Hassled at the polls for OCing

[God's Country]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

There's a lot of "assuming" going on about what MUST have happened or what MUST have been said, and I'm just saying that we don't know what happened or what was said at this point.

You are precisely correct. The troubling part is the sheriff yanked the permit based on the same assumptions. There was no investigation or attempt by the sheriff to resolve the issue. He reacted based assumptions. The first time Greg knew there was a problem was when he received a certified letter a few days later stating he had to turn in his permit.

This whole situation has nothing to do with the law, but rather an issue of the peasants not falling into line. Greg ignored a direct request for which he had no legal obligation to fulfill , and he is paying the price for that so called arrogance. I have no doubt if Greg was being belligerent, or thumping his chest, he would have been laid out on the ground, and charged.

[QuincyTwpConstable]

The Constable is on scene, confronted with a situation that doesn't match his expectations. He clearly believed that weapons were not permitted at the polling place. He referred to the statutes posted at the polling place and Greg correctly answered that they did not apply. Without Internet access and a set of law books, he escalated to someone who should have the answers available.

I'm not certain that's how things transpired, but it seems the most likely and reasonable given the information provided.

Put yourself in the Constable's shoes. Assuming he's not a firearms enthusiast, and didn't research this in detail before, would there be a better answer than escalating to someone who should know?

[KeithPA]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

The Constable is on scene, confronted with a situation that doesn't match his expectations. He clearly believed that weapons were not permitted at the polling place. He referred to the statutes posted at the polling place and Greg correctly answered that they did not apply. Without Internet access and a set of law books, he escalated to someone who should have the answers available.

I'm not certain that's how things transpired, but it seems the most likely and reasonable given the information provided.

Put yourself in the Constable's shoes. Assuming he's not a firearms enthusiast, and didn't research this in detail before, would there be a better answer than escalating to someone who should know?

Shouldn't he know the regulations he is there to enforce?

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

The Constable is on scene, confronted with a situation that doesn't match his expectations. He clearly believed that weapons were not permitted at the polling place. He referred to the statutes posted at the polling place and Greg correctly answered that they did not apply. Without Internet access and a set of law books, he escalated to someone who should have the answers available.

I'm not certain that's how things transpired, but it seems the most likely and reasonable given the information provided.

Put yourself in the Constable's shoes. Assuming he's not a firearms enthusiast, and didn't research this in detail before, would there be a better answer than escalating to someone who should know?

If your version of events is what happened, how did the sheriff get our "victim's" full name?

In reality, the constable did not just ask a legal question. He made a report. Why did he make a report of a non-issue if not for completely vindictive purposes.

You are in back fill mode. Stop filling in the ranks and smell the coffee here.

[QuincyTwpConstable]

You don't know that and neither do I. I intend to be at the proceedings 1/8 to hear the rest of the story and am giving everyone involved the benefit of the doubt until we find out what happened.

I'd appreciate if if you can do the same. I agree that pulling Mr. Rotz's permit for the events as described looks like the Sheriff is overstepping his bounds.

I hope Mr. Rotz gets his permit back and legal fees refunded (and hopefully, donations made to it then starting a PA legal defense fund for board members / permit holders.

[Zef_66]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

If your version of events is what happened, how did the sheriff get our "victim's" full name?

In reality, the constable did not just ask a legal question. He made a report. Why did he make a report of a non-issue if not for completely vindictive purposes.

You are in back fill mode. Stop filling in the ranks and smell the coffee here.

Don't get me wrong here. I am 100% on Greg's side. But isn't it possible that the constable could have called the sheriff for clarification? Kinda like, hey, this just happened here. I don't think its right, what are the laws? And the sheriff then asked for the guys name.

Without any information from the other side, you have no idea what the intentions of the constable were. Until you know that, shouldn't you stop making assumptions that "He made a report." You have no clue...

Again, I am 100% behind Greg here but think that everyone else that is should have all the information before making assumptions and statements about the people involved.

[markheck1]

Originally Posted by QuincyTwpConstable

The Constable is on scene, confronted with a situation that doesn't match his expectations. He clearly believed that weapons were not permitted at the polling place. He referred to the statutes posted at the polling place and Greg correctly answered that they did not apply. Without Internet access and a set of law books, he escalated to someone who should have the answers available.

I'm not certain that's how things transpired, but it seems the most likely and reasonable given the information provided.

Put yourself in the Constable's shoes. Assuming he's not a firearms enthusiast, and didn't research this in detail before, would there be a better answer than escalating to someone who should know?

i don't have a problem with that...I would expect the constable to do just that.....

My problem is that when he didn't get the answer he thought he should have, he decided to rewrite the law on the fly.......

And even then....that's not my real problem....as he said when gnbrotz asked him before going in if he would be prohibited from voting if he did not take it off. the constable answered no.....In that one little word, the constable basically gave his permission for him to vote....not that he needed it, mind you....

What I have a problem with are the events that happened after this between the constable and the sheriff, don't get me wrong...the sheriff is the one to blame here, unless the constable embellished or lied to the sheriff, but then he would be in the wrong too...the blame must lie first with the sheriff because he is the one who took the action of the revocation of the permit without ever talking to Mr. Rotz

[Joe Smith]

It would have been much easier for him to walk over to the poll ladies and asked what the name of the guy with a gun was. They most likely would have provided that information which would bring up a host of other privacy issues.

[markheck1]

I offered to be in touch with him so that if I was indeed incorrect on the law, I could educate myself. He told me, "Don't worry, I've got your name."

If you read the first post Mr. Rotz must have given the constable his name prior to voting.....I can't guess as to how or why.

[ChamberedRound]

I offered to be in touch with him so that if I was indeed incorrect on the law, I could educate myself. He told me, "Don't worry, I've got your name."

Originally Posted by markheck1

If you read the first post Mr. Rotz must have given the constable his name prior to voting.....I can't guess as to how or why.

I just re-read the original post, and I don't see anything there which indicated Mr. Rotz explicitly gave the constable his name. My understanding is that the constable made that statement because he knew he could obtain Mr. Rotz's name from the voter registration rolls.