Bangor police officer denied right to vote after refusing to surrender weapon

Bangor police officer denied right to vote after refusing to surrender weapon

www.bang ordailynews.com

In the 18 years that he has been a police officer in Bangor, James Dearing couldn’t think of a single time when someone has asked him to turn over his firearm.

Until last Friday.

Dearing, who was patrolling his assigned beat near the Bangor Civic Center, decided to stop in and cast an early vote. He walked into the polling place in full uniform and stood in a short line with other voters.

Share Print | E-mail | Facebook | Tweet |
poll
Bangor police officer denied right to vote after refusing to surrender weapon

10/31/10 01:53 pm Updated: 11/1/10 04:56 pm
By Eric Ru

(visit the link for the full news article)

The election warden has since been dismissed but seriously, what was he thinking? The warden denied the officer's right to vote because the officer refused to relinquish his right (and subsenquently part of his job) to have a gun?

This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you support America's second ammendment but everything to do with the fact that he wasn't allowed to vote... This is just too silly.

www.bang ordailynews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Portugoal


I was reading this awhile ago and thought that this was bad judgement on the election wardens part. I believe he made his decision upon his personal views of firearms while disregarding the position of a law enforcement officer.

Around here, it's legal to carry a sidearm anywhere in public. I've seen private citizens carrying sidearms in banks, grocery stores and convenience stores. It's considered legal as long as it's not concealed.

If there's not a "No firearms allowed" sign at the entrance of a business, then it's a free-for-all, the way it should be.

About the officer being denied his right to vote? He's a law enforcement officer for crying out loud. He's suppose to have a sidearm on his person.

reply to post by Intelearthling


So imagine America not only without its right to carry guns (which kinda works in most countries) but also without its right to vote.

I went out to see a friends band play last weekend and was refused entry for carrying a concealed weapon. The law here in Virginia is that you must allow them in if they have a permit to carry concealed provided that they do not consume alcohol ( I don't drink) .
I was tempted to call the cops on them to tell them what the law is.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I was under the impression that Concealed Carry States allow it in Public, but private entities (banks, bars, etc) had a right to refuse admittance based solely on the fact its private property.
The State I work in allows concealed carry by civilians except in sporting events, theaters, malls, banks etc. If you have a weapon and go into a business that allows concealed carry, they can still refuse service and ask you to leave because its private property.

Law Enforcement is exempt from CCW laws and restrictions in their home states. It becomes different if we are traveling off duty through other states, as we will fall under Federal Law:

H.R. 218

I've been asked before why I was somewhere with a weapon, but I have never been denied entrance, and never had any encounters while voting. It sounds like the warden either suffered fro rectal-cranial inversion or just thought he was genuinely trying to to the "right" hing in his mind.

The man who refused the officer access whilst armed was scared - scared of breaking the law.

He was probably thinking 'why should I risk jail just so some cop can vote with his gun'

*It is a fair assumption to make. There are so many laws and regulations nowadays that he thought was probably breaking at least one of them.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The man who refused the officer access whilst armed was scared - scared of breaking the law.

He was probably thinking 'why should I risk jail just so some cop can vote with his gun'

*It is a fair assumption to make. There are so many laws and regulations nowadays that he thought was probably breaking at least one of them.

Its not an even close assumption to make. The Officer was on duty and in Uniform. The Warden suffered head up ass syndrome. What is funny is this warden who was running the polling station is supposed to be familiar with law when it comes to what can occur in a polling station.

To me, it looks political.

That is ridiculous on the part of the election warden. As for gun laws, well I moved from Arizona recently because of work to South Carolina. Boy I tell you SC has got the whole nazi thing down! I know that few states are as open as Arizona where you don't need any kind of permit to carry open or concealed, which is the way it should be, but this state is out of control! Here in SC, you can't even open carry! And you can't conceal carry without a damn permit! That sounds exactly like witholding my constitutional right to me! It doesn't say anything about shall not be infringed as long as you submit your fingerprints and picture and pay $80! It says shall not be infringed.

I was so furious when I found that out. I refuse, absolutely refuse to get their stupid permit. I also refuse to give up my right to carry. I don't want trouble but if I submit and get their license, I am validating that I feel their law is acceptable and legal. It isn't.

I am a free man and I will not be licensed for what is my natural right!

P.S. South Carolinians, why do you accept this garbage?

P.P.S. Come to think of it I may just start a thread in rants and ask the very same question above. IDK..

reply to post by Xcathdra


I don't think you nor I can determine what the warden was thinking.

But we can explore the various possible reasons he might have acted the way that he did.

I highly doubt that the warden thought he could shift the election one way or the other by denying one cop his right to vote, so it probably isn't that.

If he thought he might have been breaking the law, then that explains his actions better.

What does he need his gun for to vote? People freaked out over two black guys standing outside of a polling place with batons and this guy thinks he has a reason to have a gun in a polling place?

Really?

Ok here's the other thing, why are taxpayers paying for him to go vote? The guy was on duty. Vote on your own time, be a cop on our dime.

reply to post by whatukno


You are blaming the victim.

Originally posted by whatukno
What does he need his gun for to vote? People freaked out over two black guys standing outside of a polling place with batons and this guy thinks he has a reason to have a gun in a polling place?

Really?

Ok here's the other thing, why are taxpayers paying for him to go vote? The guy was on duty. Vote on your own time, be a cop on our dime.

He was doing his job. Contrary to perception Law Enforcement is not always busy going from call to call to call. Some places like it when Law Enforcement gets out among the public for PR reasons. While I see your point about voting on his own time (keeping in mind he does get breaks (bathroom, lunch etc), the comment about his duty weapon is off.

He is a Peace Officer / Law Enforcement Officer and that is part of his uniform and his job responsibilities and requirements. This notion that Law Enforcement needs to check their weapons at the door is, interesting, for lack of a better term.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that he should have surrendered his weapon, I just think that our tax payer dollars shouldn't be paying for someone to do personal business.

It was unprofessional, and a breach of the public trust, and a dereliction of duty.

Clock out, go there in civilian attire, in his own car, vote however he wants, then go back get dressed and go back to work. Why should we pay for someone on duty to go vote? Were you paid to go vote? I wasn't paid to go vote.

Last time I checked, a police officers duty does not include voting, that's a civilian duty.

If you view the polling booth as sacrosanct then a weapon, regardless of who's holding it, becomes it's profane enemy.

Many may not hold this view and have no problem with an armed and uniformed paramilitary agent of the government voting with them.

However, I'm not one to treat police officers differently from civilians. I'm sure that I would not have been allowed to vote with a sidearm so why treat police officers, who aren't responding to a call, any different?

Originally posted by whatukno
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that he should have surrendered his weapon, I just think that our tax payer dollars shouldn't be paying for someone to do personal business.

Actually Officers pay taxes as well, so one could argue the opposite, but I won't. There are laws in all States that require employers allow their employees time to vote (paid or unpaid is another story). You also need to keep in mind if he is salaried or not. Salaried employees generally will not get overtime, possibly comp time, and some times nothing at all. I think in this case an exception can be made since he was not doing it to get out of work.

As far as surrendering our Duty Weapon, that will only occur in 2 instances. If an Officer is being charged with a crime, or a Superior orders me to give it up. Aside from that, it will not happen.

Originally posted by whatukno
It was unprofessional, and a breach of the public trust, and a dereliction of duty.

On the contrary it was professional and responsible. People in the community look towards Law Enforcement and observe what they do, forming opinions. It was not a breech of the Public's trust (look up your definition, his behavior was not illegal) and nor was it dereliction of duty (which is a military term but LEO's have a version of it)

dereliction of duty is addressed within the regulations governing the failure to obey an order or regulation. It means that one willfully, through negligence or culpable inefficiency, fails to perform one's expected duties. Ineptitude is a defense against the charge.

He did not ignore his duties (No calls, adequate staffing, not investigating, not skipping court). By the very definition people are using to describe this guys actions is intresting. He is in Public doing his civic duty. If not there he could very well have been driving around for 30 minutes and not have any calls. He could be at the gas station talking to people. His job is as much PR, being out among the public ti build a trust, than it is pulling people over and giving citations.

Originally posted by whatukno
Clock out, go there in civilian attire, in his own car, vote however he wants, then go back get dressed and go back to work. Why should we pay for someone on duty to go vote? Were you paid to go vote? I wasn't paid to go vote.

If you were not paid to vote I would go check your State Laws. Employers are required to allow employees time to vote. Whether they get paid for it varies from State to State. You might be entitled to get paid by work for voting, so go check. Again, does he need to go clock out, change into civilian clothes, to use the bathroom? How about taking his lunch break?

Originally posted by whatukno
Last time I checked, a police officers duty does not include voting, that's a civilian duty.

Last time I checked internal policies and procedures were put in place by the Command Staff in conjunction with Legal Counsel and input from residents. A Police Officers duty is to protect and serve the public. He went to vote, which is responsible. While at the voting station he was seen by people, which is PR in addition to doing his job.

Contrary to popular belief Officers are allowed to park our cars and make foot rounds in parks, local businesses, neighbor hoods. We are allowed the leeway to do our job in the manner which bests serves the area we are assigned to. If he was dispatched to a call, he would have left the voting station. When we are on break (required Federal Law) and a call for service comes in, we cannot tell dispatch we will get to it when we are done with eating, we go at that moment (even though we were on "personal time" and will have a lunch break deducted whether we used it or not).

If the officer stopped by and talked to people just to be friendly and be seen, and not voted, would people be throwing a fit? Nope

Actually if people check with their employers they will find that you can take up to 3 hours of time to go vote in elections, depending on what state you live in. Failure of your employer to allow you to vote is illegal and they can be fined for it.

33 States have laws that require an employer to let their employee take time to vote. (Paid / Unpaid / Amount of time will vary State to State).
17 States have no laws requiring an employer to let their employees to vote. It is up to the business.


Your Right to Vote
Time off to Vote - Employer Responsibilities.

Check Laws to Learn if You Can Take Time Off to Vote

Time Off to Vote - State Listings

In Maine, there are no laws on the book requiring employers to allow their employees to vote, making it discretionary by their bosses.

reply to post by Redwookieaz


If everyone had your attitude then America wouldn't have the ridiculous gun laws that it does. Good for you not taking their crap!
The Virginia law specifically states that I am allowed to carry in bars and restaurants so long as I do not consume alcohol. They wanded me when I entered and asked me what I had in my pocket so I had no choice but to tell them however they were the ones breaking the law by denying me entrance,
So I protested in the only way I could and refused them my $,
If everyone did that we wouldn't be on our collective knees like we are now.
Our rights have been trampled with hardly a peep.
Shame on everyone who has quietly allowed it happen, regardless of how scared you may be of the "terrorists".
WOOO................
Just WHO hates us for our freedoms, Mr. Bush?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I think you might have misread the Concealed Carry Law for Virginia.

Where Unlawful to Carry - Virginia State Police
Code of Virginia

This statute allows you to carry a concealed weapon into a premises that serves alcohol, provided you do not consume.

§18.2-308 (J.3.):

No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.

One more section down though in the same statute is this:

§18.2-308 (O.):

Private property when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited.

All Virginia did was to make it no longer a criminal offense to conceal carry into an establishment that serves alcohol. It does not override the property owners ability to refuse admittance / service to those who are carrying concealed. The bar was not breaking the law when they told you to remove your weapon.

If you were to head out with the wife to Applebeas restaurant for dinner, and there is a sign on the door that says no firearms allowed, and you got caught with your weapon, you would get in trouble, regardless if you were drinking alcohol or not.

If you apply the same to say Wendy's Fast food, where you show up with a concealed weapon and they have a sign on the door saying no firearms and got caught in there, you would get in trouble.

Virginia is saying they don't care if you have a concealed weapon and you go someplace with it, bar, restaurant, mall, grocery store, you do what you want.

Virginia is saying that if a private business posts a sign, or in person tells you you cannot come onto private property with your weapon, then you cannot enter the property. Doing so will violate the conceal carry law.

Sorry not trying to burst your bubble or anything, I just don't want to see you get in trouble.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Dang, you're right.
They had no sign posted but I suppose they retain that right. Unfortunately I am disabled and I'm not about to get in a room with a bunch of drunk rednecks while disarmed. I've been beat around too many times without provocation thus my policy to carry at all times.
Thank you for looking that up!
I had the wrong impression about the law and indeed may have gotten myself in to trouble in the future.
kudos to you. ATA

reply to post by Asktheanimals


No worries and actually I fell into the same boat as you for the longest time. If they didn't ask, I would not volunteer the info.I had to read and reread the section on businesses that serve alcohol. The Legalese they used gave me a headache lol.