It looks like the Chambersburg Public Opinion believes that guns and polling places don’t mix. While I don’t find their argument to be entirely unreasonable, the Pennsylvania Legislature could have chosen to make polling places off limits for carrying firearms if they were concerned enough about this issue. The fact that is, that the legislature chose not to do so.
The incident with Mr. Rotz is not really about public policy, it’s what the law is, and whether or not Sheriff Wollyung was within his authority to revoke this man’s license to carry a firearm. I don’t believe the sheriff was, as Mr. Rotz was not doing anything unlawful at the time, and asserted his legal right to be armed at the polling place. If Sheriff Wollyung does not like the idea of a man carrying in a polling place, he’s free to lobby the legislature to forbid the practice. Abusing his authority by making and example out of one man, and revoking his right to be armed without just cause, was not the proper or just course of action to take.
Yes, but you see, Wollyung and his henchmen are all armed and have snivelers on their side. The law means what determined armed men say it means.
It does seem that though Wollyung and his ilk are in the minority, they make up for it with determination, we don’t have. And a reliance on popular opinion even when they contravene the law.
It isn’t any more his fault than it is the fault of a fox when you tie a chicken to a stake and leave it unprotected. They can’t help themselves when they find volunteer prey. Their nature is to destroy if they can do so without risk to themselves. Even if the prey was volunteered by someone other than himself.
It just goes to show in Pennsylvania you don’t anger your local Sheriff if you want to keep carrying.
It just goes to show – power corrupts, petty power corrupts all out of proportion. Demonstrated daily by most bureaucrats…