OC Arrest

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

okiebryan

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
1
Location
OKC
I think a few questions are in order here:

It was private property, voluntarily offered for a public function without remuneration. So, what category does that make it based on the use as intended by Sisson? Private or public?

If someone is otherwise following all state laws, can a private property owner refuse service to someone exercising their legal right to vote? If so, is the county election board required to provide him with an alternate polling location?

Who denied him entry? The property owner or manager, or an election volunteer? It seems to me that an election volunteer would not have the authority to invoke trespass on property where they did not have a legally binding contract for the use of the facility. Is there a contract in effect? Even if it was the property manager or owner, could they bar that person from exercising their right to vote? I refer back to the previous paragraph.

Is a polling location the same as a government meeting location? I doubt it was intended that way when the law was written, but who knows what the courts say?

What we have here is a collision of private property rights, CCW rights and voting rights. All I can see for certain is that the guy is a dolt for pressing the issue. A polling place is not the best place to state your case for open carry. It's a place to vote, period. Why muddy the waters? :(

this is an excellent synopsis of this care as I understand it. His actions after voting were definitely ill advised, but did he actually break the law? I'm waiting to see what (if anything) they charge him with.
 

okiebryan

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
1
Location
OKC
So if a reserve police officer, who isn't paid, attempted to arrest you could you tell him to pound sand, cause he isn't a paid employee? Likewise if any property owner agrees or offers their property for use as a polling place don't you think that creates a contract between them and the State?

Could the owner of the private property then ban certain people from voting based on any reason they pull out of their hat??

You're smart enough to already know the answer to every single question you asked.....

What we have here is contract law colliding with firearms law with a bit of private property law thrown in for good measure. I still think it's a stretch to call a retirement center a "building...leased...by the government for the purpose of doing business with the public" when leases require consideration received to be valid and binding, and they were not paid by the election board.
 

yukonjack

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
5,939
Reaction score
2,039
Location
Piedmont
What we have here is contract law colliding with firearms law with a bit of private property law thrown in for good measure. I still think it's a stretch to call a retirement center a "building...leased...by the government for the purpose of doing business with the public" when leases require consideration received to be valid and binding, and they were not paid by the election board.

You'll never get it.
 

okiebryan

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
1
Location
OKC
Oh, I get it all too well. Election officials and some police officers are upset that some don't read the less than black letter law the same way as they do. Apparently, you share their interpretation and until there's case law, it's only an interpretation. Personally, I'm unsure, so I'm reserving judgement for now. I find that the most sensible at the moment.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,661
Location
Collinsville
It can't be reasonably argued that voting is not a government function. I don't think the statute differentiates between paid vs volunteer government officials. This page at Tulsa County says that precinct officials are paid. That makes them government employees.

I've got an email in to Tulsa County Elections Board asking them about leases and employment status of precinct officials. I'll post any response I get.

Apparently, you've never met a lawyer. :)

In actuality, voting is a function of the people facilitated by the government (election board). As for the paid vs. unpaid volunteer, it wouldn't matter if they were paid or not if there isn't a lease on the property. No lease, they have no standing to tell you to leave. (I'm not saying there wasn't, it's merely a question that should be answered). It also doesn't matter whether Tulsa Co. pays their precinct officials or not. This didn't happen in Tulsa Co.

So if a polling place is located on private property then how can the government possibly have prohibitions against political candidates campaigning in them on election day? After all it's private property......

https://www.sos.ok.gov/oar/online/viewCode.aspx

230:35-11-5. Electioneering prohibited
Any person who electioneers within 300 feet of any ballot box while an election is in progress, and any person except election officials and other persons authorized by law who remains within 50 feet of any ballot box while an election is in progress shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. [26:16-111]
[Source: Added at 28 Ok Reg 1167, eff 7-1-11]

Does 230:35-11-5. say anything about carrying a firearm within 300 feet of a polling place? Probably not, because it has nothing at all to do with the election or voting, whereas electioneering does.

Does O.S. 21 say anything about polling places in regards to lawful carry? If this is so cut and dried, then why doesn't it? I'm mindful that the provisions and exclusions within the SDA aren't all-inclusive, nor are they exclusive of every place one might go. Just like a great many laws, it cannot list every last scenario on a yes or no panel. Any half-witted fool should be able to figure out for themselves that there are certain boundaries that shouldn't be tested. I think openly carrying a firearm into a polling place should be one of those boundaries. I can't see a single upside to what this guy did. But that doesn't mean that all the questions surrounding this case have been asked and answered. In the end, they may never be fully addressed. The charges might be dropped, reduced, plead out, adjudicated guilty on a local level and not appealed all the way to the state supreme court, etc.

Laws are not nearly as black and white as many seem to believe. :(
 

yukonjack

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
5,939
Reaction score
2,039
Location
Piedmont
Oh, I get it all too well. Election officials and some police officers are upset that some don't read the less than black letter law the same way as they do. Apparently, you share their interpretation and until there's case law, it's only an interpretation. Personally, I'm unsure, so I'm reserving judgement for now. I find that the most sensible at the moment.

Less then black letter law? What does that even mean? The election board hires pole workers, they are agents and employees of the State. The election board obtains polling locations. Some they pay for and some are donated. During the time the election board has custody and control of those properties they are now acting as agents of the property owner on behalf of the State of Oklahoma.

That's where your missing the whole point. Just because no "money" changed hands doesn't negate the validity of the contract between the two parties. In this case the State has accepted a fudiciary duty to protect the owners intrest while they have custody of the property. As such they have the right to contol the conduct of people that are coming to vote and do business with State of Oklahoma.

Keep up your internet lawyering studies and you'll eventually get it figured out.
 

CHenry

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
21,157
Reaction score
12,661
Location
Under your bed
Today will make the 3rd business day following the arrest (excluding the holliday and weekend) so something will likely happen today as far as charges filed or release.
 

okietom

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
1,524
Reaction score
45
Location
Geary
What happened here is the man is trying to test the boundaries of OC. Now I want to ask everyone what is the problem with having an otherwise legal gun in a polling place? Everyone that votes are law abiding adult citizens with no felonies or they couldn't vote. If you have passed the background check and can vote you are also law abiding. So you are a noncriminal and you are going to a place where only noncriminals have any reason to go. What is the problem?

Instead of wondering why the man is so stupid why aren't we discussing why it is stupid to keep him out of the place he went with his gun? I am not an OC advocate but I am curious about the mindset of the comments I have read on this thread.

I am glad that the law has been changed as much as it has but I think that if this is a gray area of the SDA that it should be decided on the side of the otherwise law abiding citizens.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom