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

[MamabearCali]

Mine had that same nasty sign. It was redundant though as my polling place is in a school. Sigh*

 

[TFred]

Seems like this should be an open and shut case. Just take them a copy of the Black Panthers "patrolling" the polls in Philly a couple years ago to demonstrate how hostile and violent they were, and then point out that according to the Attorney General of the United States, THAT was not voter intimidation.

So obviously a peaceful voter who happens to be open carrying would not be intimidating...

TFred

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

That trump card was played with finesse. +1

 

[TFred]

Well, I voted.

When they asked for my ID, I asked if it was required in Virginia. I was told "yes."

I then asked the poll workers if they were aware that a Project Veritas operative was offered a provisional ballot under the name of Eric J. Holder earlier this year. None of them had heard of the event.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archive...der-ballot-video-as-manufactured-voter-fraud/

Not quite as damning a video as one might think when all the facts are laid out, but seriously, they asked for my ID, said it was required, but this is obviously not the case. I should have said I did not have ID and filed a provisional ballot, but I needed to get to work.

They jumped the gun, so to speak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ary-election/2012/06/09/gJQAQH5oQV_story.html

Not until after July 1st.

It's SO refreshing to see how well our election officials do their jobs. :uke::

TFred

 

[ocholsteroc]

Dumb sign...

 

[peter nap]

Looks like Chippers can vote!

 

[ocholsteroc]

Looks like Chippers can vote!

This is at a library right?

Why perks for permit for something already allowed.........


+1 sticky

:banghead:

 

[Brian Reynolds]

Although the State Board of Elections acts in an overseer capacity, it's local governments that have local boards and registrars, and I'm guessing that puts the matter under 15.2-915. And since the voter intimidation statute has no explicit reference to firearms, implementation of that policy would be illegal. I'd have to do more research to be sure, but that's what I'm thinkin'.

Completely agree. Currently, the Registrar of Chesterfield is in violation. While he can make an arbitrary decision, he could ultimately be instructed to remove the signs and/or be sued. I doubt if anything has been done today, but certainly an issue to resolve before November. Nothing in VA Code 24.2-607 prevents OC, regardless of what their internal discussions, decisions or policies may be.

That said, I know it’s great to get on here and pump each other up on right or wrong, but I think this situation has additional elements to anticipate and prepare for between now and November, especially if we are challenging the Registrar, the SBE and requesting the AG’s intervention. The following outlines why it may not be as clear cut as we hope.

Voter turnout is always low so every vote counts and legislators place voter turnout at the top of their goals. Being on the cabinet of several lawmakers’ campaigns, I feel they may take the opportunity to eventually christen a “polling place” sacred for that day under an equitable grounds argument. At least it’s something we should anticipate.

Equitable meaning that if Jane Doe lives in Sterling, VA, her polling place is at a school and she will not be exposed to guns at the polls. Yet if Jane Doe lives in in Wagstaff, she may be voting alongside folks toting guns and if anti, feel physically intimidated for lack of belief, education or understanding, she may have an argument. Legislators want neutrality at polling stations and will likely opt for an equal slate across the board. Since most polling stations are within schools, and all are temporary, the path of least resistance is to keep everything equal.

We 2A and OC supporters don’t stop voting just because we can’t take a gun on school grounds. We respect, follow the law and argue to change it. So, while I can see a few going, “well if they do prevent me from carrying, I won’t vote”, the majority will still vote whether they can lawfully carry or not and legislators know this. That said, it is likely even pro-gun legislators would not oppose a change.

Again, right now it IS lawful to carry, OC or CC, in polling places which are temporarily in non-school locations, but the argument to anticipate is one of equitable grounds for voters, especially in November as liberals will be out in droves.

 

[Tosta Dojen]

I just got home from my polling place, where I cast my ballot while openly carrying my pistol, the same as I've done for the last several elections. That puts the lie to Mr. Haake's claim that there exists a statewide policy prohibiting open carry.

I'm seeing at least two high-level problems here. First, Mr. Haake is placing additional restrictions on voters in his geographical area that aren't imposed upon voters elsewhere. Second, he's placing restrictions on a particular class of voters (non-law-enforcement) that aren't imposed on the rest.

Those are both equal protection violations -- it's possible to influence the vote by selective deployment and/or enforcement of qualifications for voting. Our nation has a sordid history of such things (literacy tests assessed in predominantly black voting districts, for example,) and the federal authorities wouldn't approve, I think.

I'm particularly perturbed by the fact that law enforcement officers receive special treatment. It's well known that certain demographic groups tend to vote along certain lines, and putting a restriction on every voter except members of that class is a pretty blatant form of manipulation. Imagine if the rule were "No hats while voting (except for senior citizens)" or "Cell phones must be turned off (except for union members.)" Neither of those would pass Constitutional muster, and neither should this.

 

[AtackDuck]

The other foot?

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.

It seems to me that the poll worker violated the Code of Virginia.

 

[ProShooter]

Not that this counts for anything.....BUT...I just spoke with someone who, let's just say used to be "in the know" with SBE.

We read 24.2-607 and then 15.2-915. She agreed, that since 24.2-607 did not expressly mention firearms, as required by 15.2-915, then 15.2-915 reigns supreme and Chesterfield was in violation.

I was never here. You saw nothing.

 

[TFred]

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.

It seems to me that the poll worker violated the Code of Virginia.

Seems pretty clear to me as well.

TFred

 

[KBCraig]

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.

It sounds to me like someone needs to feel intimidated by a law enforcement officer in the polling place, and report it.

 

[MagiK_SacK]

than i think we should holler loud and holler frequently. if everybody on this board contacted every on that is responsible for this decision there will be results.

you know there was a time in this country that having a firearm was mandatory

Under the Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties I would like to believe it is still mandatory

Constitutional duties of able-bodied citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To defend the U.S. or State, individually and through service in the Militia.

(2) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials when present.[17]

 

[USNA69]

Unless I overlooked it in scanning all the posts, all of them have addressed this as a Commonwealth issue. And, we may prevail at the State level.

But, no one has mentioned the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which also speaks to voter intimidation. If any voter makes a claim of intimidation, the Poll Officer must report that, and it could well ultimately involve Holder's DOJ. A federal case is a wholly different issue with no guarantee of a positive result for us.

Like brandishing, intimidation involves a perception by the affected person. While a charge of brandishing in VA must pass a reasonableness test, I am not so sure that reasonableness is a factor in a federal case.

Of course, that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[va_tazdad]

I asked Haake about that

Unless I overlooked it in scanning all the posts, all of them have addressed this as a Commonwealth issue. And, we may prevail at the State level.

But, no one has mentioned the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which also speaks to voter intimidation. If any voter makes a claim of intimidation, the Poll Officer must report that, and it could well ultimately involve Holder's DOJ. A federal case is a wholly different issue with no guarantee of a positive result for us.

Like brandishing, intimidation involves a perception by the affected person. While a charge of brandishing in VA must pass a reasonableness test, I am not so sure that reasonableness is a factor in a federal case.

Of course, that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

When I spoke to Mr. Haake, I asked how my legally open carrying my gun is intimidating, he said that it was not to him but there was an incident in March 2012. I have written and asked for a better explanation and emailed the AG office requesting verification as to the legality of what the State Board of Elections did.

 

[VCDL President]

When I spoke to Mr. Haake, I asked how my legally open carrying my gun is intimidating, he said that it was not to him but there was an incident in March 2012. I have written and asked for a better explanation and emailed the AG office requesting verification as to the legality of what the State Board of Elections did.

AG won't respond to a citizen's request - not his job. You would need to ask your Delegate or Senator to ask for you. If you are considering this approach email me at president@vcdl.org for more important info on AG opinions before doing so.

 

[MAC702]

§ 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....

Um, so the OP is the one that was hindered, intimidated, and interfered with... This is the approach that needs to be taken.

 

[skidmark]

Completely agree. Currently, the Registrar of Chesterfield is in violation. While he can make an arbitrary decision, he could ultimately be instructed to remove the signs and/or be sued. I doubt if anything has been done today, but certainly an issue to resolve before November. Nothing in VA Code 24.2-607 prevents OC, regardless of what their internal discussions, decisions or policies may be.

That said, I know it’s great to get on here and pump each other up on right or wrong, but I think this situation has additional elements to anticipate and prepare for between now and November, especially if we are challenging the Registrar, the SBE and requesting the AG’s intervention. The following outlines why it may not be as clear cut as we hope.

Voter turnout is always low so every vote counts and legislators place voter turnout at the top of their goals. Being on the cabinet of several lawmakers’ campaigns, I feel they may take the opportunity to eventually christen a “polling place” sacred for that day under an equitable grounds argument. At least it’s something we should anticipate.

Equitable meaning that if Jane Doe lives in Sterling, VA, her polling place is at a school and she will not be exposed to guns at the polls. Yet if Jane Doe lives in in Wagstaff, she may be voting alongside folks toting guns and if anti, feel physically intimidated for lack of belief, education or understanding, she may have an argument. Legislators want neutrality at polling stations and will likely opt for an equal slate across the board. Since most polling stations are within schools, and all are temporary, the path of least resistance is to keep everything equal.

We 2A and OC supporters don’t stop voting just because we can’t take a gun on school grounds. We respect, follow the law and argue to change it. So, while I can see a few going, “well if they do prevent me from carrying, I won’t vote”, the majority will still vote whether they can lawfully carry or not and legislators know this. That said, it is likely even pro-gun legislators would not oppose a change.

Again, right now it IS lawful to carry, OC or CC, in polling places which are temporarily in non-school locations, but the argument to anticipate is one of equitable grounds for voters, especially in November as liberals will be out in droves.

One cannot "feel" intimidated. It is both grammatically and physically impossible as well as unpossible under law. Intimidation is an action that one person does towards another - not a feeling one has about or because of the presence (or absence) of an object or a person bearing an object.

If it were possible to "feel intimidated" then I say we all start filing complaints about any and all manner of things that make us "feel intimidated". I know that I "felt intimidated" when I saw that sign at my polling place, which is a school. Specifically, I "felt intimidated" into being forced to cast my ballot under the control of fools, simpletons, and idiots and that those persons were more likely than not to do something that would cause my vote to either not be recorded or recorded improperly. I demand my right to cast a ballot under the control of rational persons!

stay safe.

 

[paramedic70002]

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.

It seems to me that the poll worker violated the Code of Virginia.

YEP!
------------

It wasn't too many years ago that former Sheriff Charlie Phelps of Isle of Wight County stationed ALL of his Deputies (as in none on patrol) at various polling places for the purpose of intimidating the citizens. If you showed up to vote and there were multiple uniformed Deputies encouraging you to vote for the Sheriff, would you feel intimidated?

------------

I OCed last time. Have to do it next time, although I doubt my polling place will care. If y'all can make a firm enough case by then, maybe I'll even force the issue. Might get arrested for trespassing but if I win in the end...