That answers why civil but it doesn't answer why JUST civil. You could do both, could you not?
That answers why civil but it doesn't answer why JUST civil. You could do both, could you not?
Wow.
Calls made to the election board.
Calls made to the police.
Witnesses.
And, the article says that he "claims" he was prevented?
And the nimrod who actually did the preventing going onto the local news and saying factually "I told him he couldn't because he can't."
.......They don't have to have had mens rea to break the law, they just have to have had mens rea to commit an act which turned out to be against the law. I think that has been amply demonstrated.
Got to love this quote in the article...
" Courthouses and buildings connected to courthouses, such as the County-City Building in South Bend, are excluded, as are some other buildings."
Got to love this quote in the article...
" Courthouses and buildings connected to courthouses, such as the County-City Building in South Bend, are excluded, as are some other buildings."
Yea. That's one that they're trying to pull off here. The courthouse is across the street. It's connected by a tunnel. Under the street. Total BS.
It may or may not be the case, dependent upon the presence of a magnetometer and LEO trained in the discipline, at all entrances.
Problem is, 35-47-11.1-4-13 says that even if there are metal detectors and an officer trained to use it, and they check everything and everyone, they can't deny LTCH holders.
And I don't have any idea where they get the idea that a tunnel means that one building is a part of another.
Problem is, 35-47-11.1-4-13 says that even if there are metal detectors and an officer trained to use it, and they check everything and everyone, they can't deny LTCH holders.
And I don't have any idea where they get the idea that a tunnel means that one building is a part of another.