Utah Guns Forum banner

Vote Tue Nov 5; Is anyone else going to OC?

17K views 59 replies 26 participants last post by  quychang 
#1 ·
I plan to open carry my XD to my polling place, which happens to be at the local elementary school.

This post is to suggest to those that are going to oc while voting at a public school to brush up on utah's gun laws.

If you remember in January, Utah State Office of Education sent out this document to the school districts. The main issue with this document is that it would lead you to believe open carry is unlawful in a Utah public school. I believe this has been briefed during staff meetings in every public school and could lead to an issue for an open carrier, or maybe a discussion with miss informed staff. I hope and wish this will not be the case and that it will be as uneventful as it has been in the past. We know oc is lawful in a public school for those with a valid concealed firearm permit. However most school employees are not familiar with the actual text of the law.

We have disscussed this document here to some degree in this topic http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16632.

Good luck to those that oc.
 
#2 ·
As long as you've been issued a permit to conceal even if you don't conceal. I've OC'd several times at my local school polling place without incident or negative comment from anyone!
 
#3 ·
I've successfully OC'd the last two times at my local "school" polling place. The last time their was a Utah County Sheriff, in patrol uniform, about 6 people down the line from me, who, unless he was blind as a bat, could easily see I was OC'ing.

Alan
 
#6 ·
Voted early on Friday. OCed my Browning Hi-Power. Attached my "I Voted" sticker to my holster.
 
#7 ·
Since voting for me was walking out to the mailbox to put the envelope in the mail and I was about to go for a run at the same time I didn't carry at all. I'm not a fan of this vote by mail crap. Going to the polls is part of the process of voting, and even worse; when you vote by mail you don't get a sticker. :crying:
 
#10 ·
Photocell said:
sorenson said:
Looks like my polling place is an LDS meeting house again...not likely to be OC'ing there...
s.
Really? I had no idea they had polling places at any house of worship. For some reason that seems odd to me. :dunno:
It used to be at an elementary school, but it got moved this year.

I will likely just go to one of the alternate 'city-wide' sites i just found out about.
s.
 
#11 ·
Photocell said:
Really? I had no idea they had polling places at any house of worship. For some reason that seems odd to me. :dunno:
Quite common. In fact probably more common outside Utah than in Utah in the last 30 years.

Churches are quite often de facto communities centers. And they tend to be constructed in and near residential areas, so they are often more accessible than other buildings that are large enough and likely to meet ADA standards.

But with the, shall we say, sometimes unique, situation in Utah there were some vocal protests from those who refused to set foot inside an LDS building for any reason and so Utah largely moved away from using LDS buildings whenever possible. So, growing up in St. George my parents' and then polling place for many years was a neighbor's carport and kitchen across the street the from the LDS church in our neighborhood. It worked out fine, but wasn't up to ADA standards.

Here in a GOP strong area of the SL Valley our polling place has bounced between the middle school, the high school, the city building, and a (non-LDS) church. The Democrat country clerk seems to like to change polling places frequently; it reduces voter turnout in these GOP strong areas.

My personal opinion is that any place used as a polling location should be required to admit legally carried firearms; or in other words, only locations willing to admit legally carried firearms should be able to be used as polling locations.

Charles
 
#12 ·
There are several days each year when I very deliberately OC my full sized 1911:

Election days including primary and general elections;
Independence Day including to the midway/carnival events, parades, fireworks, etc.

Since living in the SL area, my polling location has never been in a place where my permit to carry did not allow me to legally carry my gun. I've never had an issue, and often it seems nobody even notices. A couple of times about half way through the registration process one of the nice old ladies doing the election judge or poll work will notice and comment. Never been a negative thing.

I always put my "I Voted" sticker on my holster.

That sends exactly the message I want broadcast.

Charles
 
#13 ·
Mine is vote by mail and the only thing on the ballot in the Magna Water commissioner or whatever he's called. I don't even know enough about what he does to know if it really matters much who does it. :dunno:
 
#14 ·
bagpiper said:
...The Democrat country clerk seems to like to change polling places frequently; it reduces voter turnout in these GOP strong areas....
Having worked as the Salt Lake County Office of the Clerk public-information officer in 1994 and 1995 (and one of county Clerk Sherrie Swensen 1994 campaign managers), I can say that she prefers to keep voting-precinct polling places in the same locations that were used during the previous election. Unfortunately for many precincts, some voters complain about the polling place (no off-street parking, no all-day access, no ADA accessibility, and yes, I don't want to vote in a church, or school with noisy kids, etc.). Sometimes, the complaints come from the managers of the location (the place was left a wreck with muddy footprints, and tape on the walls, etc.). So, Sherrie changes the location to appease the complaints and gets a whole new list of complaints the next year. In the face of such complaints, she really, really, truly doesn't care about any effect that political parties might experience. Now, an election employee MIGHT be the culprit of changing a location to benefit Democrats, but in the six-month lead up to every election that is so hectic, most don't think about such things and have even less time to accomplish them. Also, having been a Democrat for 30 years, switching around the polling places flummoxes Democrats, too. Any reduction in votes based on polling-place locations is a wash, in my opinion, and a great reason for people to apply for and vote with absentee ballots (the only paper ballot we have left).

bagpiper said:
...I always put my "I Voted" sticker on my holster.

That sends exactly the message I want broadcast....
What an obviously flagrant regard for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yay!
 
#15 ·
bagpiper said:
Photocell said:
Really? I had no idea they had polling places at any house of worship. For some reason that seems odd to me. :dunno:
But with the, shall we say, sometimes unique, situation in Utah there were some vocal protests from those who refused to set foot inside an LDS building for any reason and so Utah largely moved away from using LDS buildings whenever possible.
Our local LDS church was the polling place for years. It was warm, carpeted and had lots of comfortable chairs to sit in. But thanks to some vocal dimwits we now have to vote at the volunteer fire station. It is unheated, with only a couple of metal chairs and you have to travel down a 1/4 mile long one-lane gravel road to get to it. This is better?
 
#16 ·
SSSU said:
Having worked as the Salt Lake County Office of the Clerk public-information officer in 1994 and 1995 (and one of county Clerk Sherrie Swensen 1994 campaign managers), I can say that she prefers to keep voting-precinct polling places in the same locations that were used during the previous election.
...
Also, having been a Democrat for 30 years, switching around the polling places flummoxes Democrats, too. Any reduction in votes based on polling-place locations is a wash, in my opinion, and a great reason for people to apply for and vote with absentee ballots (the only paper ballot we have left).
Loyalty is a good trait. But let's be clear. The GOP legislature has and will continue to gerrymander congressional boundaries to the best GOP benefit possible. That they fail to unseat Matheson is a testament not to GOP magnanimity or "fairness" in drawing boundaries, but rather to GOP incompetence in doing it well enough to force him out. (In contrast, I do not believe that the low number of democrats in the legislature is due to gerrymandering, but rather to the low number of voters in Utah willing to vote Democrat in most elections coupled with the fact that democrats seem to cluster in urban areas while republicans tend to dominate the suburban neighborhoods so that we have very few competitive neighborhoods. Any gerrymandering in the legislature seems to me to be a bipartisan affair intended primarily to protect incumbents--in both parties--from being lumped into a district with another incumbent.)

But on the flip side Swenson has done everything she legally can to benefit Democrats in SL Co.

Until recent legislation required some randomness in determining the order in which to list candidates and parties, Swenson always listed the Democrat candidate first on the ballot. This is well proven to be worth at least a full percentage point, and this research suggests that being listed first improves a candidate's chance of winning by nearly 5%. There is a reason that the GOP (and I suspect the Democrats as well) randomize the order in which candidates appear on internal party ballots such as at convention.

If polling locations are held steady in democrat strong areas, but moved frequently in GOP strong areas, then any flummoxing is focused on the GOP areas. In 15 years in my home we moved among four polling locations, 3 of which were public buildings with full ADA compliance, parking, etc. We cycled among them voting in each of them about twice over the 8 county-wide elections in that time. So it seems unlikely that the changes were motivated by complaints.

We have also gathered strong evidence that precinct boundaries in SLCo have been shifted with the very clear effect (and we believe intent) of maximizing the number of liberals who get elected as delegates to the GOP conventions. Because the democrats hold their conventions on legislative boundaries, this type of thing has no effect on them. It is perfectly legal as the country clerk has almost carte blanche to change these boundaries. But once discovered, the effects are so clear, and any other reason so remote, that the only conclusion one can draw is that the clerk has used her legal ability to change precinct boundaries for the specific purpose of gaming the makeup of delegates to the GOP conventions.

Similarly, she has consistently waited until the last, legal, possible moment to release precinct maps. Certainly, the large number of changes in boundaries gives good excuse for this. And waiting until the last legal moment is...by definition, legal. But it minimizes the time the GOP can plan its caucus meetings. Or at least it did, until the GOP started doing more meetings on leg boundaries rather than individual precincts. Again, because the democrats meet in leg district meetings, these things had no effect on them.

Again, I want to emphasize that so far as I know, everything she has done has been entirely legal. And I think the GOP is stupid for not changing their internal rules so as to negate or at least mitigate her ability to use her office to partisan advantage.

SSSU said:
bagpiper said:
...I always put my "I Voted" sticker on my holster.

That sends exactly the message I want broadcast....
What an obviously flagrant regard for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yay!
Had to read that twice to make sure I had it correct. :D

Charles
 
#17 ·
bagpiper said:
Loyalty is a good trait....
I am guessing you mean my loyalty to Sherrie Swensen. Thank you, but after her testimony against me in 1995 (which I won't describe here) at a Utah Department of Workforce Services administrative-law hearing about what I complained was a hostile-work environment (because of the actions and statements of her chief deputy, Nick Floros who, years later, enjoyed an early retirement thanks to similar actions and statements), I have a sense of friendliness with her, but certainly no loyalty.

bagpiper said:
...But on the flip side Swenson has done everything she legally can to benefit Democrats in SL Co.

Until recent legislation required some randomness in determining the order in which to list candidates and parties, Swenson always listed the Democrat candidate first on the ballot. This is well proven to be worth at least a full percentage point, and this research suggests that being listed first improves a candidate's chance of winning by nearly 5%....
I have always found ballot placement by party to be a repugnant tactic by any election official, including when, from 1973-1991, Republican Salt Lake County Clerk Katie L. Dixon did the same with her party's nominees. But, I amn't defending Swensen beyond your claim that she works voting-precinct polling places like that song from "Guys and Dolls" as "The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game in New York." Having talked with her (at least in 1994 and 1995) about the very matter of changing polling-place locations, I can say she didn't play that game for partisan gain because it was an ongoing headache for her just to find locations at all due to previous complaints. But, here's an idea: Offer to Swensen to negotiate a neutral location for your next polling place. If she accepts and it succeeds, you will have a great place for years to come, but if she declines, I will agree with your assessment.

Now, if we want to talk about the violations of law committed by polling-place judges of both parties, well....
 
#18 ·
Personally, I do not see why having it at an LDS church is so offensive. As an earlier poster mentioned, it is warm, with comfy seats, ADA compliant, and bathrooms. Isn't that what matters?
Given his areas alternative, only a fool would complain. Were I the person in charge, I would bluntly advise any complainers that the location will not be changing, but next year, to accomodate their views, there will be a voting booth outside for their convenience. Given November weather locally, I think that would suffice to shut people up.

Honestly, its a building, with pictures of a guy some revere. Does your enlightened self also avoid the great museums of the world, or the art world itself due to the often religious nature of art and some of the greatest art our society has created?
 
#19 ·
The degree of my offense is no greater than it would be if the polling place was in the Post Office or any other federal building for example. The intent of the original post was to inquire if a person was going to OC. I merely stated that if I were to attempt to go to my assigned precinct polling place, I could not OC (since it is an LDS meeting house; it has no effect on me any other day of the year). I therefore have opted to go to one of the city-wide locations (probably Dee Event Center) and OC.
s.
 
#20 ·
SSSU said:
But, here's an idea: Offer to Swensen to negotiate a neutral location for your next polling place. If she accepts and it succeeds, you will have a great place for years to come, but if she declines, I will agree with your assessment.
It isn't that any of the polling locations in my prior area were bad locations. A middle school, a high school, city hall, and a non-LDS church all with adequate parking, ADA compliant, climate controlled, etc, and all within one mile of each other are perfectly fine polling locations. The problem was the nearly annual changes from one to the other. MIss the annual letter about your polling location change and on election day you just don't know where to vote.

Now, if those changes were as frequent in Democrat strong areas as they were in mine, I'd admit the error of my claim. I've moved out of that area and my current polling location has been stable since I moved a couple of years ago; another strong GOP area. So I will have to keep my eye on it and see if it stays in the same school building, or if changes on some period basis as well.

As for the manipulation of precinct boundaries with the effect of gaming the demographics of GOP delegates: we've got pretty solid data on that one.

Charles
 
#21 ·
sorenson said:
The degree of my offense is no greater than it would be if the polling place was in the Post Office or any other federal building for example. The intent of the original post was to inquire if a person was going to OC. I merely stated that if I were to attempt to go to my assigned precinct polling place, I could not OC (since it is an LDS meeting house; it has no effect on me any other day of the year). I therefore have opted to go to one of the city-wide locations (probably Dee Event Center) and OC.
s.
And not allowing otherwise legal guns into the polling place is a valid complaint for the members here, including those who are LDS.

But remember, the complaints about using LDS church buildings as polling places goes back at least 25 to 30 years to before Utah even had a non-discriminatory permit or any laws about guns in churches. Those complaints had nothing to do with RKBA. And even today, we only have about 5% of our adult population who have permits; by my estimation only half of whom or less who carry on any regular basis. So most complaints about an LDS church as a polling place even today are not based on RKBA, but on an objection to setting food inside an LDS building.

Charles
 
#22 ·
Daeyel said:
Honestly, its a building, with pictures of a guy some revere. Does your enlightened self also avoid the great museums of the world, or the art world itself due to the often religious nature of art and some of the greatest art our society has created?
you saying this brought a clear recollection of a lady in her 40s who knitted a little scarf to cover up her statue of David replica which truly is the exact opposite of your statement but a great example of the other side

being an atheist i am frequently subjected to religious conversation while at work (in and out of peoples homes daily and very social at work),
unlike most who claim to be atheist i view religion as a wonderful thing, it was the cornerstone of society as we know it today

with that being said, i would not choose to go to an LDS church or any other church for that matter, some of these people may walk up to me and say something along the lines of "what are you doing in my church" (this has happened before as i occasionaly do work in and out of various churches)

simply to avoid confrontation i would vote in the booth outside and suffer the cold
 
#26 ·
bagpiper said:
...if those changes were as frequent in Democrat strong areas as they were in mine, I'd admit the error of my claim. I've moved out of that area and my current polling location has been stable since I moved a couple of years ago; another strong GOP area. So I will have to keep my eye on it and see if it stays in the same school building, or if changes on some period basis as well.

As for the manipulation of precinct boundaries with the effect of gaming the demographics of GOP delegates: we've got pretty solid data on that one....
At least when I was with the Salt Lake County Office of the Clerk, the relocation of voting-precinct polling places happened in Democratic legislative districts as well as Republican ones. Ask me about the time when Democratic Utah Rep. Loretta Baca called us to complain loudly about some changes in her precincts and their polling places. The manipulation of precinct boundaries between decennial redistricting is common in almost every election among those precincts which enjoy large changes in registered voter populations. This means usually that areas with more registered voters have their precincts downsized to a relatively equal number of voters among neighboring precincts while older, less populated precincts grow in size and shape. This is a result of several lawsuits requiring the clerk to equalize precinct voter populations as often and as much as is practicable given new areas of population. Thus, if a new subdivision gets suddenly built around the Jordan River corridor, watch for neighboring precincts to change their sizes and shapes in the next election or two.

Now, while I can say that I never saw intentionally partisan manipulation of polling-place locations, I can also say that I wasn't privy to ALL the reasons behind splitting and combining precincts by changing boundaries during non-census years. That might well have been the case as state laws require such changes, but leave it to the clerk to decide the best implementation. The partisanship of which isn't too dissimilar to the state's decennial redistricting in that both methods are accomplished by the elected public official(s) who are constitutionally and lawfully charged with such duties. Thus, our state's legislative redistricting benefits Republican nominees while the Salt Lake County precincts might benefit Democratic nominees. I despise both tactics, but it is "checks and balances," and all that, I guess.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top