Those blue haired old ladies are paid by and serve as representatives of the election board, therefore they are "city, county, or state officials."
Being a church or retirement center is irrelevant, for that day it was a government office.
Those blue haired old ladies are paid by and serve as representatives of the election board, therefore they are "city, county, or state officials."
Being a church or retirement center is irrelevant, for that day it was a government office.
Which is why I said could be. I do not know what he did when he was showing his firearm after voting.
I am all for open and concealed carry but it is important that we act like responsible adults in exercising that right before we offend enough people that they vote us down.
Did he video the whole thing?
So he goes in and is told to leave. Goes back later with a cover garment, votes without issue, and just has to rub the bluehairs' face all up in his "rights" before he leaves. If this is the case it seems that a few days in the slammer might give him time to think about things. Yes he may be entitled to carry his gun, but he's not entitled to "rub everyone's face" in that fact. That's the whole issue with these nuts. Hopefully he won't be charged if he in fact didn't break any laws, but a few days to think about it and some legal fees might change his attitude. Doubt it, but maybe...
So he goes in and is told to leave. Goes back later with a cover garment, votes without issue, and just has to rub the bluehairs' face all up in his "rights" before he leaves. If this is the case it seems that a few days in the slammer might give him time to think about things. Yes he may be entitled to carry his gun, but he's not entitled to "rub everyone's face" in that fact. That's the whole issue with these nuts. Hopefully he won't be charged if he in fact didn't break any laws, but a few days to think about it and some legal fees might change his attitude. Doubt it, but maybe...
This. Sometimes the simplest thing is so hard for folks to do ...
Why does everyone think attorneys should work for free?? I'm kinda with GC on this one. If its a "test case" and that important, then maybe okiebryan's organization should pick up the fees for him??
Yup. Time to put up or shut up.
We really don't have close to enough info to make any decisions about what this cowboy did. If he something really stupid like verbally threaten or taunt the people at the polling place I would think that puts him in the wrong. Just one possible scenario. If he did something "wrong" I don't think it's up to okiebryans organization to put up legal fees.
Since they are the ones that encourage these internet cowboys to exercise their rights and educate the public it seems appropriate that they belly up to the bar.
Well, apparently Bryan has additional information that leads him to think this kid is in the right, so I see nothing wrong with asking Bryan's organization to put up. He was dying for a test case ... well ... here it is ...
As far as not thinking okiebryan's organization should put up legal fees, how is that any different than someone wanting henschman to offer legal representation for free?? Actually I think it would be more important for that organization to put up, to show the open carry crown that they are a substantive organization that will vigorously defend our rights when we are pushed around by the cops and "unedcuated" citizens ...
Henschman works for him money, okiebrian's organization takes donations ... Seems fair that they should spread the wealth around a little ...
ETA: Sorry Bryan ... seems I've not been spelling your name right.
I'll fix this post and try not to do it anymore ... It was not on purpose, it's just every other Brian I know spells it with an "i". 
This!
.......................................................
IF.....he took off a disguise to flaunt his carrying of a firearm and did anything in the way of motioning or referring to his gun (even if in a holster) to the "blue haired" government employees in a government building while they were conducting business with the public; then IMHO he was brandishing and could have very easily made those employees fear for their lives from threat of deadly force, ESPECIALLY after he was peacefully told to leave and returned with a vendetta.
Last edited:
Much speculation and innuendo in this thread. 
Can't wait to see what Mr. Prater thinks and the Courts support. My approach would be that this was simply trespassing if I was his Defense. I would rely on the argument that the building was not a proscribed carry location and that it was not a sufficient connection to the state arm to qualify as such. I would reference the massive use of churches as support to show that that is a big no no under our Constitution and as such these momentary uses of a quasi political function do not make such buildings a proscribed place. Would necessitate the slippery slope curtailing approach as well in order to prevent our Gubment from slapping their ownership on everything during times of elections. Just my .02.
So can't wait to see what Prater does. Such a great man who really thinks things through.
Can't wait to see what Mr. Prater thinks and the Courts support. My approach would be that this was simply trespassing if I was his Defense. I would rely on the argument that the building was not a proscribed carry location and that it was not a sufficient connection to the state arm to qualify as such. I would reference the massive use of churches as support to show that that is a big no no under our Constitution and as such these momentary uses of a quasi political function do not make such buildings a proscribed place. Would necessitate the slippery slope curtailing approach as well in order to prevent our Gubment from slapping their ownership on everything during times of elections. Just my .02.So can't wait to see what Prater does. Such a great man who really thinks things through.
Similar threads
