Our view: Armed voting flap points out omission in the law

Good insight. Not that it will ever fly, but good insight.

springhill wrote:

Good insight. Not that it will ever fly, but good insight.

You're right it does show insight.

Insight into the editorial boards liberal condescending mantra.'If there is a law we can get passed to take away a right, lets go for it'. This, so called lack of a law has been there since 1790. Gee, no one has thought of it before, I wonder why.

Maybe there has been no need for it, and I'd venture that in the last 200+ yrs there have been many who carried at the polls. Real people don't worry about any of the manufactured excuses that the PO's Liberal Board has come up with today.

another liberal view from the po

jbrice1974 wrote:

another liberal view from the po

Same view publicly stated by the judge...

P-I-C- wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right it does show insight.
Insight into the editorial boards liberal condescending mantra.'If there is a law we can get passed to take away a right, lets go for it'. This, so called lack of a law has been there since 1790. Gee, no one has thought of it before, I wonder why.
Maybe there has been no need for it, and I'd venture that in the last 200+ yrs there have been many who carried at the polls. Real people don't worry about any of the manufactured excuses that the PO's Liberal Board has come up with today.

Thats a hard sell when the judge said just about the exact same thing...the PO didnt just make this up.

Matthew,

You obviously don't understand how the world works.

Don't you read the national news? All the recent large-scale shootings took place in "gun-free" zones.

Gun-free zones do nothing more than create shooting galleries, and the people there are sitting ducks.

If Mr. Killer has plans to go shoot up some school, he's not going to be dissuaded just because it's illegal to carry a gun there. In fact, he'll be more likely to use the school, since he knows that NONE OF THE GOOD GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO STOP HIM.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this: CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. Good people carry guns to stop criminals, and if the good people can't have guns, who will stop the criminals?(And don't tell me "the police": Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.)

jml1911a1 wrote:

Matthew,
You obviously don't understand how the world works.
Don't you read the national news? All the recent large-scale shootings took place in "gun-free" zones.
Gun-free zones do nothing more than create shooting galleries, and the people there are sitting ducks.
If Mr. Killer has plans to go shoot up some school, he's not going to be dissuaded just because it's illegal to carry a gun there. In fact, he'll be more likely to use the school, since he knows that NONE OF THE GOOD GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO STOP HIM.
I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this: CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. Good people carry guns to stop criminals, and if the good people can't have guns, who will stop the criminals?(And don't tell me "the police": Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.)

Yeah, and there is a whole lot of crime in Chambersburg that justifies carrying guns to stop criminals.

I'm a native of Washington DC, and let me tell you, the crime in this area is not comparable to DC, Chicago, LA, NY, any of those major urban areas. Most of the people in this area have never left the area except to be in the military - many are so naive it's scary.

Sorry, but you need to come up with a better excuse.

I'm not certain what disproportional response you are referring to.

The fact that he requested a hearing to appeal the trampling of his rights?

The fact that a couple dozen supporters showed up to peacefully cheer him on and stimulate your local economy?

It's not like the gun activists rolled flew skywriting planes over your city, hijacked your airwaves, and dropped propaganda leaflets on the streets.

All accounts of the days events describe the "gun activist" as peaceful, polite, and friendly.

I don't have a problem with a person legally carring a gun. I do wonder why Mr Rotz found it necessary to carry it to a polling place. This is not a third world country. Could it be that Mr Rotz just wanted to make a point? Does he need the attention? Is he that unsure of himself as a man that he needs a gun to come up to our level? In my opinion it's guys like this that stir up all of the anti gun people. Why not try some common sense Mr Rotz?

Douglas Boldt wrote:

I'm not certain what disproportional response you are referring to.
The fact that he requested a hearing to appeal the trampling of his rights?
The fact that a couple dozen supporters showed up to peacefully cheer him on and stimulate your local economy?
It's not like the gun activists rolled flew skywriting planes over your city, hijacked your airwaves, and dropped propaganda leaflets on the streets.
All accounts of the days events describe the "gun activist" as peaceful, polite, and friendly.

Disproportional does not mean disruptive.

I think the public attention you have given this issue might just backfire and result in MORE restrictive gun legislation.(i.e. language to ban guns at polling places) The fact that Mr Rotz was vindicated is does not mean this issue is resolved.

The sherrif had all but conceded - it may have been better to keep a keen eye, but a low profile on this issue. If due process didn't serve Mr Rotz - THEN - get excited...

How did this story reach the press?

They said no one needed a gun at college. It was a place for education. Then Virginia Tech happened, and 32 people sure needed guns.
They said no one needed a gun at the mall. The police would protect them. Then the shooting in Omaha happened, before the police got there.
They said no one needed a gun at church. Tell that to a certain group of Colorado residents.

Open carry is to make a point no more than picking a Honda over a Toyota is making a point. The only difference is that people have developed an irrational fear of guns.

I have yet heard anything from the toters how a law enforcement officer is supposed to tell a toter "good guy" from a toter "bad guy".

According to almost every toter commenting, the law enforcement officer is not permitted to question, or, if he has a doubt in the intentions, allowed to ask that the toter not bring his gun into some location.

Law enforcement officers have a tough job to do. If they suspect that a bad thing is going to happen when they see a toter heading into the mall, they are supposed to intervene.

If, in the course of speaking with the toter, they get a bad feeling, they might ask that the toter not take their gun. If they refuse, perhaps that answers the officers doubt.

Now, I know the toters will post that this Constable is some kind of idiot. But, then again, do we have the right to decide on our own which officers to heed and which to ignore?

We all have rights. Sometimes my right to peace & quiet is interupted by someone else right to play loud music. We somehow agree that unwarranted searches are against the constitution yet we seem perfectly OK with stopping cars at random to look for drunk drivers.

Sometimes the risk of the safety of others is greater than an individual's particular right at a particular time.

In this case, Mr Rotz decided not to do as asked by a law enforcement officer. The request was not a major one for Rotz but could have been a major one if it was a terrorist instead of Rotz.

If the constable had requested that a man leave his gun in his car and the guy refused, the constable did nothing, and the guy walked in & shot 6 people, you same people would be in the lynch mob to string up the constable.

In the long run, Mr Rotz & this entire event will feed the fire of the anti-gun people as it brought out the side of gun ownership that some people do not like. In the long run, there might be a new law to prevent guns in polling places - it will be thank you Mr Rotz then. It trying to prove a point, Mr Rotz will have just supplied ammunition to the other side.

"I wonder why Mr Rotz found it necessary to carry a gun to a polling place?"

It was no more "necessary" than it was for Matthew Major to write his anti-gun editorial for Public Opinion. It was his right to do so.

When did "needs", "desires" and "wishes" trump RIGHTS in this country?

My grandmother is afraid of black people.
I don't understand why. Should her irrational fear trump a black person's right to vote? I mean, she COULD be intimidated by the presence of a black person... maybe even vote for the person the black person votes for. You know... Intimidation and all.

Give me a break. Fear of what you do not understand is a poor excuse to attempt to stomp on someone's rights.

The flaw that needs to be remedied, is that law enforcement that we entrust hour lives, homes and businesses to, need to be educated on the laws they intend to uphold. If you do not want anyone to carry open or concealed at the pools, church, bank, mall, grocery store, gas station, Wal-Mart or Lowes, then write your officials and get involved. Don't condemn the man who WAS educated and not afraid to get involved. A law enforcement agent knows in two seconds of speaking with someone if they are a good guy or bad guy. Rotz knew the laws better than the constable, sheriff or country commissioners. He offered where the ruling was and that the judge could not change it at will as it was state law. The constable did not like being corrected. If Rotz had been black Jessee Jackson would be here, the NAACP and all the civil rights hotshots from DC. Carrying in to the polls or not was not the issue, the violation of ones civil rights were the issue. The next time you are at a restaurant and a family joins hands, bows their heads and prays, does it make you feel uncomfortable? It sure does me and I don't like it. It's my opinion and their legal civil right. I just may call the county commissioners and suggest we have a law to change it. In fact, I attended a meeting where the commissioners said the prayer and that is a violation of church and state. I should have called the sheriff. Next time.

Copy of email to rkauffma@pahousegop.com
Re: Editorial in PO newspaper of 1/9/08:
There's no question where the handfull of supporters stand on this issue. The reality is we believe open carry in any building is absurd.
In the military we had to clear and check a weapon before entering. This law would not exist if we had been aware of it. To quote the Editorialist: "... this legal flaw...should be remedied expeditiously by our states's lawmakers."
Thank you Matt for an intelligent opinion.

How is this a "Legal Flaw?" Police are not allowed to carry at polling places so they do not intimidate...citizens are allowed to carry so they will not be intimidated. I think there is a flaw in your reasoning!

imperialism2024 wrote:

Open carry is to make a point no more than picking a Honda over a Toyota is making a point. The only difference is that people have developed an irrational fear of guns.

You're right - the examples you cited are not places where a person would think they would need a gun, but I see it from a different perspective than you do, obviously. You feel that people have developed an irrational fear of guns, whereas I feel that some people have developed an irrational sense of security only when they carry their guns.

You missed it wrote:

If Rotz had been black Jessee Jackson would be here, the NAACP and all the civil rights hotshots from DC. Carrying in to the polls or not was not the issue, the violation of ones civil rights were the issue.

Oh, PLEEZ, let's not give anybody any ideas!

Again, I couldn't disagree more with the editorial.

I'm not taking a stand on guns either way, its your right to have them and my right not to have them, but my only question is, from what I have read about this issue, Mr. Rotz had a permit to conceal his gun, but he chose to wear it on the outside of his clothing and a constable asked him not to bring it inside the polling place. Would of it not been just as easy to cover the gun up, avoiding all this mess.