[marktwain]

In the colonies, I beleive some militias were required to bring their weapons in order to vote.

The idea has merit. Those who are willing to defend the sate and self with arms are showing responsibility. Heinlien discussed a similar idea in Starship Troopers, where the franchise was limited to those who were willing risk their lives to defend the country, mostly through military service.

[marktwain]

beleive should be believe, and sate should be state.

[mvpel]

Can they point to any case, anywhere in the US - or the world for that matter - where an open-carrier was targeted by a violent criminal? Why do they cling to this belief so fervently?

[Little Ray]

I like the idea of voters being able to carry openly or concealed while voting. I’d like to see the NBP try to intimidate an armed voter.

[American in Israel]

Some Citizens would not like to see open carry in polls...

[Yo-Yo]

Under the convoluted laws governing concealed carry in Michigan, if you have a concealed pistol license and are a resident of Michigan, then it is legal for you to open carry your firearm on school grounds, where most polling places are.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

[OneWingedShark]

From article:
A 2011 state law that barred local governments from enforcing their own gun restrictions also covers many public buildings where people go to vote.

This state law should have been utterly unnecessary; the reason being there are multiple felonies incurred by the act "barring someone with a gun from voting."

18 USC § 245 - Federally protected activities says that voting is a federally protected activity (b.1.A).

Furthermore, there is the issue of barring weapons. This is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and so the Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law & Conspiracy Against Rights sections come into play.
First, the Color of Law states “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution […] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results […] or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; […]”

Now, obviously those saying that weapons are prohibited are obviously contrary to the words of the 2^ND Amendment, which says it shall not be infringed.

The Conspiracy one is even more straightforward, “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;” then they are in violation of the law; and obviously there is more than one person involved in the crafting [and implementation] of "local government" laws.

[Tainan]

Just to clarify things, when referring to 'open carry' is this to include OWB holsters worn under a jacket or long shirt?
I'm never clear about this qualifying as overt 'open carry.'

I understand how old west pistol belt and holster or tactic leg carry rigs could be 'open carry.'

Or is this just simply any carry method that is visible to others with out their looking very hard?

If so, it might be extended to include IWB holsters or even some shoulder rigs with an unbuttoned jacket.

Thanks

[Lazamataz]

Hopefully some of them will go nuts, in liberlal voting precints.