal to carry in a government building? If not; the firehouse would be considered a government building, and denying him entry would have been within the law.

Originally Posted by Titanium_Frost

Did you actually read anything or just not understand it? Do you really think that you stumbled upon a loophole that several lawyers and students of Indiana law overlooked when filing not only a lawsuit but a motion for special attorney to look for felonies committed by the people who denied him the ability to vote?

In other words: it was legal.

Reason: Indiana has complete state preemption of firearm laws so it would be illegal for them to ban firearms in property owned by the county. I know this has already been posted here and I am just yet again wasting my breath/fingers.

Originally Posted by Russ7777

One all I did was ask a question; you don't have to be nasty. Second here is a link and it specifically states the state of Indiana does allow counties to pass local ordinances to restrict handguns from public buildings.
http://www.in.gov/isp/files/firearms_FAQ_02_08.pdf

I do not know the county, or if they have such local ordinances or not, once again I simply asked a question.

This is a fantastic example. I have no idea how this guy ties his shoes in the morning. The ISP FAQ hasn't been updated in years, the preemption bill was passed in 2011. Here is a link to it, took me less than 30 seconds to find it. Engrossed Version, Senate Bill 0292

BTW IC (Indiana Code for lay people) trumps whatever the ISP (Indiana State Police) have to say on their website. the entire point of this thread is that police rarely are up to date on current and ever changing laws regarding firearms.

Originally Posted by M1AG30

No he was not........ He was denied his right to carry on those premises ...he then decided not to vote..... no one told him he couldnt vote they told him he couldnt carry.

Yes, they would 'allow' him to relinquish his 2A rights to be able to exercise his right to vote but he would rather keep ALL of his legally exercised rights intact, as would I. In fact he was inside of the building trying to vote when they told him to go outside.

You are trying to split peas here but they cannot say that you must denounce your religion before you vote. Same thing here.

Originally Posted by Adyta

I'm sure there are some smart people here, and I'm sure there are also some intelligent posts. I'm speaking about the majority of people here. The amount of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, and "wittyness" I see here is absolutely mind-blowing.

Just look at any thread with more than 3 pages. The same questions keep getting asked and answered over and over again.

Couldn't agree more. Adyta are you on facebook? Here is a link to Clay's support group. http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/435282603167094/

[Thefatgunner]

Sorry to hear this guys right are being violated, I'll be joining the page.

Regarding local ordnance I always find it funny when a local law tries to limit the rights granted by the feds and state. We currently have a problem with that here in Arizona regarding the city of Scottsdale and the right to protest in public.