Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(57,618 posts)
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 11:56 AM Sep 2014

Washington Election Observer Free To Carry His Gun

A certified election observer in Washington freaked some people out when he showed up to his county auditor's office last month carrying a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, but the law's the law.

Election workers in Clark County, Wash. had expressed misgivings over Gerald "Rick" Halle's decision to work last month's primary while wearing his weapon, but the "state has preempted the area of regulating firearms," Chris Horn, the county's chief civil deputy prosecutor, told The Columbian.

The were no incidents with Halle, who apparently wears his firearm on his hip every day, but the county staff members will ask election observers in the future "to voluntarily put their firearm in a newly purchased gun safe," according to the Columbian.

If they should decline, county auditor Greg Kimsey, a Republican, said that "they will still be welcome to carry out their responsibility."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/washington-election-observer-ok-to-carry-gun

85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Washington Election Observer Free To Carry His Gun (Original Post) RandySF Sep 2014 OP
OK by me if he's not a criminal and is allowed to carry. nt NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #1
Yay for mo' gunz mo' gunz mo' gunz. 99Forever Sep 2014 #2
And we can be assured of a well-reasoned adult discussion about this matter, right? NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #6
It's the intimidation factor. cali Sep 2014 #25
It's a community standard. In the case of "Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia", it's a crime, IMO. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #29
look, I live in Vermont- a very open carry- no license needed place cali Sep 2014 #33
Well nobody would care here Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #34
really. YOU think you have the right to speak for everyone in your area? cali Sep 2014 #39
same as you speaking for everyone in your area Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #48
Don't you think even ONE person being intimidated at a polling place is too many? riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #52
well it was not a polling place Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #53
Sorry but this is part of a larger effort to intimidate riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #55
I disagree Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #56
"Wisconsin 'open carry' Poll Watcher militia plans to intimidate African American voters" riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #59
That is quite different Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #60
How can you possibly know "no one would care?" thucythucy Sep 2014 #81
From the original source and not "Talking Points Memo", which can be a shit-stirrer.... NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #37
first of all, we comment on things that aren't freaking local all the time here. cali Sep 2014 #40
No need to be defensive. Local is local, and yes, everybody has an opinion and is free to share it. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #42
huge issue. Eleanors38 Sep 2014 #3
Childish beyond belief, this country has gone mad randys1 Sep 2014 #4
glad they are following the law Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #5
I am sure that no one will feel intimidated in any way at all... riqster Sep 2014 #7
Sorry, but I don't see the problem here. IronGate Sep 2014 #8
you do realize that it doesn't take much time to pull a gun from a holster, right? cali Sep 2014 #26
I'm well aware of how fast a firearm can be pulled form a holster. IronGate Sep 2014 #28
How do you know he or she is legal? I'm sorry, but madinmaryland Sep 2014 #45
There are several indicators, IronGate Sep 2014 #46
If the person was carrying the gun had a badge indicating madinmaryland Sep 2014 #47
On the flip side, IronGate Sep 2014 #49
That not really Germaine to the debate... madinmaryland Sep 2014 #51
not as much training as you think Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #54
Yes. There is racism in the ranks of law enforcement. madinmaryland Sep 2014 #58
And that explains why you are part of the problem! nt Logical Sep 2014 #65
No, it doesn't. IronGate Sep 2014 #72
I am sick of pro-gun people not understanding that Open Carry helps nothing..... Logical Sep 2014 #73
Well then, you would be wrong. IronGate Sep 2014 #75
Then why say "Sorry, but I don't see the problem here."?? Logical Sep 2014 #76
I don't see a problem, as in IronGate Sep 2014 #85
Just conceal the fucking gun your moron. nt Logical Sep 2014 #9
+1000. nt. IronGate Sep 2014 #10
I agree with that nt Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #11
Yeah. This is local crap, anyway. Eleanors38 Sep 2014 #12
yep Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #21
The bulk of the responses/ conversation in this thread ... etherealtruth Sep 2014 #74
"guns always good" Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #77
It is an attitude etherealtruth Sep 2014 #78
Sorry to hear that is what you think of firearms owners here. Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #79
I would like to believe that is true etherealtruth Sep 2014 #80
"Productivity" seems, over & over, to be keep stirring culture war. Eleanors38 Sep 2014 #83
This speaks to the larger issue of voter intimidation or the potential for intimidation etherealtruth Sep 2014 #13
Then why was issue of voter intimidation not mentioned Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #15
It linked to the full story ... etherealtruth Sep 2014 #16
K... Oktober Sep 2014 #14
Trouble doesn't make an appointment... ileus Sep 2014 #17
Politics and guns Politicalboi Sep 2014 #18
So, when Gerald "Rick" becomes a problem . . . gratuitous Sep 2014 #19
took longer than I thought Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #20
And, of course, the obligatory "penis" reference. IronGate Sep 2014 #22
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar gratuitous Sep 2014 #23
You said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"? IronGate Sep 2014 #24
when Gerald "Rick" Halle's causes a problem Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #30
Always can count on any topic about guns to prompt calm, respectful discussions YoungDemCA Sep 2014 #27
Aww. C'mon. It's just a Manly Man fashion statement. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #31
Fuckin' creepy. nt valerief Sep 2014 #32
This is why guns have no place around any polling place: Brigid Sep 2014 #35
we have all paper MFM008 Sep 2014 #36
I'd forgotten about that. Brigid Sep 2014 #41
Or, and this was during the count, not during voting, we could hire security or assign LEOs. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #44
Fuck you NRA. Initech Sep 2014 #38
I don't see any problem Daninmo Sep 2014 #43
I am more worried about distracted drivers also Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #50
there are many people that do have a problem with it etherealtruth Sep 2014 #57
quite different Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #61
Yes and no .... etherealtruth Sep 2014 #62
well as he was not "standing behind you, holding a gun," Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #64
The person involved shared their experience etherealtruth Sep 2014 #68
do you even read my posts? Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #69
Yes I did etherealtruth Sep 2014 #71
If I were a poll worker . . Brigid Sep 2014 #63
I agree and the law should be changed Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #66
Because it alarms some people. Just conceal the fucking gun and stop showing off. nt Logical Sep 2014 #67
That would be a smart thing to do nt Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #70
Liberalism is freedom Boom Sound 416 Sep 2014 #82
Tolerance ain't supposed to be easy, true 'nuff. Eleanors38 Sep 2014 #84
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
6. And we can be assured of a well-reasoned adult discussion about this matter, right?
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 12:28 PM
Sep 2014

From my point of view, if a person is qualified to carry and meets the legal requirements, I don't have a problem with this.

It's Washington State, and like any state they are free to determine what works best for them.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
25. It's the intimidation factor.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:02 PM
Sep 2014

YOU may not have a problem with it, but others may well find it intimidating.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
29. It's a community standard. In the case of "Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia", it's a crime, IMO.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:11 PM
Sep 2014

I find it interesting that people that may be thousands of miles away can profess to know if people will be intimidated in this particular place.

People in that locality have options available to them if they feel intimidated, and they should use them. If they need my help, I'll help them.

It's that simple.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
33. look, I live in Vermont- a very open carry- no license needed place
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 04:28 PM
Sep 2014

and I live in the Northeast Kingdom, very rural, hunting is ingrained here, but I would not be comfortable going to vote with someone openly carrying a gun. It makes a lot of people nervous. that's not just regional.

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
52. Don't you think even ONE person being intimidated at a polling place is too many?
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:51 PM
Sep 2014

How many people may decide they won't even go in? That gun may actually deter a voter.

THAT my friend, is wrong.

Cali said SHE'D feel intimidated.

Even ONE person is too many. Voting should not be the place for that kind of action.

FWIW, I'm also very rural and own a shotgun on a working farm and I'D be intimidated at a polling place with anyone walking around with a gun.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
53. well it was not a polling place
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:57 PM
Sep 2014

and it is a local story and should be held to local community standards. Where I am nobody would care. Where Cali or you are the laws and standards might very well be different.

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
59. "Wisconsin 'open carry' Poll Watcher militia plans to intimidate African American voters"
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:16 PM
Sep 2014

That's their explicit goal but you still "disagree"?

Okay....

(Rider Steps back, you know this reminds me of Condeleeza Rice and her "terrorists determined to fly airplanes into buildings" moment - blatant denial of facts staring her in the face in order to stubbornly hold to her mistaken position)

I guess I just believe that openly carrying weapons around any electoral process diminishes the integrity of that process.

Anyway, carry on. Feel free to have the last word. I'm done.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
60. That is quite different
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:20 PM
Sep 2014

than the OP that was about a person observing the vote tally with no voters around. Kind of hard to do voter intimidation when the ballots are mailed in.

thucythucy

(7,985 posts)
81. How can you possibly know "no one would care?"
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 10:18 PM
Sep 2014

Have you polled every single person in your community, or are your mind-reading powers just that awesome?

You're seriously telling me you know for a fact the fear level of every single voter in your community, without exception?

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
37. From the original source and not "Talking Points Memo", which can be a shit-stirrer....
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 04:38 PM
Sep 2014

It seems that the man was not observing voters arriving to vote, but was overseeing the tally.

Thus, it's unlikely that any intimidation of voters was at issue.

Further, it could be a good thing to prevent anyone from fucking with the ballots or the count.

The county currently prohibits employees from carrying a firearm at work, but elected officials and the public are allowed to bring weapons into some county buildings.

Halle did nothing illegal and, in fact, nobody said a word to him. He fulfilled his role overseeing the votes being tallied and left.

But later, some election workers voiced discomfort. The county's code doesn't address whether election observers or temporary election workers should be barred or allowed to carry firearms.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/aug/07/election-observer-shows-up-with-gun-clark-county/


The process here should be that if the co-workers felt uncomfortable, then there should be meetings about how to address that and possibly new rules, or maybe this man can be dis-invited from further participation.

But it's none of our business, in this particular place and case; it's local.

More on the story from a local source here: http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/sep/19/election-observer-ok-to-wear-gun-open-carry/

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
40. first of all, we comment on things that aren't freaking local all the time here.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 04:46 PM
Sep 2014

by your "standards", we shouldn't have an opinion on anything that isn't local. secondly, say someone was fucking with the ballots, what's he gonna do? pull his gun? guess what? people report any fucking with the ballots. there are procedures should an observer witness anything untoward- they don't include pulling a gun and saying "hands in the air". A cell phone camera would be of more use.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
42. No need to be defensive. Local is local, and yes, everybody has an opinion and is free to share it.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:03 PM
Sep 2014

In this and other cases, I can imagine a community that might want to have a guard, of sorts, during the count and handling of ballots.

I can also think of occasions where oppressed populations might want to protect their polling places from mischief.

I'm not going to try to stop them. That doesn't mean I support any and all uses of weapons.

And, actually, cameras have been found to be intimidating, like guns, and in some cases disallowed.

All I am saying is that it's their problem to solve, not mine.

If it's a problem at all, and I'm not convinced it is.

It's starting to get warm outside so I'm going to try for a brief walk.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
5. glad they are following the law
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 12:24 PM
Sep 2014

A holstered sidearm and no threatening conduct. I do not care for open carry but it is legal.

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
8. Sorry, but I don't see the problem here.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 12:43 PM
Sep 2014

If he's legal, the weapon is holstered, then why should people be intimidated?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
26. you do realize that it doesn't take much time to pull a gun from a holster, right?
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:04 PM
Sep 2014

what is his purpose of conspicuously carrying a gun to a polling place? How does one see it as anything but intimidation?

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
28. I'm well aware of how fast a firearm can be pulled form a holster.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:09 PM
Sep 2014

However, there is no mention of him threatening anyone , intimidating anyone, breaking the law in any way.
I, personally, believe that open carry is idiotic, concealed carry is much more civilized,

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
45. How do you know he or she is legal? I'm sorry, but
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:08 PM
Sep 2014

if I see someone wandering around with a weapon, how the fuck am I supposed to know whether they are a good guy or a bad guy???

I go up and ask him??

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
46. There are several indicators,
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:12 PM
Sep 2014

is the person being aggressive?
Is the person being belligerent?
Is the person keeping his hand on the firearm?
Is the person spouting nonsense?

Just because someone is open carrying doesn't mean they're a threat.
Myself, I think open carry is stupid, concealed carry is much more civilized.

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
47. If the person was carrying the gun had a badge indicating
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:35 PM
Sep 2014

Indicating that they had the training and the license to carry, then maybe. But I would not have to take a chance that he might actually be a good guy.

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
49. On the flip side,
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:38 PM
Sep 2014

how many cops with a badge indicating that they have the training and license to carry would you trust?

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
51. That not really Germaine to the debate...
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:50 PM
Sep 2014

In order to carry a weapon, a police officer is required to have a certain amount of training. Whether or not LEO's handle themselves properly, is not the point. The point is, do these open carry folks have the training and mental capacity to be carrying. That is something we will never know, which scares the shit out of me.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
54. not as much training as you think
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:01 PM
Sep 2014

that is why they empty their magazines and miss with most of the shots if ever needed. People here would be fine with these guys there.

Cleveland car chase ends with two dead, 137 shots fired and six police charged


A night-time car chase in Cleveland that ended on a schoolyard where more than 100 shots were fired at the suspect's vehicle appeared to be over when an officer opened fire again, a prosecutor said in announcing charges against the patrolman and five police supervisors.

Cleveland patrol officer Michael Brelo stood on the hood of the suspect's car and fired at least 15 shots through the windshield – five fatal – at the two unarmed people inside, Cuyahoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty said Friday.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/31/cleveland-car-chase-russell-williams-police-shooting

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
58. Yes. There is racism in the ranks of law enforcement.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:07 PM
Sep 2014

Though I would say there is far less racism in law enforcement than there is in the open carry/NRA community.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
73. I am sick of pro-gun people not understanding that Open Carry helps nothing.....
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 07:37 PM
Sep 2014

I imaging you are one of the "exercise your rights" gun people. No matter what issues it causes.

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
75. Well then, you would be wrong.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 07:49 PM
Sep 2014

I disagree that open carry is a good thing, I think open carry should be outlawed.

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
85. I don't see a problem, as in
Sun Sep 21, 2014, 01:43 AM
Sep 2014

I don't know why people are intimidated by open carry if the person isn't presenting any threat.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
74. The bulk of the responses/ conversation in this thread ...
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 07:46 PM
Sep 2014

... have to do with intimidation (or guns) at any point in the voting process.

In general it is a good conversation.

There are a few comments regarding genitalia ... and there are a few comments stating "guns always good" ... but in general , it is a good conversation on an important topic.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
78. It is an attitude
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 08:43 PM
Sep 2014

You did not seem to dislike my characterization of gun opponents .... it is the attitude of the two very divergent sides. Perhaps you believe that gun proponents are always reasonable and post productively. I do not. I think my choice of phrases is illustrative of the debate (which is what it is meant to be).

In general I make my position known but do not constantly engage in the shouting match ... nor do I engage in conversations without end. I am unabashedly pro gun control ... strict, strict gun control .... but that is not what this conversation was about. I don't waste my time discussing it with gun enthusiasts.

What I am willing to do is engage in conversations that can be productive ... such as this one.

I felt it was a productive conversation.







 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
79. Sorry to hear that is what you think of firearms owners here.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 09:25 PM
Sep 2014

That is not the attitude of the majority here. I have never seen anyone here say "guns always good" on DU. I think I can speak for most firearms owners that think guns are an object that can be used for good or bad things. A very big majority of the millions of firearms owners are law abiding and never cause any problems. They do not think "guns always good". They understand things are a lot more nuanced than the black and white that some here think. It is not "gun good or gun bad". Guns are a tool that can be misused just like a hammer or a car. They are not worshiped or stroked like some here think. Firearms owners do not have to stoop to the level of name calling and the penis references so often used by the other side. When not in use, mine are locked in my gun safe like most others do. I do not carry as I feel no need to but I have gone through the classes background checks and training so I have the choice if my situation changes. I do not care for open carry but when it gets to 100 plus degrees concealed carry is very difficult because if you can even see the imprint of a weapon you are breaking the law. I much more fear someone behind the wheel texting or having been drinking or on drugs. Try driving a motorcycle with some of the idiots they give a license to or drive without one at all. Run red lights, change lanes without looking or signaling.

I know this is just one big NRA talking point, just to get it out there as that will be the next thing said.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
80. I would like to believe that is true
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 09:45 PM
Sep 2014

.... however, when I see responses like 'I wouldn't be intimidated', "It is legal for them to do so, so what's the problem" .... etc it certainly gives the impression that 'gun rights" trump all others. All of our enumerated rights have limits ... this is no different

I came to this thread to discuss voter / election intimidation ... not to discuss guns in general. That is a waste of my time and energy

I am quite concerned about the carrying of guns into polling stations, counting stations etc. Anything that is used to suppress the vote or intimidate those counting, voting or supervising the vote is unconscionable. Threats do not have to be overt .... they may be implied .... and the standards are reasonable person.

I live in an area where this kind of behavior is not socially acceptable (the gun thing) ... but, I also live in an area that is generally not racist (we do have an ugly history) but the racists that are here are very hard core. I am greatly concerned about any effort to stifle and discourage the "minority" vote.

No one should feel free (or be able) to interfere (or intimidate) anyone in this process ... be it through carrying guns or any other tactic one might employ.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
83. "Productivity" seems, over & over, to be keep stirring culture war.
Sun Sep 21, 2014, 12:29 AM
Sep 2014

perhaps you fund pleasure in this, but it is singularly un-productive and hateful. The dynamic is unmistakeable and repetitive: Find some bass ackward way to get any gun story into GD in an attempt to force-fit a local issue into the Big Picture, and trot out the usual DU-sanctioned smear and innuendo. Hard fact: The controller/banners here and in the country at-large cannot foster a movement or any degree of activism; on this site, those who burst with animosity and fear -- repeat, Fear -- try constantly to kick at the TOS because they think they can capture a glimmer of lime light which will puff up their status & some ephemeral notion of power. If they can't get it done in two (2) groups, why they'll just keep kicking at the rules and get it into the main forum.



etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
13. This speaks to the larger issue of voter intimidation or the potential for intimidation
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:04 PM
Sep 2014

Noting voting fraud occurs, but has a very low rate of occurrence. Voter intimidation has become a significant problem.
Having a partisan person "standing behind you, holding a gun," he said, could easily be disruptive or intimidating.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/sep/19/election-observer-ok-to-wear-gun-open-carry/
Lee Jensen of Battle Ground was serving as an election observer with Halle during the primary elections. Jensen, also a gun owner, exchanged a few words with Halle but didn't mention anything to him about the weapon. No one did. But Jensen said later it was not the right place to bring a gun.

There is a small room off to the side of the main ballot sorting room where ballots rejected by the county machine are scrutinized by three people attempting to decipher the intent of the voter, Jensen said. It's common for an election observer to stand behind them.

Having a partisan person "standing behind you, holding a gun," he said, could easily be disruptive or intimidating.

Despite disagreeing on the issue, both Jensen and Halle said they are in favor of the civil dialogue the incidence has provoked.


Wisconsin elections board upholds ban on observers' use of cameras
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/elections-board-to-reconsider-ban-on-observers-use-of-cameras-b99315058z1-267958261.html

Madison — There will be no selfies — or any other photos taken by observers — at the polls this August.

The state elections board decided Monday to support a rule banning election observers from taking photos and videotaping what happens at the polls, including selfies and photos of family members.


Conservatives Plan to Use Poll Watchers in Mississippi
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/us/conservatives-plan-to-use-poll-watchers-in-mississippi.html?_r=0

Elections experts say that under Mississippi law, outside election observers deployed by political action committees would need authorization from the candidate to challenge any votes. But they are allowed to monitor the election — an effort that Matthew Steffey, an election law expert at the Mississippi College School of Law, said evokes memories of the civil rights struggles of the state’s past.

“Some folks think this is not really about legal challenges to individual ballots, but about dissuading or in some cases intimidating voters from coming to the polls to begin with,” he said.


Election observers proliferate at polls
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-observers-proliferate-at-polls/2012/08/24/1452c3ba-ed4f-11e1-
a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

“Just being in the poll and having a presence in the polling place is a deterrent,” said Cathy Kelleher, a Maryland real estate agent who started poll watching and voter-roll inspection efforts after getting involved with True the Vote in 2011. “We’re there so people don’t try to do anything fishy.”
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
15. Then why was issue of voter intimidation not mentioned
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:11 PM
Sep 2014

at all mentioned in the OP or the referenced article? Kind of hard to make that argument if you do not mention it at all. I think it is another gun story trying to be placed in GD to test the limits again. It is at best a local story and no laws have been broken and he will be allowed to carry his weapon that he does at most times according to the article.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
16. It linked to the full story ...
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:16 PM
Sep 2014
Having a partisan person "standing behind you, holding a gun," he said, could easily be disruptive or intimidating.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/sep/19/election-observer-ok-to-wear-gun-open-carry/

This brings up the issue of what is and is not allowed at a polling place and by observers. We enjoy freedom of speech .... yet observers are not allowed to exercise full freedom of speech while fulfilling their role as observers.

Voting should be an exercise we all can engage in without feeling intimidated.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
17. Trouble doesn't make an appointment...
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:18 PM
Sep 2014

Safety first.



If he normally OC's I don't see a problem. If he was open carrying just to work the polls that's a different story.


 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
18. Politics and guns
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:24 PM
Sep 2014

What could go wrong. This should be illegal. I for one would NOT want to have MY voting place to be armed by goons. What about the no guns people rights? Fuck these assholes. You can bring your gun, but no political signs or T-shirts. Seems guns and money have more speech than us. Oh and he carries his paranoia all the time, so that gives him the right to intimidate others. Nothing to see here.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
19. So, when Gerald "Rick" becomes a problem . . .
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:32 PM
Sep 2014

What's the solution? Do people who don't know good old responsible Gerald "Rick" and who are intimidated by or uncomfortable with his armed presence decide they're not going to take a chance and cast their ballot, have another place they can vote without armed yahoos strutting around? We know how discombobulated Fox News was and still is over the New Black Panther Party hanging around; since we're all post-racial and stuff as decreed by the Supreme Court, does the same discombobulation ensue if the gun wielder is white?

Libertarian fucknuts are always yammering about nanny state this and government overreach that, so because there isn't a specific law telling dumbasses to stay away from polling places with their penis augmentations, everyone has to live with it. "There's no law against it!"

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
20. took longer than I thought
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:47 PM
Sep 2014

for the penis reference to show up. Thanks for ending my wait. This is why guns in GD always turns out badly. Can not just discuss the issue without genital references and next will be the name calling that some here do not agree with and have a different opinion.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
23. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:57 PM
Sep 2014

But I notice that nobody has a solution for when good old Gerald "Rick" becomes a problem.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
30. when Gerald "Rick" Halle's causes a problem
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:14 PM
Sep 2014

Why do you not use his full name like the posted article. Are you trying to be cute and equate "Rick" with something?

If Gerald "Rick" Halle's causes a problem, I am sure he will be shown the door for breaking the rules like anyone else. He has not and nobody says he has and what he is doing is fully legal. I would prefer he does not open carry a pistol but he seems to do it all the time and it is LEGAL to do so.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
31. Aww. C'mon. It's just a Manly Man fashion statement.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:17 PM
Sep 2014

Or, maybe he uses it to break walnut shells. It's just a tool, donchya know?

MFM008

(19,776 posts)
36. we have all paper
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 04:34 PM
Sep 2014

Mail in ballots in WA state. Most he can observe is the count. No intimidation of voters with mail in...every state should do it.

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
41. I'd forgotten about that.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 04:47 PM
Sep 2014

But if I were a poll worker I would not appreciate trying to get the counting done with the distraction of a gun around. If this is legal, the law needs to be changed.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
44. Or, and this was during the count, not during voting, we could hire security or assign LEOs.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:07 PM
Sep 2014

For sure, unless there's agreement among the coworkers that they want this, he should have the sense to leave the gun at home or be ready to be excluded from participation.

But if a group, and it could be a group under pressure from right-wingers, wants some form of protection while votes are being handled, it should be allowed or provided.

As I wrote above, I think it's a local issue and needs a local solution.

Daninmo

(119 posts)
43. I don't see any problem
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:05 PM
Sep 2014

If the worker or any other citizen can legally carry the firearm, just like a police officer can legally carry it, what is the problem? Why are only police trusted with firearms?

I am more worried about drunk drivers than people who legally carry firearms.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
50. I am more worried about distracted drivers also
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 05:43 PM
Sep 2014

Been hit in the rear of my vehicle stopped at the gate to get on post. Texting while driving very dangerous.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
57. there are many people that do have a problem with it
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:07 PM
Sep 2014

... and the act is intimidating. People should be able to vote without intimidation. The absence of your feelings of intimidation are not pertinent

This is related to another thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025563276

A militia group in Wisconsin is planning to target African-American Democrats at polling places in order to suppress the vote and keep Republican governor Scott Walker in office.


The armed “poll watchers” also plan on harassing and following people who they suspect of being wanted on warrants to their homes. The plan seems to be to use the police to intimidate African-Americans into not voting in November’s election.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/18/militia-group-plans-target-african-american-democrats-polling-places-wisconsin.html
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
61. quite different
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:22 PM
Sep 2014

In Washington the ballots are all mailed in. No voter intimidation is possible. I know that you all want to conflate a real issue Wisconsin, with a totally different issue in Washington.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
62. Yes and no ....
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:27 PM
Sep 2014

.... both include intimidation during the process.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/sep/19/election-observer-ok-to-wear-gun-open-carry/

A quote from a person involved in the process.

Having a partisan person "standing behind you, holding a gun," he said, could easily be disruptive or intimidating.

i am rather disheartened that the "gun" community does not appear to be open to the idea that guns are not appropriate everywhere ... and that the presence of guns in this situation can clearly be construed as intimidating.


I see no conflation .... guns do not have a place in any part of the election process. Politics is partisan and no one should feel intimidated.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
64. well as he was not "standing behind you, holding a gun,"
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:46 PM
Sep 2014

It was holstered and never held or removed. There is a difference.

And I do not think it is a good thing to open carry. But it is legal and he was not doing anything wrong.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
68. The person involved shared their experience
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:57 PM
Sep 2014

.... they felt intimidated. (it is irrelevant whether YOU personally would find it intimidating)

We can play semantics games .... she should have stated "standing behind me with a gun" ... to be accurate .... however, we both know that the semantics game changes nothing.

Freedom of speech is a right ... the observers are not allowed to espouse political thought , ideology, etc during the process. Rights are not absolute.

You clearly believe guns have a place in the process ... I do not. I hope "they" enact laws specifically dealing with this (they would be about as unconstitutional as not allowing the observer to engage in political speech during the process ... NOT ALLOWED).

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
69. do you even read my posts?
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 07:11 PM
Sep 2014
You clearly believe guns have a place in the process
No, but I do believe in following the law. And I do not think it is a good thing to open carry.

I also do not think it is necessary for anyone including police officers to carry during the election process. At this time it is legal and the laws were followed no no issues happened.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
71. Yes I did
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 07:25 PM
Sep 2014

You specified "open carry" ...giving the impression that concealed carrying would be fine.

I would like to see NO GUNS at any point during this process .... this process should be free of anything that could reasonably be seen as intimidating.

Hopefully, in the future, those having guns will respect the rights and feelings of others and deposit them in the newly purchased gun safe.

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
63. If I were a poll worker . .
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:32 PM
Sep 2014

I would not appreciate trying to get the count done with the distraction of a gun around. Guns have no place at any point in the election process.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
66. I agree and the law should be changed
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:48 PM
Sep 2014

That should also include law enforcement as they can also be intimidating.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Washington Election Obser...