Open carry voting

[gryphon]

The Black Panthers are a violent, militant organization.  So that's one difference.  The Black Panther wasn't simply walking in to exercise his right to vote, that's another difference.

[TheQ]

The Black Panthers are a violent, militant organization.  So that's one difference.  The Black Panther wasn't simply walking in to exercise his right to vote, that's another difference.

But let's say one of their members walked in wearing a night stick, politely voted, and walked out. Would you see issue with that?

What if 5 other members in the same precinct did the same?

[gryphon]

No, providing everything was legal (nightsticks legal, they aren't felons, they show ID, etc. just like everybody else).

Are nightsticks even legal to carry around?  I don't know.

[wayne]

I say IF the panthers are the required setback from the poll, 100' or 200' or whatever it is required for people hading out literature and such, and the weapons were holstered or equivilant, then it is fine.  The video I saw, they were standing right at the doors and had them in hand, so that would not be ok.  If they are in the process of entering or exiting the poll to vote and again had the weapons holstered, not in hand, I have no problem with them going in to vote with them.  I think that is fair application of the same rules that apply to our OC.  I do not think we would get away with standing at the door of the polling place with pistol in hand?!  Neither should we be the required set back and have them in hand waving them around!

[JoeCar]

I opened carried an Lk. Fenton high school. Uneventful mostly. People looked. One young 20 year old or so, spotted me and then showed a big grin. He turned to his mother and said something to the effect wondering if I can be in the school like that? She, with no expression, nodded yes. He then said out loud..coool!

[gryphon]

UPDATE on PREVIOUS MENTION (OC PREEMPTION VIOLATION)

an OCer who was ejected from a public zoo in Evansville, IN

I briefly mentioned this in a previous post. The open carrier just won the appeal--handily (3-0).  I bring this up again here because the lawsuit was initially filed on September 16, 2011, nearly four years ago.  The city of Evansville has done everything in its power to drag this lawsuit out, first by delay tactics, then admitting that they did it but that the plaintiff missed the cutoff date for filing a notice that they were going to sue with the city and its risk management commission (not applicable for several reasons, one of which is the plaintiff filed the actual lawsuit immediately (6 days, well within the 180 notice of upcoming lawsuit provision)). Whether they plan to appeal to the Indiana SC is unknown.

Indiana Court of Appeals Decision

Interesting quote from opinion:

Indiana has several statutes with similar provisions, authorizing private citizens to bring suit to “redress wrongs that involve the public interest, and to recover attorney fees if they prevail.”  These provisions are meant to “encourage[e] the private prosecution of certain favored actions, by requiring defendants who have violated plaintiffs’ rights to compensate plaintiffs for the costs they incurred to enforce those rights.” In recent years, our legislature has seen fit to create, and to encourage the private prosecution of, several such favored actions relating to firearms.

Brief description of preemption violation:

On September 10, 2011, Mr. Magenheimer, his wife and four-month old child were enjoying an afternoon in the petting zoo ot the Mesker Park Zoo & Botanical Garden, owned and operated by the Evansville Department of Parks & Recreation. Mr. Magenheimer was lawfully carrying a handgun at the time, with his Indiana License to Carry Handgun in his possession. After a zoo employee apparently called police, Mr. Magenheimer was approached by four members of the Evansville Police Department, who first ordered him to conceal his firearm (which he had no legal obligation to do), then ordered him to leave the zoo property. When Mr. Magenheimer attempted to explain to the officers that their actions were illegal, the officers forcibly removed him from the property.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Indiana Supreme Court denies cert, so Evansville has finally, permanently lost to Magenheimer.
Google of course can't find me a single news item on it two days later.

https://publicaccess.courts.in.gov/docket/Document/GetOdysseyDocument?DocumentID=5079035

[gryphon]

Indiana Supreme Court denies cert, so Evansville has finally, permanently lost to Magenheimer.

Now it goes to jury trial.

Transfer of the case to the Indiana Supreme Court was the city's last option to have it dismissed before going to jury trial. A trial date will now be set for sometime next year, said Robert Burkart, the attorney representing the city.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/local/trial-date-to-be-set-for-gun-owners-lawsuit-against-city-of-evansville-26a2fccd-74d9-31b7-e053-01000-361594541.html

[CitizensHaveRights]

Oops. After four years, I'd forgotten that all the fighting was over the city's motion for summary judgment on procedural grounds, because any decision on the facts would have to be against them for violating preemption.