Bangor police officer denied opportunity to vote while wearing his sidearm

[gdesloge]

http://www.bangordailynews.com/stor...ote-after-refusing-to-surrender-weapon,157603

A police officer in Bangor, Maine was asked/required to remove his weapon prior to being permitted to vote at a polling place. He declined to do so.

Apparently, the supervisor at the polling place claimed that this was required under Maine law, although no police officer had apparently ever been asked to do so before this. (The citation of Maine law is apparently incorrect.)

I applaud the police officer for refusing to comply.

gd

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

What we have here is the constitution and the system at work. Let's see what happens!

 

[yeti]

Odd thread title, but it's still an interesting article.

 

[hso]

An election official telling a police officer that they can't wear their duty weapon while voting seems like a pretty rare occurrence. I'm not sure what lesson there is to learn for THR members since armed citizens and sworn police officers are two very different groups that are treated very differently wrt where they are permitted or expected to carry weapons. It would be appreciated if someone could find relevance for us here.

 

[gdesloge]

Since the moderator is asking for "relevance", and I am the poster of the article, I will do my best.

When the public is attempting to participate in a constitutionally-mandated election event, the public should have confidence that the law is being followed on all levels.

In this case, it seems that it was not.

The mere fact that a police officer with a weapon would be considered a threat or a danger by any citizen should disturb everyone, regardless of one's political persuasion.

The ignorance of the law on the supervisor's part is unforgivable. Everyone at that location was denied the protection that an armed officer could have offered. The parallel to the anti-gun debate should be strikingly apparent.

If someone needs more "relevance", I can certainly oblige.

gd

P.S. I apologize for the mistake in the thread title (the extra "Vote").

 

[Mac's Precision]

I'd have told them to pack sand and walked right in. Don't like it...call the cops.

Cheers
Mac.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I agree with the supervisor, no weapons for anyone at a polling place IMO.

The mere fact that a police officer with a weapon would be considered a threat or a danger by any citizen should disturb everyone, regardless of one's political persuasion.

It doesn't disturb me one bit. A citizen cannot (and should not) attend a polling place armed, so why should a cop be any different.

Everyone at that location was denied the protection that an armed officer could have offered.

This really doesn't worry me either. I'm OK with being without "protection" for a few minutes while I vote. Is someone is too afraid to go vote without armed escort, they can vote early from home with ten guns around them if they want to.

 

[gdesloge]

"It doesn't disturb me one bit."

Does it disturb you that the law was not followed?

gd

 

[longdayjake]

Leave it to TDK to stir the pot a little. I personally don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights while they are voting for folks that could possibly take those rights away regardless of whether they wear a uniform or not.

 

[The Bushmaster]

I'm not allowed to carry a legal concealed weapon when I vote. He can take his off while he votes too.

OR...Allow citizens to carry while voting.

 

[teumessian_fox]

I personally don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights

After the Virginia Tech massacre, I'm amazed that we have "gun free zones" at all. Unless the "gun free" establishment can provide a reasonable assurance that nobody will be armed (e.g., the court house and metal detectors), then everybody should be armed (those legally allowed of course).

 

[General Geoff]

It doesn't disturb me one bit. A citizen cannot (and should not) attend a polling place armed, so why should a cop be any different.

I've voted before while open carrying. Maybe you can't in New Jersey, but you certainly can carry at a polling place in PA (assuming it's not an otherwise prohibited area, such as a K12 school). And I don't follow your reasoning as to why one shouldn't carry while voting.

 

[MikeNice]

Weapons are only allowed at polling places if you are a member of the New Black Panther Party.

Seriously though, this is idiotic. Police are required to be armed 24/7 in most ares. They are also required to be armed 24/7 in every area I know. So, this guy is basically telling a cop that he can not vote at any time because of his job requirements. I am pretty sure that is uncostitutional.

If the law allows the officer to carry then the poll warden needs to be asked to step down or made to apollogize.

I don't understand why anybody should be asked to disarm when voting. If it isn't an otherwise restricted area, what us the point? Of course I don't see why any licensed CCH permit holder or cop should be refused the right to carry any where.

Well maybe at amusement parks. I just can't help but thinking of some idiots 1911 falling out on a roller coaster and cracking some kids skull. ~

 

[Gaffer]

Nothing wrong with then post title IMHO. This act by a dumb election poll warden just shows the amount of PC and stupidity that we have succumbed to. This is an obvious case of idiocy on the part of a person with an ego problem and a dislike for police.

 

[jahwarrior]

in PA, no law enforcement officers are allowed to be at polling places while on duty, except for PA Constables; they're stationed at all polling places. citizens may vote while armed, provided the polling stations aren't located on prohibited property (like a school). i've been open carrying to polling places for the last few elections.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

What purpose does it serve to disarm a police officer while voting? I question what purpose or matter of logic it serves to have a rule/law that disarms any law abiding person.............

 

[NavyLCDR]

Of course I don't see why any licensed CCH permit holder or cop should be refused the right to carry any where.

Personally, I prefer the way the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads. That any American should have the right to carry anywhere. The 2nd Amendment does not limit that right to licensed CCH permit holders.

 

[Sam1911]

It doesn't disturb me one bit. A citizen cannot (and should not) attend a polling place armed, so why should a cop be any different.

What the heck are you going on about? I've carried a firearm every time I've voted here in PA. Now... did you have some reasoning for why this makes sense?

This really doesn't worry me either. I'm OK with being without "protection" for a few minutes while I vote. Is someone is too afraid to go vote without armed escort, they can vote early from home with ten guns around them if they want to.

You really aught to use the little "smiley" icons when posting sarcasm or folks won't get your big joke.


"If someone is too afraid to shop, walk, conduct business, drive, sight-see, eat, drink, play, etc., etc., without an armed escort, then they can just stay home!"

See how those smilies work to clear things up?

 

[justashooter in pa]

pennsylvania statute specifically allows an armed peace officer to enter a polling place if in the performance of his duties as requested by the polling place officers, or, in the act of placing his own vote. this is in S6120, IIRC. private citizens are also entitled to carry openly or concealed into a polling place. NJ may not be that free, but in PA, it how we roll, baby.

 

[Jamie B]

I specifically had the 'can I carry concealed when voting' discussion with my county sheriff last week.

Unless the polling place is prohibited by OH law, it is no problem.

'Course, he did ask me why.

I told him that I might be inclined to shoot the ballot!

He agreed.

 

[MikeNice]

Personally, I prefer the way the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads. That any American should have the right to carry anywhere. The 2nd Amendment does not limit that right to licensed CCH permit holders.

I agree, to an extent. I know it is a purely emotional thing, but I like the feeling of knowing that the person carrying at least knows when they can shoot, and has proven they can put the bullet in the bad guy.

At my CCH class there was a woman that needed 100 shots to get 50 on target. After seeing that I was happy she wouldn't be carrying. I hate to admit it but I felt safer knowing she could not CC. I don't want somebody that has a 50/50 chance of hitting a target, under perfect circumstances, pulling a gun in a crowded area. Sorry, but I don't trust her not to send six or seven out of ten flying at innocent people.

If you want to carry weapons to and from the range, cool. If you want one (or one-hundred) in your house, cool. If you want to carry a gun in to a crowded restaraunt, or other public place, prove you know how and when to use your gun.

I know that flys in the face of all things THR. It is just how I feel. I do realize it seems more of an emotional response than a logical one. If the law became CC for everyone I would not fight it. I just feel a little better with there being a qualification for the permit.

I do think general purchase permits should be done away with. It seems like registration of gun owners if not the guns. I'm also against limits on the number of guns you can buy. I think every person has the right to own a gun, and every right to carry them to locations for practice. I would even like to see a loosening of the rules regarding select fire weapons and such. (I would love to own a MP5 with three shot burst.)

 

[rscalzo]

It doesn't disturb me one bit. A citizen cannot (and should not) attend a polling place armed, so why should a cop be any different.

Maybe before you post a comment you actually check the law. Nothing in ME prohibits this action. It was the supervisor who decided to make up his own regulation.

NJ does not specifically ban firearms in a polling place unless the location itself is a prohibited area as far as i'm aware.

 

[labhound]

There's an update to the article. "Update:The election warden who turned the officer away has been dismissed, and the Bangor police chief has stated at a press conference that officers are not required to surrender their weapon at the polls."

 

[NavyLCDR]

I wonder if the election official would have gotten dismissed for turning away Joe Schmoe citizen?

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

What the heck are you going on about? I've carried a firearm every time I've voted here in PA. Now... did you have some reasoning for why this makes sense?

If people are allowed to carry there, then I would not have a problem with armed cops being there too. As long as it's it's equal - guns for citizens and cops, or no guns for either, I'm OK with it. What I am not OK with is the cops being allowed to be armed and the citizens not worthy of that. If you guys in PA can be armed while voting side by side with LEO, then that is cool too.

You really aught to use the little "smiley" icons when posting sarcasm or folks won't get your big joke.

I was not trying to joke around or be sarcastic. If people are afraid to leave their house unarmed to go vote because state law mandates it, there is the option of voting by mail for them.