Bangor police officer denied opportunity to vote while wearing his sidearm

[Ben86]

When told by voting staff that there was no firearms allowed, why couldn't he have just secured it in his car then vote, regardless of whether or not he was in uniform? A one minute walk to the car would have diffused the situation.

Because sometimes you have to make a stand, give makers of arbitrary rules an inch and they'll take a mile. An armed police officer at the polls means a safer polling place anyway.

 

[wojownik]

Most of the polling places I'm familiar with are schools.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I have to admit, the shoe being on the other foot is a good taste of bitter irony. I don't believe it is right to deny anyone their civil rights. However, living in CA where only the cops and the elite have any rights, I do find this amusing. A lot of local LEO's are against civilian CCW here. But they ought to understand that the anti-gun establishment can quickly cannibalize their own at the drop of a hat.

 

[Sam1911]

Most of the polling places I'm familiar with are schools.

Some are. And in some states that would be off limits for even a licensed gun carrier. However, I don't think there are any states that prohibit Law Enforcement Officers from entering a school while armed.

Kind of a moot point.

 

[SSN Vet]

When told by voting staff that there was no firearms allowed, why couldn't he have just secured it in his car then vote, regardless of whether or not he was in uniform?

My BIL is a Maine State Trooper and according to him, he's required to have his sidearm on his person whenever he's on duty. In court, in a school, in a bar, in a church, etc...

When he's on his shift... he's in a duty status when he takes his meals or coffee break (and much to my surprise he doesn't get free coffee at DDs ). He goes off duty when his shift is over and the oncoming guy has logged in.

Attempting to apply CCW laws to an on duty uniformed police officer is pretty much apples to oranges imo.

This incident happened to a Bangor PD officer.... I don't know their department policy, but I suspect it's similar.

 

[gdesloge]

The election warden has been dismissed and the police officer vindicated.

The warden was wrong and the officer was right.

In that light, you may choose your side, but I thank the officer for performing admirably.

gd

 

[DoctorOfLight]

originally posted by Sam1911

originally posted by DoctorOfLightFreedom to vote as I chose without the gestapo there watching. Possibly arresting me for assault on an officer for threatening his power with the stroke of my pen.

Oh good grief.

Can we avoid this level of purple prose? U.S. law enforcement officers are not the Gestapo, and the idea that you'd be arrested for voting the wrong way will (well ... should) get you laughed off the forum.

OK, OK, I know. I did intend slight sarcasm in my post. It will never happen here, at least not while I'm still living. Other places do have people watching over your back and you will be KILLED if you vote the wrong way. But not here in the good ol' USA.

originally posted by Art EatmanDoctorOfLight, looking at your post and your sig, you're fooling yourself.

You're right and I apologize to the members of the forum. But my sig? I'm still trying to come up with a better one, and I don't think my thinly veiled reference to a "Bush-ism" is fooling anyone.

Stuckinsocal, I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for that.

Sorry again for posting sillyness.

 

[smartshot]

its not rolling over, the officer's initial purpose was to vote, so vote, and do not turn it into a dispute over the second amendment.

 

[Sam1911]

its not rolling over, the officer's initial purpose was to vote, so vote, and do not turn it into a dispute over the second amendment.

But there was no REASON for him to disarm. Why would he? And why should it be a "dispute" about the second amendment? (Setting aside that, as a government employee carrying a weapon as part of his official duties, this really isn't a second amendment issue anyway!) He wasn't looking to dispute. He was looking to vote -- without jumping through unnecessary hoops. If the election official had said, "put on this feather boa and high-heel shoes or I won't let you vote," should he have had to comply with that request? Requiring him to disarm before voting was just as illegal as requiring him to cross-dress before entering the booth.

 

[smartshot]

good analogy sam, I'll kindly agree to disagree with you. Just my opinion.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It's too bad there are American's out there who feel when an illegal action is taken against a person trying to vote, and that person refuses to comply with the illegal request to be able to vote, that all of a sudden it's the voter who is making an issue. Very sad statement as to what America has degenerated to.

 

[Neverwinter]

If the election official had said, "put on this feather boa and high-heel shoes or I won't let you vote," should he have had to comply with that request? Requiring him to disarm before voting was just as illegal as requiring him to cross-dress before entering the booth.

Thankfully, the law only requires non-LEOs to cross-dress before voting. Too bad the election warden didn't know about the exception to the rule about cross-dressing voters.

 

[Erik M]

They must be way more strict in inner city voting areas, where I live I watched people take babies & young kids into the voting booths. No one asked me for identification, just name and address. The voting place used to be a school but now its the lobby of a theatre and as far as I saw there were no signs anywhere about concealed carry. There we also a ton of individuals loitering talking about the local election.