I believe you did, because I made a distinction that you didn't take it into account. You generalized my comments to suit your position. A polling place is a somewhat sacrosanct place in our free society. A gun in no way enhances your ability to vote. I'd challenge you to find an current example where a pistol was necessary to complete the function of voting. On the other hand, a gun may frighten someone on either a rational level (they've been a victim of the illegal use of a gun) or irrational (hoplophobia). Either way, you may unwittingly interfere with the voting rights of a fellow citizen by your display of a firearm in a sacrosanct setting. In my book, that's impolite and uncivilized.
Note that I haven't stated that it is in fact illegal, nor that it should be. It should however remain taboo. In this case, I'd be a strong proponent of covering your piece when voting. It's such a small sacrifice for the common good. Is that too much to ask?
Don't waste your time Jerry...a group of guys have somehow made the determination that, by virtue of open carrying, they are/have become the ultimate Constitutional defenders and anyone who supports any variance from OC is a liberal 2nd Amendment hater.
Last edited:
So here's what I got back from Tulsa County. We've already established that precinct officials are sworn in, and paid for their time. That makes them government employees.
This seems to make them government employees, doing business with the public, in a government-leased location. Can't see how carry of any kind is legal there.
Did you ask that question of them?
I believe you did, because I made a distinction that you didn't take it into account. You generalized my comments to suit your position. A polling place is a somewhat sacrosanct place in our free society. A gun in no way enhances your ability to vote. I'd challenge you to find an current example where a pistol was necessary to complete the function of voting. On the other hand, a gun may frighten someone on either a rational level (they've been a victim of the illegal use of a gun) or irrational (hoplophobia). Either way, you may unwittingly interfere with the voting rights of a fellow citizen by your display of a firearm in a sacrosanct setting. In my book, that's impolite and uncivilized.
Note that I haven't stated that it is in fact illegal, nor that it should be. It should however remain taboo. In this case, I'd be a strong proponent of covering your piece when voting. It's such a small sacrifice for the common good. Is that too much to ask?
Ok, you did say that it wasn't an issue and you did say that it is not cool. I left out any other qualifying statements and that must be where you think that I miss quoted you. I don't see it because you did say what I quoted. Can you find a current example of a gun in a polling place causing intimidation that kept some one from voting? I am not trying to say that a gun is needed to vote, I am trying to ask why it should be prohibited? I don't know of anyone of voting age that is intimidated by the presence of a gun.
Not directly, but my initial email did mention the OKC incident. Ms. Boggs' initial response included citations of Section 1290.22(A) and Section 1277(A) and (D).
That part came from Mr Luton, who is Assistant District Attorney, Chief of Civil Division.
They are government employees (sworn in and paid) doing business with the public (running a polling place) in a government-leased facility. That falls under 1277(A)1. Doesn't it?
Similar threads
