Hassled at the polls for OCing

[gnbrotz]

No, he is not the constable pictured, but all five of this county's Constable's are named in the article, which is how I was able to comfirm/complete the info he wouldn't supply to me himself.

I am definitely not opposed to making his name public, but I want to wait until my letters are finished up and off in the mail. At that time, I will post complete contact info for everyone I have contacted, so others may do so as well if they wish.

[gnbrotz]

OK, Here is the first draft of my letter. Much of it is the same as my initial account, but for ease of reference, I've included it all:

When I entered my polling place on Tuesday afternoon, Constable xxx noticed me and inquired "Is that a weapon", nodding towards my waist. When I told him it was, he told me that I must leave the polling place because weapons were not allowed in the polling place. I asked him what law his request was based on. He said it was in the Voting Regulations, to which I replied "That applies to police officers". He said that was correct. He got the regulation book and asked if I would step outside to discuss the matter. I agreed. He turned to the page that had the regulation regarding the police and read it off to me. I told him that I agreed completely, BUT, I was not a police officer, just a private citizen. This seemed to surprise him a bit.

He then made a call to someone he said would "Know for sure". The result of that call was that whoever he called was also unable to come up with anything specific preventing me from voting while carrying my weapon. When the call was done, the Constable asked me to please secure my weapon in my vehicle before voting, because it would make him "more comfortable". I asked him if I would be refused entry to vote if I did not, he said no, that I would be permitted to vote either way. As we went back up the steps and prepared to enter, he stated that he "Just couldn't understand why someone would need to bring a gun here, especially in this day and age." I told him that this wasn't something that I did just because I was coming to vote. I carry my weapon every day, wherever I go around town. I also told him that I was not attempting to convince him of my viewpoint, and since I was within my legal right to do so, I was going to proceed on my own terms. I entered the polls and cast my vote.

When I had finished voting, he was on the phone again, so I waited to speak with him some more. He said he was speaking with the County Commissioners office, who I could also hear "had never dealt with this situation before". The Constable suggested to them that this be researched further and if there wasn't already a resolution regarding this, that “One should be passed immediately so this didn't occur in the future.” He mentioned to them that "The judges did the same thing so you can't bring guns into the courthouses". His tone was very gruff, and while on the phone he commented (referring to me), “He didn’t have the common decency to do the right thing”. When he hung up, I told him that I wasn’t interested in his opinion of what the “decent thing to do” was, but what the law was concerning this matter. I also pointed out to him that the courthouse ban on weapons was covered in the Uniform Firearms Act, which was state law, not something the judges had done on their own. I then asked again for his name so I could write it down. He refused to give it to me, because he said he had already done so at the beginning of our conversation. I then specifically asked him, "So you are refusing to give me your name again?" He said, "Yes". 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." Since I had heard him identify himself to the County Commissioner's office while speaking with them, I went on my way and later confirmed his complete and correct identity by using the internet.

I researched this issue prior to election day, so I would know where I stood legally. This included discussing the matter with other gun owners, retired law enforcement officers, and a Constable of Elections from around the state, as well as referring to PA’s Uniform Firearms Act, the predominant code in firearms related law. I understand that as a gun owner, it is my responsibility to be aware of the laws regarding my carrying of a weapon, and abide by them. I also expect any law enforcement officers I encounter to do the same, and not allow their personal feelings on an issue influence their actions. I do not appreciate the intimidating tone he took with me, even after it was clear he could not articulate any violation on my part. The Constable's Code of Ethics (as published by the PA State Constable Association) includes the points, “I shall be courteous and maintain self-restraint, scorn, ridicule and contempt.” and "I recognize my duty to protect the constitutional rights of all people." This was clearly the opposite of my experience when voting.

Each time Constable xxx spoke to someone new, he made it clear that “we’ve got to get something passed so we don’t have to deal with this again”. In light of this, I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the pre-emption clause in the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act which specifically prohibits counties or municipalities from passing their own laws regarding the carrying of firearms. For your reference, I have included the text of the preemption clause below:

TITLE 18
PA CRIMES CODES

§6120. Limitation on the Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition.

(a) General rule. No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.

(a. l) No right of action.

(1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain an action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision.

(b) Definitions.-As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Dealer." The term shall include any person engaged in the business of selling at wholesale or retail a firearm or ammunition.

"Firearms." This term shall have the meaning given to it in section 5515 (relating to prohibiting of paramilitary training) but shall not include air rifles as that term is defined in section 6304 (relating to sale and use of air rifles).

"Political subdivision." The term shall include any home rule charter municipality, county, city, borough, incorporated town, township or school district.

Thank you for taking the time and attention required to insure that I will not be harassed in the future while legally exercising my right to both carry a firearm and to vote.

Sincerely,
my contact info

Now....it seems like I need to say more than "I know you'll take care of this", so how about some suggestions? I'm thinking it should also convey the message "It doesn't matter if you think I should be able to do this or not. It's legal, so you need to back off", but in respectable language. Also, should I make a direct reference to specifically having Constable xxx educated, and should the full language go to everyone, or perhaps the part specifically regarding the correction of the Constable be sent only to the Court Administrator, since they oversee the Magesterial Districts, who in turn sub-contract with the Constables (thanks mikepro8 for that info!)?

[Boomer]

Would it make sense to cc the AG ?

[Nate]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

OK, Here is the first draft of my letter. Much of it is the same as my initial account, but for ease of reference, I've included it all:



Now....it seems like I need to say more than "I know you'll take care of this", so how about some suggestions? I'm thinking it should also convey the message "It doesn't matter if you think I should be able to do this or not. It's legal, so you need to back off", but in respectable language. Also, should I make a direct reference to specifically having Constable xxx educated, and should the full language go to everyone, or perhaps the part specifically regarding the correction of the Constable be sent only to the Court Administrator, since they oversee the Magesterial Districts, who in turn sub-contract with the Constables (thanks mikepro8 for that info!)?

I like what I see so far

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Now....it seems like I need to say more than "I know you'll take care of this", so how about some suggestions?

i think you should stick with what you have. you do clearly indicate that you expect them to make sure this doesn't happen again. you have also clearly shown that, by law, they don't have any choice. there is no need to rub it in their faces any more, imho. i don't think it would gain anything and might just make them more determined to try to find a way to get around the law.

it's quite possible that some of the people who will get this letter will be pro-2nd amendment and on your side...you don't want to risk alienating them by coming off too much as "telling them what to do". (remember, a big part of the delicate art of getting people to do what you want them to do is making them think they are doing what they want to do. )

Also, should I make a direct reference to specifically having Constable xxx educated, and should the full language go to everyone, or perhaps the part specifically regarding the correction of the Constable be sent only to the Court Administrator, since they oversee the Magesterial Districts, who in turn sub-contract with the Constables (thanks mikepro8 for that info!)?

personally, i wouldn't request that the specific constable be singled out for correction. i would, instead, just request that all constables be made aware of the law. the less personal it is, the less it is a threat to someone's "manhood" or "turf", and, thus, the more likely it is that the people will do what you want them to do. try not to put the other side on the defensive.

just my two cents.

[MartinBrody]

I understand that as a gun owner, it is my responsibility to be aware of the laws regarding my carrying of a weapon, and abide by them. I also expect any law enforcement officers I encounter to do the same, and not allow their personal feelings on an issue influence their actions.

Bravo, It seems to be a recurring theme on this board that an LEO has advised someone that something is illegal but can't site the law. If we screw up on one thing we are screwed, if they do, oh well sorry for wasting your time with my ignorance. Thank you for taking them to task.

[soberbyker]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

..... personally, i wouldn't request that the specific constable be singled out for correction. i would, instead, just request that all constables be made aware of the law. the less personal it is, the less it is a threat to someone's "manhood" or "turf", and, thus, the more likely it is that the people will do what you want them to do. try not to put the other side on the defensive.

just my two cents.

+4 This is the way to go, it's always better to get your point across without pointing a finger.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i think you should stick with what you have. you do clearly indicate that you expect them to make sure this doesn't happen again. you have also clearly shown that, by law, they don't have any choice. there is no need to rub it in their faces any more, imho. i don't think it would gain anything and might just make them more determined to try to find a way to get around the law.

it's quite possible that some of the people who will get this letter will be pro-2nd amendment and on your side...you don't want to risk alienating them by coming off too much as "telling them what to do". (remember, a big part of the delicate art of getting people to do what you want them to do is making them think they are doing what they want to do. )



personally, i wouldn't request that the specific constable be singled out for correction. i would, instead, just request that all constables be made aware of the law. the less personal it is, the less it is a threat to someone's "manhood" or "turf", and, thus, the more likely it is that the people will do what you want them to do. try not to put the other side on the defensive.

just my two cents.

Agreed. These are good points. Here is my revised closing, which will probably be final, depending on the comments on it here:

While I understand that everyone has their own opinions on any issue, I expect those discharging official duties to do so within the law. I will ask neither permission nor forgiveness when conducting myself in a lawful manner.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter, and for ensuring that all involved in the voting process are aware of the law and do not harass or impede law abiding citizens in the future.

[ChamberedRound]

Nothing wrong with the other changes as suggested, but I would still end the letter with your original:

Thank you for taking the time and attention required to insure that I will not be harassed in the future while legally exercising my right to both carry a firearm and to vote.

The above sentence makes it abundantly clear that you were not only acting within the law, but that you were exercising a RIGHT which cannot be legislated away.

[Zef_66]

Great letter. I think it really gets to the point.

But I always add, as a last line, if you would like to contact me to discuss this further, please feel free to do so at the contact info listed below/above. Then make sure you have your address at the very least. Phone number is preferred.

Just a suggestion.