Open Carry is illegal at a polling place according to State Board of Elections?

[Tosta Dojen]

The above report is not entirely accurate. Nevertheless, by her own words the officer of election admits to offering three separate sources for a rule, none of which actually prohibit the possession of a firearm.

 

[USNA69]

6:50pm Voter was noticed to be displaying a handgun. As he was casting his ballot, Cheif was notified and decided to address voter outside of precinct, away from other voter w/ child. Chief approached voter in a non-confrontational manner and stated that it would be best if the firearm was not brought in next time. Voter challenged this and asked "on who's authority". Voter was informed weapons were not allowed on the authority of the registrar + the code of VA and was directed to the "prohibited activities" poster, which did not list firearms. Chief then returned inside to contact Registrar, and was advised that weapons were banned according to church + school policy. Chief spoke w/ church staff who was unaware of exact church policy. Chief conveyed this to voter who again asked to see a specific law regarding weapons in polling locations. Voter was directed to code section 24.2-606 and 24.2-607 which upon review are not aplicable. After further discussion, voter asked for a definitive answer regarding weapons at Calvary Baptist Church

Church Staff, when asked for a definitive answer responded, "No, not tonight." This was conveyed to voter, who requested names of Chief and church Staff. Upon further investigation, CBC does not have a weapons policy, but will consider creating one, as per church staff onsite.

As we now know from the former AG's opinion, the mere carrying of a firearm in a place of worship is not per se a violation of law. Those in authority of the place of worship may ask the carrier to leave. They retain this option as the place of worship is private property. If the carrier does not leave, he is subject to a charge of Trespass.

Soooo, does a place of worship continue to be "private property", when a portion of it is designated as a "place of voting"? More to the point, do those in authority of the "place of worship" retain the right to ask anyone to leave the "place of voting" or face a charge of Trespass. If that is true, would not those in authority of the place of worship have the right to instruct ANYONE to leave or face a charge of Trespass ... based perhaps on race or appearance or (fill in the blank)?

 

[MAC702]

So this is all proof of repeated and fraudulent voter intimidation.

 

[va_tazdad]

Nothing has changed,

06/12/2012 Original post

Chesterfield Registrar Lawrence Haake III

I just got off the phone with Lawrence Haake, III Registrar of Chesterfield. ((804-748-9745)

He stated that due to an incident in March 2012, the State Board of Elections on HIS recommendation has now prohibited open carry due to a person seeing a gun and being intimidated.

Mr. Haake advised that anything that can disrupt people voting can be prohibited, including cell phones. He also stated that concealed carry is legal because nobody knows you have a gun.

He stated that they are not trying to infringe on anyone's 2nd Amendment rights (which they did) but a polling place is not a "public location" and therefore they can prohibit anything that disrupts anyone voting.

Better cover up folks (if you can) to vote. ????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

[Grapeshot]

06/12/2012 Original post

Chesterfield Registrar Lawrence Haake III

I just got off the phone with Lawrence Haake, III Registrar of Chesterfield. ((804-748-9745)

He stated that due to an incident in March 2012, the State Board of Elections on HIS recommendation has now prohibited open carry due to a person seeing a gun and being intimidated.

Mr. Haake advised that anything that can disrupt people voting can be prohibited, including cell phones. He also stated that concealed carry is legal because nobody knows you have a gun.

He stated that they are not trying to infringe on anyone's 2nd Amendment rights (which they did) but a polling place is not a "public location" and therefore they can prohibit anything that disrupts anyone voting.

Better cover up folks (if you can) to vote. ????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

As I recall, they tried the same thing (no cite) by banning T-shirts with 2A messages. That didn't fly.

 

[lockman]

So the owner of the polling location can decide who can or can not vote under threat of trespass?

 

[color of law]

As we now know from the former AG's opinion, the mere carrying of a firearm in a place of worship is not per se a violation of law. Those in authority of the place of worship may ask the carrier to leave. They retain this option as the place of worship is private property. If the carrier does not leave, he is subject to a charge of Trespass.

Soooo, does a place of worship continue to be "private property", when a portion of it is designated as a "place of voting"? More to the point, do those in authority of the "place of worship" retain the right to ask anyone to leave the "place of voting" or face a charge of Trespass. If that is true, would not those in authority of the place of worship have the right to instruct ANYONE to leave or face a charge of Trespass ... based perhaps on race or appearance or (fill in the blank)?

This is all bluff, but that would not stop a stupid cop from arresting you for trespass. Once the church offers their facility for use as a polling place they forfeited control over the polling place.

Is the voting location open to the public? Is the voting location only open to registered voters? We know the answer. They don't like the answer.

 

[MAC702]

...Mr. Haake advised that anything that can disrupt people voting can be prohibited...

Including ________ people?

 

[va_tazdad]

Including ________ people?

Code of Virginia 24.2-607



§ 24.2-607. Prohibited conduct; intimidation of voters; disturbance of election; how prevented; penalties.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to hinder, intimidate, or interfere with any qualified voter so as to prevent the voter from casting a secret ballot. The officers of election may order a person violating this subsection to cease such action. If such person does not promptly desist, the officers of election, or a majority of them, may order the arrest of such person by any person authorized by law to make arrests, and, by their warrant, may commit him to the county or city jail, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding twenty-four hours. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. No person shall conduct himself in a noisy or riotous manner at or about the polls so as to disturb the election or insult or abuse an officer of election. Any person authorized to make arrests may forthwith arrest a person engaging in such conduct and bring him before the officers of the election, and they, by their warrant, may commit him to the county or city jail, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding twenty-four hours; but they shall permit him to vote if he is so entitled.

(Code 1950, §§ 24-190, 24-192; 1970, c. 462, § 24.1-104; 1993, c. 641.)

Again, I see nothing here that defines open carry as intimidating!

 

[color of law]

riotous is nothing more than disorderly.

§ 18.2-415. Disorderly conduct in public places.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

A legal act exercised cannot be illegal.

 

[USNA69]

Code of Virginia 24.2-607



§ 24.2-607. Prohibited conduct; intimidation of voters; disturbance of election; how prevented; penalties.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to hinder, intimidate, or interfere with any qualified voter so as to prevent the voter from casting a secret ballot. The officers of election may order a person violating this subsection to cease such action. If such person does not promptly desist, the officers of election, or a majority of them, may order the arrest of such person by any person authorized by law to make arrests, and, by their warrant, may commit him to the county or city jail, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding twenty-four hours. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. No person shall conduct himself in a noisy or riotous manner at or about the polls so as to disturb the election or insult or abuse an officer of election. Any person authorized to make arrests may forthwith arrest a person engaging in such conduct and bring him before the officers of the election, and they, by their warrant, may commit him to the county or city jail, as the case may be, for a period not exceeding twenty-four hours; but they shall permit him to vote if he is so entitled.

(Code 1950, §§ 24-190, 24-192; 1970, c. 462, § 24.1-104; 1993, c. 641.)

Again, I see nothing here that defines open carry as intimidating!

Actually, it seems to me that a church official trying to eject a lawful carrier from a public place of voting would constitute an intimidating and prohibited act.

 

[va_tazdad]

Actually, it seems to me that a church official trying to eject a lawful carrier from a public place of voting would constitute an intimidating and prohibited act.

My incident was not at a church, but a community center. The official was from the election staff. They could NOT show me any section of law that made it legal for them to determine my gun was causing a problem, but they would not allow me to vote until I put my gun in the car. Follow up with the registrar is what I posted at the start of the thread.

 

[Wolf_shadow]

I just got off the phone with Lawrence Haake, III Registrar of Chesterfield. ((804-748-9745)

He stated that due to an incident in March 2012, the State Board of Elections on HIS recommendation has now prohibited open carry due to a person seeing a gun and being intimidated.

Mr. Haake advised that anything that can disrupt people voting can be prohibited, including cell phones. He also stated that concealed carry is legal because nobody knows you have a gun.

He stated that they are not trying to infringe on anyone's 2nd Amendment rights (which they did) but a polling place is not a "public location" and therefore they can prohibit anything that disrupts anyone voting.

Better cover up folks (if you can) to vote. ????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Going back to this particular post, while I do not agree that the State Board of Elections has the authority to prohibit the carrying of a firearm, due his Majesty's servant govna McAuful's decree about carrying in state government buildings I'm afraid the courts would rule in their favor.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[TFred]

My incident was not at a church, but a community center. The official was from the election staff. They could NOT show me any section of law that made it legal for them to determine my gun was causing a problem, but they would not allow me to vote until I put my gun in the car. Follow up with the registrar is what I posted at the start of the thread.

Someone with the freedom to be a test case (no job, no mortgage, no young kids in the home, etc.) would certainly have an interesting ride if they responded with something like, "Sir, I intend to vote, and to do so while I am exercising my Constitutionally protected right to bear arms in a lawful manner. If you believe you need to call the police and have me arrested and charged with a crime for exercising my rights, then do what you have to do, but I caution you to be prepared, because you WILL be fully exposed for all to see."

Ha.

TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

Someone with the freedom to be a test case (no job, no mortgage, no young kids in the home, etc.) would certainly have an interesting ride if they responded with something like, "Sir, I intend to vote, and to do so while I am exercising my Constitutionally protected right to bear arms in a lawful manner. If you believe you need to call the police and have me arrested and charged with a crime for exercising my rights, then do what you have to do, but I caution you to be prepared, because you WILL be fully exposed for all to see."

Ha.

TFred

Being rift of disposable income, if not a prior condition would surely follow.

Some people choose to ride the wild pony and I do applaud their efforts.

 

[Grapeshot]

+1 Well done. I think "Being reft of disposable income," would be clearer for being closer to the original spelling, that gave us bereft.

But then we wouldn't be having this discussion - we'd just rift apart.