This is my first post in the Law and Civil Rights forum, but I think this deserves some attention.
The story can be seen here:
Source
My response:
I believe this is 100% a question of principal. Despite whether or not the man could have placed his firearm in his vehicle and come back and voted, is in my mind beside the point.
If in fact there is no legislation or signs prohibiting the carrying of a firearm on the premises, then government officials blatantly deprived this man of one if not two of his rights: 1) Legally carrying a firearm into an establishment that does not prohibit firearms, and 2) Denying an individual the right to vote because he was legally carrying a firearm into a polling station.
As most people are aware, there are various places where firearms are known to be prohibited (courthouses, schools, bars, private properties where posted, etc) and by all means the legislation has been established to make this known.
I find it troubling that an individual would be harassed and denied the right to carry without proper justification. Being as how the polling station was in a fire department with no signs indicating firearms were prohibited, or any legitimate statutes to support the claim that the individual could not carry, I believe the man’s rights were clearly violated.
Again, despite the fact that the man could have disarmed himself and voted is a matter or whether or not he is a man of principal and stands up for what he believes in, or whether allows his liberties to be stripped on false pretenses.
Reports indicate that the man regularly open carries and therefore was not intentionally looking for trouble, but exercising his rights as he does every day. I believe instances like this are what allow the groundwork to be laid for further disintegration of gun rights.
How do you all feel about this?