Woman Harassed for Open Carry


PDA






jahwarrior
September 23, 2008, 12:45 AM
long story short, a woman in PA went to her kid's soccer game open carrying, some people freaked out, and before you know it, she had her LTCF revoked, without due process, for violating the "character" clause. more details here: http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/32796-ltcf-revoked.html

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/32946-shefearsnothing-s-revocation-legal-info-thread.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/16397.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/16426.html

*fixed

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman Harassed for Open Carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KiltedClaymore
September 23, 2008, 12:47 AM
BOOO!!!! tell her to move out here!

damien
September 23, 2008, 12:52 AM
Please fix your links, the first two are broken.

This is great news, don't get too irritated about this. This sheriff is heading for a world of hurt.

Lookn4Brass
September 23, 2008, 01:18 AM
Wow. Talk about hot stuff! Bring on da stink! I hope there are so many people that call, e-mail, or show up to a court date on this case that the sheriff resigns or moves out of town. What a "dunder head" (Beverly Hillbillies derogatory phrase) law enforcement move. That's awesome!

OK, so here's my 2c worth. Please don't smack me in the head or hate me for it.

I wouldn't be an open carry "starter" person myself. I don't condemn the person for wanting to open carry, but think that concealed would be infinitely smarter. Unless alot of mindset changes on the subject, open carry will not be good for gun owners in this day and age, IMHO. We aren't going to convert the whole world to our view. Hopefully we can convert some and keep the rest of them off our butt, and live in peace most of the time.

I spent enough time employed in various parts of the gun industry to observe people's reactions that I would have already known how much poop this would cause. There's no way in hell that I would open carry at a soccer game, if for no other reason than just the selfish one: I would get sick of the comments and attention. It would drive my family nuts and embarrass them immensely. Let's be real folks. Do you want to be a target, even if the law says you can be? Hey, if condoms aren't illegal in school, do you still feel like you need to stick one on the outside of your pants to show your support?
Maybe that's a bit harsh. I don't mean it to be. Just thought that grown-ups could make better choices.

Ok, so win the court case and smoke the Barney Fife already ! I'm still on your side. Peace.

Lookn4Brass

scrat
September 23, 2008, 01:21 AM
Wow the sheriff sure is in a world of hurt.

Lookn4Brass
September 23, 2008, 01:29 AM
Tim McGraw should write a song about the sheriff that pissed off the wrong Momma. It would be funny. Or maybe Mel Tillis or Brad Paisley could do it justice. Ol' sheriffy-poo is gonna be famous. Whether he wants to be or not! If any of you know any of these artists, send them an e-mail!

Lookn4Brass

FieroCDSP
September 23, 2008, 02:45 AM
I'm interested in what the legal definition of "would be likely to act in a dangerous manner to public safety" is.
If OC is legal, and the gun never left the holster, then this woman has a case. The Ohio SC has found that OC rights are entirely independent of Conceal Carry rights. I'm not sure if PA has had a similar case, but it'd be worth fighting for.
If she wasn't asked to leave by the league officials or cops, then it's pretty safe to say she wasn't a public nuisiance, or inducing a panic, or even disrupting the game.

I'm interested in how this turns out.

JDoe
September 23, 2008, 03:09 AM
The Ohio SC has found that OC rights are entirely independent of Conceal Carry rights. I'm not sure if PA has had a similar case, but it'd be worth fighting for.

Post #208 (http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/32796-ltcf-revoked-page-21.html) has some info that looks useful.

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not forbid our carrying firearms openly, and that right is affirmed in case law.
The two cases that that specifically affirms that a person may carry a firearm openly: Commonwealth v. Ortiz and Commonwealth v. Hawkins.

Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068, n.4 (“In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license. See
Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 283, 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) (only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license)”).

Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279; 681 A.2d 152 (1996)(agreeing with appellant’s citation of the fact that "...in Philadelphia County, the legislature requires that a person must be licensed to carry weapons openly and not concealed from sight, whereas in all other counties of Pennsylvania, weapons may be carried openly without a license[, but holding that appellant’s argument that this fact then exempts Philadelphia from state preemption statute] is plainly without merit” [emphasis added]”).

Pennsylvania like the rest of United States Codes, Laws, or Rules, defines what we can not do. If an activity prohibition is not specifically codified it is not illegal

Kind of Blued
September 23, 2008, 05:58 AM
I hope big daddy justice opens up a can of the good stuff.

Aran
September 23, 2008, 06:15 AM
What didn't make it to the final thread was how she confronted at least one or two parents over the issue before she got the letter from the league.

Double Naught Spy
September 23, 2008, 06:26 AM
And how was that?

Armueller2001
September 23, 2008, 06:27 AM
What didn't make it to the final thread was how she confronted at least one or two parents over the issue before she got the letter from the league.

Is that pertinent?

I probably wouldn't ask a black family not to show up to the games because the sight of them scares my children...

TAB
September 23, 2008, 06:44 AM
I have the feeling there is more too this story...

Aran
September 23, 2008, 06:46 AM
Is that pertinent?

I probably wouldn't ask a black family not to show up to the games because the sight of them scares my children...

Yes.


But would you ask them not to attend the games if the mother comes up to you, gets in your face about her being black, and pushes the issue, etc.?

Armueller2001
September 23, 2008, 06:54 AM
But would you ask them not to attend the games if the mother comes up to you, gets in your face about her being black, and pushes the issue, etc.?

I sure would ask them not to attend. But the female in question wasn't doing that... she was following the law, minding her own business. I wouldn't ask someone wearing an Obama shirt (legal, may offend people IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE OFFENSE) to leave either.

TAB
September 23, 2008, 07:04 AM
I sure would ask them not to attend. But the female in question wasn't doing that... she was following the law, minding her own business.


and you know this how? Were you there? THere are atleast 3 sides to every story, side A, side B... and what really happend. We only have side A.

Ever been to a kids sporting event? I am a CIF ref and I donate my time to USA wrestling. I can tell you that the mothers are ALWAYS the worst. Todate I have never had to kick out a Father from a tourny, but I have about a dozen or so mothers. Some of the things that come out of thier mouths, lets just say... it does not need to be said infront of other kids. I have seen Mothers assult other CIF refs.

For all we know, she could have been shouting 4 letter words/ threats, while fondling her gun. Then again, she could have droped it, or had her child hold it. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that doing something like that would be a danger to those around her...

BruceRDucer
September 23, 2008, 07:16 AM
/
It might seem a vague question, but how often are there incidences like this, which indicate that the presiding law enforcement officer is unaware of the distinction between LAW and some vaguely concieved...."public concern" or whatever, expressed as a complaint by some whiny citizen? :what::what:

Harvster
September 23, 2008, 07:58 AM
The funny thing is the revocation of her LTCF just means that she has to open carry, which is perfectly legal in PA with no permit of any kind. Wonder what the LEOs in charge of this fiasco will do at the next game when she simply open carries again. There is already case law that open carry itself can not be a public disturbance or any other such ilk.

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 08:02 AM
wasn't she already oc? thats what got the circus started

everallm
September 23, 2008, 08:20 AM
OK, I wan't there.......soccer phah, would never have happened at a rugby game, lots more blood, far less whining.......:evil:

Having read through the links from start to end, it appears that this kicked off when an small but indeterminate number of parents complained of feeling "concerned" to the director of the soccer club, NOT called the police which might have been what you expected.

The lady concerned had a licence to carry concealed but was open carrying as explicitly permitted by PA statute and case law.

The director, an ex-judge, recently voted out, made the complaint to the local PD who used this as a reason to pull her CONCEALED carry licence. This means she now has to always OC which reduces "concern" how ?????

Unless the lady concerned was in fact acting in a threatening or inappropriate manner with the firearm then the local PD is going to be in a whole world of hurt.

Now, whether it was sensible to OC at a soccer game.........that's a different question.

Bubbles
September 23, 2008, 08:30 AM
Just insane...

On September 11, 2008 you were observed at Optimist Park in Lebanon. At that particular time ou were carrying a weapon openly in a belt holster. Unfortunately, some of the individuals at the Optimist Park were upset. Consequently, you are required to surrender your license, as indicated in the following paragraphs.

According to the Uniform Firearms Act, Subsection 6109 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, you are required to surrender your license to the issuing authority.

You are required to surrender the license to the Lebanon County Sheriffs Office within five days of receipt of this letter or be guilty of a summary violation.

Section 6109, (e)(1)(i) reveals that "an individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a dangerous manner to public safety," shall not be licensed.

I hope that town has good insurance to pay for the resulting lawsuit.

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 08:33 AM
I don't condemn the person for wanting to open carry, but think that concealed would be infinitely smarter.
She was badgered not to carry AT ALL.

Aran
September 23, 2008, 08:37 AM
I sure would ask them not to attend. But the female in question wasn't doing that... she was following the law, minding her own business. I wouldn't ask someone wearing an Obama shirt (legal, may offend people IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE OFFENSE) to leave either.

The original original thread got nuked for her protection just in case things escalated. I don't have it all saved, so I won't go more in depth than to say she didn't handle any part of it very well, by my estimation. I can't quote it, obviously, but she definitely aggravated the situation unnecessarily, trying to pull others into it.

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 08:38 AM
But would you ask them not to attend the games if the mother comes up to you, gets in your face about her being black, and pushes the issue, etc.?
But of course that's NOT what happened. It's more like she refused to sit in the "colored" section of the bleachers.

In actuality, this incident is more like a religious Jew being told not to wear a kippa because it upsets the Holocaust deniers in the group.

As far as all of the fanciful things she COULD have done to have her LTCF pulled, NONE of them were mentioned in either the complaint to the Sheriff OR in the Sheriff's revocation letter. If ANY of those things happened, NOBODY thought it important enough to mention. There's no more evidence that she gave her firearm to a child to hold than there is that you brought down WTC 7 in a "controlled demolition".

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 08:43 AM
The original original thread got nuked for her protection just in case things escalated. I don't have it all saved, so I won't go more in depth than to say she didn't handle any part of it very well, by my estimation. I can't quote it, obviously, but she definitely aggravated the situation unnecessarily, trying to pull others into it.
I believe that the Sheriff is 80 years old and not the most dynamic character on earth. He tried (by his own admission) to please everyone and pleased no one.

What this REALLY is is a bunch of malicious busybodies taking advantage of an elderly man without a good grasp of PA state law in order to vindictively get revenge on somebody whom they couldn't bully directly. I'm thinking a defamation suit would tune those curs right up.

TAB
September 23, 2008, 08:46 AM
As far as all of the fanciful things she COULD have done to have her LTCF pulled, NONE of them were mentioned in either the complaint to the Sheriff OR in the Sheriff's revocation letter. If ANY of those things happened, NOBODY thought it important enough to mention. There's no more evidence that she gave her firearm to a child to hold than there is that you brought down WTC 7 in a "controlled demolition".


we also just have her word of what happend... and her word of what was given too her. Yes I find it funny that the acts were not listed in great detail, but I also find it funny that we only have her side of the story.

Aran
September 23, 2008, 08:47 AM
I believe that the Sheriff is 80 years old and not the most dynamic character on earth. He tried (by his own admission) to please everyone and pleased no one.

What this REALLY is is a bunch of malicious busybodies taking advantage of an elderly man without a good grasp of PA state law in order to vindictively get revenge on somebody whom they couldn't bully directly. I'm thinking a defamation suit would tune those curs right up.

I'm not arguing against any of that. I'm just reminding everyone that she wasn't innocent little Clarabelle sitting quietly and politely on the bleachers. She helped earn herself the request to stay away, if nothing else.

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 08:51 AM
"The original original thread got nuked for her protection just in case things escalated. I don't have it all saved, so I won't go more in depth than to say she didn't handle any part of it very well, by my estimation. I can't quote it, obviously, but she definitely aggravated the situation unnecessarily, trying to pull others into it."


WHAT?! you mean when she told her version of what happened it made her look bad enough circling the wagons and hiding even HER version was deemed wise? say it ain't so!

TexasRifleman
September 23, 2008, 08:52 AM
hiding even HER version was deemed wise?

It's ALWAYS wise to keep your mouth shut and tell your version to no one but your lawyer, even if your behavior was that of a Saint.

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 11:39 AM
we also just have her word of what happend... and her word of what was given too her. Yes I find it funny that the acts were not listed in great detail, but I also find it funny that we only have her side of the story.
Uh, no. We have both the emailed complaint AND the revocation letter.

You MIGHT want to read the thread on the PAFOA website...

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 11:49 AM
I'm not arguing against any of that. I'm just reminding everyone that she wasn't innocent little Clarabelle sitting quietly and politely on the bleachers. She helped earn herself the request to stay away, if nothing else.
That's like saying, "Well, if Mr. Cohn hadn't worn that kippa, nobody would have known he was Jewish in the first place!"

Sorry, my rights aren't contingent upon the extra-legal whims of ignorant bigots. You don't have to like people wearing yarmulkas OR guns openly. Conversely, they don't have to care one iota about your personal likes and dislikes. When you act tortiously in such a way as to interfere with someone's lawful activities, there are potential legal consequences. I hope the revokee avails herself of them.

So far, nobody's been able to elucidate any legally sufficient reason to revoke her LTCF. I'm not expecting anyone to either. The Sheriff's best bet is to fall on his sword, admit he was bullied into a bad decision and testify against the people who strong armed him in any civil suits pursued by the victim. I'd bet that she wouldn't go after him farther than that.

Norinco982lover
September 23, 2008, 12:05 PM
so what happened?

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 12:25 PM
so what happened?
Reader's Digest Condensed version:

1. Woman OCs to kids' sporting events.
2. Anti-gunners petulantly complain.
3. Woman rebuffs petulant complaints.
4. Anti-gunners strong arm elderly (80 years old) Sheriff into revoking her LTCF.
5. Sheriff revokes LTCF for blatantly spurious (another has recently been revoked and reinstated for the same reason) reason (OC).
6. The Obama hits the fan, resulting in a letter, phone, email and letter campaign directed at the Sheriff, County Commissioners, District Attorney and media.
7. Legal action MUST now be taken because that's the ONLY way to reinstatement after a wrongful revocation.
8. SOMEBODY'S likely going to be hit up for legal fees and probably more in a civil suit.
9. Other civil litigation is probably in the cards.
10. Those who hate people who OC don't do their homework and make up a bunch of spurious allegations against the victim.

Clearer now? :D

jahwarrior
September 23, 2008, 12:40 PM
Reader's Digest Condensed version:

1. Woman OCs to kids' sporting events.
2. Anti-gunners petulantly complain.
3. Woman rebuffs petulant complaints.
4. Anti-gunners strong arm elderly (80 years old) Sheriff into revoking her LTCF.
5. Sheriff revokes LTCF for blatantly spurious (another has recently been revoked and reinstated for the same reason) reason (OC).
6. The Obama hits the fan, resulting in a letter, phone, email and letter campaign directed at the Sheriff, County Commissioners, District Attorney and media.
7. Legal action MUST now be taken because that's the ONLY way to reinstatement after a wrongful revocation.
8. SOMEBODY'S likely going to be hit up for legal fees and probably more in a civil suit.
9. Other civil litigation is probably in the cards.
10. Those who hate people who OC don't do their homework and make up a bunch of spurious allegations against the victim.

that's about the best "short" version i could've thought up; thanks for saving me the work. i hope people pay attention to #10 especially, and keep this thread from becoming another "OC is stupid" thread.

RobNDenver
September 23, 2008, 01:02 PM
I am fully aware that what Ms. Hain may be doing in a public setting is legal. However in PA the soccer club may have the right to bar armed spectators from premises it controls if it passes a bylaw to that effect. Whether they did or not is a matter of law. Nonetheless, even if it is legal to carry openly at a children's soccer match, Ms. Hain just looks/acts like a head case. She has a concealed handgun license and chooses to walk around with a pistol on her hip?

Some people just like to cause trouble, and stir things up. She may very well have that right, but she seems to be pretty damned uncivil in today's world. These open carry advocates are going to get the same kind of response as the rabid anti abortionists carrying pictures of fetuses and demonstrating in front of homes belonging to suppliers of Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics.

Oh, they have the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.

JDoe
September 23, 2008, 01:04 PM
I'm just reminding everyone that she wasn't innocent little Clarabelle sitting quietly and politely on the bleachers. She helped earn herself the request to stay away, if nothing else.

What specifically was she doing to earn herself a request to stay away?

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 01:07 PM
Oh, they have the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.
In an ADULT society, it's immature and pathetic to go out of your way to BE upset and annoyed.

Again, should Jews NOT wear kippas because anti-Semites don't like it?

Bullies are ALWAYS "upset and annoyed" when people refuse to BE bullied.

And had you done your homework, you'd know that they don't want her to carry AT ALL.

jahwarrior
September 23, 2008, 01:12 PM
I am fully aware that what Ms. Hain may be doing in a public setting is legal. However in PA the soccer club may have the right to bar armed spectators from premises it controls if it passes a bylaw to that effect. Whether they did or not is a matter of law. Nonetheless, even if it is legal to carry openly at a children's soccer match, Ms. Hain just looks/acts like a head case. She has a concealed handgun license and chooses to walk around with a pistol on her hip?

private organizations do NOT have the right to bar people from carrying on public property. local governments can't even do it, though they try. and, she has carried openly at many other games, without incident. this is a case of a few people making a big deal about nothing. and keep in mind, some people in PA only get their LTCF so that they can drive while armed.

auschip
September 23, 2008, 01:17 PM
The funny thing, is that since they pulled her concealed carry permit, she is required to OC. Talk about unintended consequences.

VARifleman
September 23, 2008, 01:32 PM
Aran and CD need to read Deanimator's post on the 10 steps this incident incurred. That sums it up, and if I want to open carry and someone tells me I shouldn't do that, I tell them it's my rights and if they don't like it they can walk away and ignore it.

Kentak
September 23, 2008, 01:39 PM
So, we have no detailed account of what transpired on the day in question from an objective source?

The implication is that the *only* thing that precipitated the complaints was the act of open carrying. Do we know that for a fact?

Does anyone care?

K

General Geoff
September 23, 2008, 01:44 PM
Yes, we know that for a fact. It has even been stated in the Sheriff's letter to her. THE ONLY thing she was doing was open carrying. She was not threatening, harassing, brandishing, or otherwise doing anything remotely illegal.

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 01:54 PM
So, we have no detailed account of what transpired on the day in question from an objective source?

The implication is that the *only* thing that precipitated the complaints was the act of open carrying. Do we know that for a fact?

Does anyone care?
We have the complaint email to the Sheriff.
We have the Sheriff's letter of revocation.

Have you read EITHER of them?

If so, can you QUOTE for me any cause for revocation in EITHER other than open carry and the alleged "upset" attendent therefrom? If there were other more compelling reasons, do you suppose that the complainant OR the Sheriff would neglect to mention them? Why?

In Pennsylvania, is that a valid reason for revocation of a LTCF?

Do you care?

K3
September 23, 2008, 02:04 PM
I wouldn't be an open carry "starter" person myself. I don't condemn the person for wanting to open carry, but think that concealed would be infinitely smarter. Unless alot of mindset changes on the subject, open carry will not be good for gun owners in this day and age, IMHO. We aren't going to convert the whole world to our view. Hopefully we can convert some and keep the rest of them off our butt, and live in peace most of the time.

Minds have to be changed somehow. It would seem that a greater number of people exercising OC rights (in states that recognize them - damn you Texas)would be good for desensitizing folks as whole.

Titan6
September 23, 2008, 02:16 PM
Holy Smokes!

I am fully aware that what Ms. Hain may be doing in a public setting is legal. However in PA the soccer club may have the right to bar armed spectators from premises it controls if it passes a bylaw to that effect. Whether they did or not is a matter of law. Nonetheless, even if it is legal to carry openly at a children's soccer match, Ms. Hain just looks/acts like a head case. She has a concealed handgun license and chooses to walk around with a pistol on her hip?

Some people just like to cause trouble, and stir things up. She may very well have that right, but she seems to be pretty damned uncivil in today's world. These open carry advocates are going to get the same kind of response as the rabid anti abortionists carrying pictures of fetuses and demonstrating in front of homes belonging to suppliers of Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics.

Oh, they have the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.

Kind of like you just did to me by comparing guns to aborted fetuses and simply making stuff when you don't know the facts. Sure you have the right to do it (except maybe that last part, I hear that could be slander) but it sure is annoying in polite society.

NG VI
September 23, 2008, 02:49 PM
What didn't make it to the final thread was how she confronted at least one or two parents over the issue before she got the letter from the league.

Your post is very murky. She confronted two other parents, or two other parents confronted her? Why would she confront people over her own attire? It makes more sense that they would confront her, and if so, why is that a good reason to pull her carry license?

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 02:51 PM
Your post is very murky. She confronted two other parents, or two other parents confronted her? Why would she confront people over her own attire? It makes more sense that they would confront her, and if so, why is that a good reason to pull her carry license?
Because she refused to be bullied? Hmmm, maybe he wouldn't have meant to say that...

NG VI
September 23, 2008, 02:56 PM
However in PA the soccer club may have the right to bar armed spectators from premises it controls if it passes a bylaw to that effect.


Flywheels. How can a soccer club possibly "control" anything? They have no way of securing public property in any meaningful way other than to ask people the ignorant busybodies who threw a fit don't like to leave, and since there is absolutely no legal ground for a group of people using public property for a public event to take control of someone elses' totally legal behavior, they are out of luck.

NG VI
September 23, 2008, 02:59 PM
Because she refused to be bullied? Hmmm, maybe he wouldn't have meant to say that...

That's what it looks like the idea is, I don't know why there are so many even on this board saying that open carry might very well be legal but they just know that something is up, and they don't like it. Or that she must be a head case because she had the audacity to do something legal and practice her civil right to open carry.

damien
September 23, 2008, 03:46 PM
The irony here is now that her CC is revoked, for the time being, for OC, she is going to have to OC 100% of the time, which everyone acknowledges is her right.

Hilarity will ensue.

Armueller2001
September 23, 2008, 04:49 PM
Ms. Hain just looks/acts like a head case.

Maybe she chose to OC because it's more comfortable, and she wanted people to see that a normal, soccer mom can carry a gun and somehow resist shooting everyone in sight. It's all part of desensitizing the public.

Neocode
September 23, 2008, 04:49 PM
I am fully aware that what Ms. Hain may be doing in a public setting is legal. However in PA the soccer club may have the right to bar armed spectators from premises it controls if it passes a bylaw to that effect. Whether they did or not is a matter of law. Nonetheless, even if it is legal to carry openly at a children's soccer match, Ms. Hain just looks/acts like a head case. She has a concealed handgun license and chooses to walk around with a pistol on her hip?

Some people just like to cause trouble, and stir things up. She may very well have that right, but she seems to be pretty damned uncivil in today's world. These open carry advocates are going to get the same kind of response as the rabid anti abortionists carrying pictures of fetuses and demonstrating in front of homes belonging to suppliers of Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics.

Oh, they have the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.

I cannot even believe this post. She looks like a head case because she is exercising her right to open carry?

Would she look like a head case should she exercise her right to religion and bring a bible?

Do you even know her to make such a slanderous claim? Accusing her of simply causing trouble... how would you know her intentions when "walking around with a pistol on her hip".

"Dang uppity women... she shoulda been in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.... "

So please, pray tell, what else do you consider wrong in society, that might upset people, and should be disallowed?

I think Free Speech does a lot to upset people... lets do away with that as well... shall we?

NG VI
September 23, 2008, 04:51 PM
She also may have been open carrying because women's clothing doesn't look all that conducive to IWB.

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 05:19 PM
"We have the complaint email to the Sheriff."


i can't find that email can you help me out?

RioShooter
September 23, 2008, 05:47 PM
RobnDenver wrote:

Ms. Hain just looks/acts like a head case. She has a concealed handgun license and chooses to walk around with a pistol on her hip?

This is one of the most outrageous statements I've ever read on THR. That would mean every individual in this country who OC's has a mental problem. There have been endless debates about OC vs CC, but I can't recall anyone calling an OC advocate crazy.

That is until RobnDenver voiced his opinion. :eek:

Keaner
September 23, 2008, 05:48 PM
I am fully aware that what Ms. Hain may be doing in a public setting is legal. However in PA the soccer club may have the right to bar armed spectators from premises it controls if it passes a bylaw to that effect. Whether they did or not is a matter of law. Nonetheless, even if it is legal to carry openly at a children's soccer match, Ms. Hain just looks/acts like a head case. She has a concealed handgun license and chooses to walk around with a pistol on her hip?

Some people just like to cause trouble, and stir things up. She may very well have that right, but she seems to be pretty damned uncivil in today's world. These open carry advocates are going to get the same kind of response as the rabid anti abortionists carrying pictures of fetuses and demonstrating in front of homes belonging to suppliers of Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics.

Oh, they have the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.

There are MANY reasons to open carry. I do it EVERY time I carry.

1- It is a political statement, just like a bumper sticker that you put on the back of your car.

2- NOTHING will change with respect to firearms unless people are desensitized/get used to seeing firearms everywhere.

3- Exercising your rights is in NO way stirring up trouble. Anyone who would get angry at another person merely because they chose to use their rights, isn't a true American. Would you call someone invoking their right to an attorney "causing trouble" for not giving the cops what they want? How about someone standing on the sidewalk preaching?
Its the old saying, "I may not support what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". In this case, I feel the same way.

4- An Unexercised Right is not a right.


Now, for physical reasons, in which I am most likely similar to the woman listed:
5- I weigh ~120lb, concealing a firearm is difficult for me.
6- I wear pants that fit, thus a firearm will not fit inside my pants.
7- Firearms IWB are much less comfortable than a good OWB holster.

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 05:49 PM
"We have the complaint email to the Sheriff."


i can't find that email can you help me out?
I believe it was on the pafoa website in the (I think) "Carry - Concealed and Open" forum, or something close enough, along with the revocation letter from the Sheriff. It's in the "LTCF revoked" thread.

http://www.pafoa.org

zxcvbob
September 23, 2008, 05:51 PM
Would you call someone invoking their right to an attorney "causing trouble" for not giving the cops what they want?

Sadly, many people would have to say "yes" if they were honest about that one.

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 06:22 PM
they may have removed the email i can't find it

Keaner
September 23, 2008, 06:25 PM
In this case, or in many other states, of the 'cops that arrive at the scene' have an opinion that is in violation of the law, then the police, officers, and city all get sued.

You can have your opinion all you want, but you would be remiss to attempt to chastise someone from exercising their RIGHTS in public. You have no right to not be offended.

JesseL
September 23, 2008, 06:28 PM
Jeeze Rob, we love you too.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m5/J_M_Lambert/Guns/OCatcarshow.jpg

For what it's worth I've walked around like this^ in urban and suburban areas a whole lot, without any particularly bad reactions (but a few good ones), no more police interaction than a smile and nod, and lots of friendly howdies.

Even a few foreign tourists asking directions were friendly and polite.

Now why should you be getting so vitriolic? Relax. Most people who open carry are polite, friendly, easy going folks. There's just no reason to get all bent out of shape over the sight of someone who doesn't feel like covering up their sidearm.

K3
September 23, 2008, 06:30 PM
This attitude seems la lot like an attempt to appease the antis and gunbanners in an effort to keep them from coming after what YOU consider is acceptable. Throwing others under the bus if you will. This attitude is not helpful for regaining lost RKBA rights. It's a lot like the attitude of many hunters toward certain types of firearms.

Divided house and all that.

Aran
September 23, 2008, 06:37 PM
Aran and CD need to read Deanimator's post on the 10 steps this incident incurred. That sums it up, and if I want to open carry and someone tells me I shouldn't do that, I tell them it's my rights and if they don't like it they can walk away and ignore it.

Deanimator and VARifleman need to realize that Aran has more information than what was put in that little ten step list (And remember that 10 doesn't apply, as I OC every day.) and more info than almost anyone here who didn't catch that thread before it was removed.

But hey, stick to the one view of the story, doesn't hurt me at all.

zxcvbob
September 23, 2008, 06:39 PM
Divided house and all that.

I would have ended with something more like "Nevel Chamberland, and all that"

K3
September 23, 2008, 06:41 PM
I would have ended with something more like "Nevel Chamberland, and all that"

Good point.

Neville or Zumbo, it sure doesn't help get RKBA closer to the goal.

JDoe
September 23, 2008, 06:41 PM
Here it is http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/16426.html

Smithiac
September 23, 2008, 06:44 PM
If she getts a lawer she has nothing to worry about.

Tha clause says that she had to act ina manner that she may harm someone of somthing like that. Just someone complaining will not be good enough with out proof of misconduct in court.

Hook686
September 23, 2008, 07:33 PM
I guess the basic idea of any authority regulating the RKBA is tough to stomach. Unfortunately, I personally do not believe it takes a rocket scientist to comprend what will result from open carry at a soccer game.

Personally, as here in California, a permit to carry depends very much on the discretion of the local Sheriff. I doubt I can set the standard for the term 'discretion of the sheriff', unless I am the sheriff.


Good luck, but it seems to me a waste of money.

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 07:57 PM
You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion on open carry, but so am I, and so are the cops when they find someone open carrying in a setting that creates a problem for others.
The cops are entitled to any opinion they want. When that opinion conflicts with established law and precedent, they act on it to their peril, kind of like having the opinion that gravity doesn't count and that they can dive off of the observation deck of the Sears Tower and not get hurt.

If you as a law enforcement officer willfully violate my rights contrary to state and or federal law, I will HURT you. I will take everything you own. I'll snatch the food right out of your childrens mouths. While you're eating ramen in your mother's basement, you can use her internet connection to visit my blog and see how I'm talking about you like a dog TODAY. And there's NOTHING you can do about it. Bad choices, bad consequences.

You can take your open carry and shove it in an urban or suburban setting, in my humble opinion.
Your opinion isn't "humble". It's foolish, even reckless. If you're a cop and try to put it into practice, it's devastatingly self-destructive.

I'm willing to spend the night in jail... if you're willing to spend the rest of your life in poverty. Deal?

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 08:03 PM
Personally, as here in California, a permit to carry depends very much on the discretion of the local Sheriff. I doubt I can set the standard for the term 'discretion of the sheriff', unless I am the sheriff.
There's NO discretion in the case at hand. In neither Pennsylvania nor Ohio for that matter is open carry a legal grounds to revoke a LTCF or CHL. Revoke one on such a wrongful basis and the city will be writing me a BIG check. YOU as sheriff will have the ironic task of confiscating your OWN property for the sheriff's sale to pay the judgement against you. And trust me, I'll attach EVERY piece of property the law allows.

PennsyPlinker
September 23, 2008, 08:22 PM
I wouldn't be an open carry "starter" person myself. I don't condemn the person for wanting to open carry, but think that concealed would be infinitely smarter. Unless alot of mindset changes on the subject, open carry will not be good for gun owners in this day and age, IMHO. We aren't going to convert the whole world to our view. Hopefully we can convert some and keep the rest of them off our butt, and live in peace most of the time.

OC is a choice to be made by anyone in a place where they can OC or CC. But the fact of the matter is, no one is going to change any minds unless they are OCing. That is, unless they have time to go about engaging every individual they meet in an academic discussion.

As far as those worthy souls asserting that there is more to the story, whether or not that is really true has no bearing on the matter. What bears on the matter is what the sheriff noted in his letter. People being "upset" is not a cause for revocation in Pennsylvania. He is out of line for revoking her license for his stated reason.

FieroCDSP
September 23, 2008, 08:25 PM
Lets try to keep things civil here, so we don't lose another interesting thread.

A point was made that she may have been confronted by concerned parents regarding her choice to OC, and that she may have responded harshly back.

Unless we see specific evidence that she responded in a manner that qualified for her license revokation, we should presume she is the innocent party here. If said evidence was pulled from a thread to protect her case, then that is understandable. Most people, when confronted with an argument such as OC, will stand their ground. Unless she was removed from the game at that time by officials, she was not in a legal position to lose her license on the grounds specified in the letter.

What we have here, folks, is heresay on the parts of the complainers. Overzealousness on the part of the former-judge, in his actions to rat her out. And a response from the sheriff based on that heresay, rather than actual evidence. The town is in trouble, thanks to whiney soccer-moms who don't know the law.

PennsyPlinker
September 23, 2008, 08:27 PM
I am fully aware that what Ms. Hain may be doing in a public setting is legal. However in PA the soccer club may have the right to bar armed spectators from premises it controls if it passes a bylaw to that effect.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. The sheriff revoked her LTCF, specifically stating that she upset some individuals! This is not the same thing as telling someone they can't come on your property. :banghead:

everallm
September 23, 2008, 08:43 PM
Spanish Inquisition: 1487-1700

neeed more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition....:evil:

Sorry, couldn't resist the gratuitous Monty Python comment.:D

It could have been worse, she could have been touting the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch...:what:

If we can keep the signal to noise ratio high,

WE, NONE OF US, KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AT THE SOCCER GAME.

Once the background becomes apparent then we can all pontificate to our hearts content as to the rights, reasons, background, morals, legality, whether she should have carried a .45 not a girly 9mm etc etc.

Are there any THR members who live in the neighborhood and can find out some facts ???

DKSuddeth
September 23, 2008, 08:49 PM
robndenver, you should know a bit about PA laws on firearms before you go making ridiculous suppositions on the mental outlook of a female open carrying.

first, PA does not have concealed handgun licenses. They have a LTCF, or a license to carry a firearm.

Second, PA has a few State Supreme Court cases that specifically state that open carry is a constitutionally protected right and that the only place that requires that license while open carrying is philly.

third, PA has total state pre-emption meaning that no county or municipality can make an ordnance that regulates the wearing or bearing of firearms, so some soccer foundation is powerless when it comes to banning weapons at their events.

fourth, there has already been one court hearing where a sheriff decided to revoke an LTCF because an individual open carried a handgun to a polling booth. whether YOU think it's a good idea or not is irrelevant. It's completely legal according to all interpretations of the laws. The courts agreed with the citizen and ordered the return of his LTCF. This other sheriff should have known of this issue and realized he'd lose.

fifth, this constant BS about 'yes it's your right, but you shouldn't do it because it upsets people' is crap. Those who spout it should seriously reconsider just how strongly they believe in RKBA or if their convictions are just to make them feel 'elite' because they have government permission while others don't.

taprackbang
September 23, 2008, 08:53 PM
Woman Harassed for Open Carry

Shame on those worthless gun-phobes!

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 08:55 PM
"so some soccer foundation is powerless when it comes to banning weapons at their events."

are they really? they have no control over private property?

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 09:02 PM
wheres this field? who owns it? and in pa if an organization leases the facility do they gain the customary tenants rights? as in the right to set conditions for playing/watching there

PennsyPlinker
September 23, 2008, 09:06 PM
wheres this field? who owns it? and in pa if an organization leases the facility do they gain the customary tenants rights? as in the right to set conditions for playing/watching there

IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER!!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

The sheriff's letter stated her license was being revoked for "upsetting people!" It was not revoked for breaking any law, it was not revoked for disobeying a statute, it was revoked for UPSETTING PEOPLE!!!!!

What part of that is so hard to understand???????????????????????

GO READ THE LETTER! PLEASE!:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

Deanimator
September 23, 2008, 09:12 PM
are they really? they have no control over private property?
It's public, not private property. PA has state preemption, like OH.

Justin
September 23, 2008, 09:22 PM
I've just spent time editing out off-topic comments. Please keep this thread focused on the topic at hand.

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 09:32 PM
i tried to find out who owned the field and under what type of agreement the soccer folks use it. i am still looking. i would dearly love to see what they sanitized in the other forum. i can't get the links to the email to open right now.
whats pa law like vis a vis "curse and abuse"? and particularly how might oc affect those laws if someone got a lil hot and said something a lil off color. used to coach and ump and as was noted earlier the moms can be the worst. a line like "don't make me hurt you" while oc might be a bad hair day. or it could be a retired judge winging his law figuring no one will question it

jahwarrior
September 23, 2008, 09:41 PM
i tried to find out who owned the field and under what type of agreement the soccer folks use it. i am still looking. i would dearly love to see what they sanitized in the other forum. i can't get the links to the email to open right now.
whats pa law like vis a vis "curse and abuse"? and particularly how might oc affect those laws if someone got a lil hot and said something a lil off color. used to coach and ump and as was noted earlier the moms can be the worst. a line like "don't make me hurt you" while oc might be a bad hair day. or it could be a retired judge winging his law figuring no one will question it

the park in question is a city park. carrying a gun, openly or concealed, is legal in ALL parks in PA, except for state parks and national parks. city parks, county parks, parking lots, park & rides, it doesn't matter. the woman in question has OC'd at other soccer games without incident. the fact is, she was harassed, even threatened, by 2 individuals at the event in question. when she refused to comply, they used political connections to have her LTCF revoked. i find it hard to believe the links don't work for you alone. and most of the story has been spelled out in this thread already.

cassandrasdaddy
September 23, 2008, 09:46 PM
i keep getting page load error from their server. maybe its real busy

TexasRifleman
September 23, 2008, 09:49 PM
Works fine for me. It's pretty shocking to say the least.

This letter is an example of what happens when soccer moms get power drunk.......

dalepres
September 24, 2008, 12:07 AM
That's what it looks like the idea is, I don't know why there are so many even on this board saying that open carry might very well be legal but they just know that something is up, and they don't like it. Or that she must be a head case because she had the audacity to do something legal and practice her civil right to open carry.

I think there are a lot of members here, even long-term members, who always take the point of view that the gun owner is wrong and asked for whatever was done to him or her. I think there are a lot of folks here that believe that they should own guns but that most of the rest of us should not. You have to wonder how many of them also have memberships at the Brady's site.

It seems clear to me that the email and the letter prove they didn't have anything else on this woman. If she had been particularly obnoxious or threatening at the soccer game, then the sheriff would have listed that behavior in his letter. To omit it in the letter would probably prevent any claim of such behavior from being introduced later.

dalepres
September 24, 2008, 12:12 AM
i tried to find out who owned the field and under what type of agreement the soccer folks use it.

Interesting question but in the end it seems irrelevant. Had the soccer league had authority to ban her from the facility they would have done so on the first incident. There was no claim of trespass therefore it seems like trespass was not an issue in the revocation.

wyocarp
September 24, 2008, 12:25 AM
I did get a laugh out of this thread when I read:

The Obama hits the fan

I hope she continues to open carry.

VARifleman
September 24, 2008, 12:39 AM
Deanimator and VARifleman need to realize that Aran has more information than what was put in that little ten step list (And remember that 10 doesn't apply, as I OC every day.) and more info than almost anyone here who didn't catch that thread before it was removed.

But hey, stick to the one view of the story, doesn't hurt me at all.
You asserted that the reason she was barred was because she got up in people's faces about it. That's completely bogus. OCers don't go up to people and say..."Hey...I'm armed, I know you don't like it but you can...XXXXX..." No. That's absurd. If someone started yelling at her for being within her rights, it's her duty as an American to tell them that she's within her rights and she won't be bullied. You're trying to say that she started it, which is completely untrue...unless you're trying to say she started it by daring to OC in public...:fire:

Aran
September 24, 2008, 02:58 AM
Yes, all people who open carry should be shot on sight.

You got me there.

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 08:18 AM
You got me there.
No, where we've "got" you is your apparent complete inability to explain why:

1. Neither the email nor the revocation letter cites ANY activity beyond her open carrying, much less any criminal or threatening behavior.

2. Why if she did anything BESIDES open carry were police not called, and she not arrested for whatever she did. Apparently you'd have us believe that they'd send an email to get her license revoked for "threatening" them, but NOT call the police to deal with the imminent THREAT. If she was such a THREAT, why did they neither have her arrested nor evacuate their children?

This whole "I have in my hand a list of communists" thing is REALLY getting old. Obama or get off the pot.

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 08:35 AM
That's completely bogus. OCers don't go up to people and say..."Hey...I'm armed, I know you don't like it but you can...XXXXX..." No. That's absurd.


and you were there and know this?how?



"You're trying to say that she started it, which is completely untrue.."

see above and remember that aran saw the presanitzed versions on the forum and is not the most likely to be against oc .

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 08:39 AM
double post

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 09:10 AM
see above and remember that aran saw the presanitzed versions on the forum and is not the most likely to be against oc .
If he's going to make a claim, he needs to show evidence to support it. Clearly nobody [outside of a court of law] can make him do it. We just don't have to believe him if he doesn't. Of course ALL of the available documentary evidence contradicts him...

PennsyPlinker
September 24, 2008, 09:41 AM
That's completely bogus. OCers don't go up to people and say..."Hey...I'm armed, I know you don't like it but you can...XXXXX..." No. That's absurd.


and you were there and know this?how?



"You're trying to say that she started it, which is completely untrue.."

see above and remember that aran saw the presanitzed versions on the forum and is not the most likely to be against oc .

Cassandrasdaddy

It does not matter if she was as naked as a jaybird, dancing around with twin Glocks, shooting the soccer balls out from under the feet of the players! It doesn't matter who says what about what might have happened. It doesn't matter what VERSION of ANYTHING anyone reads on the internet.

What matters is the stated reason BY THE SHERIFF of why he is revoking her license. But you seem to be determined to ignore that FACT completely and engage in idle speculation, pompous theorizing, and all sorts of other bandwidth wasting activity. Can you or can you not stick to the facts at hand? I think it is not. :banghead:

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 09:51 AM
What matters is the stated reason BY THE SHERIFF of why he is revoking her license.
I think there's a certain amount of, "The police (or Sheriff) CAN'T be wrong... EVER!" in play here, at least with regard to some of the positions taken by some people.

As I said, if the woman was doing something unlawful or dangerous BESIDES open carrying (which is NEITHER), why did NEITHER the people who complained NOR the Sheriff cite them.

Occam's Razor...

jahwarrior
September 24, 2008, 11:31 AM
and you were there and know this?how?



"You're trying to say that she started it, which is completely untrue.."

see above and remember that aran saw the presanitzed versions on the forum and is not the most likely to be against oc .

i also saw the "pre sanitized" version, and her original statements change nothing. she was harassed by two busybodies who made subtle threats against her person, and used their political connections to get her LTCF revoked. you should also take into account that Aran has a personal bias against some members of PAFOA, and that may be clouding his judgement in this matter. this is not a personal attack on him, as i'm sure he's aware.

somehow, i don't think any part of what i said will matter to you, as you seem determined on trolling this thread.

VARifleman
September 24, 2008, 12:32 PM
That's completely bogus. OCers don't go up to people and say..."Hey...I'm armed, I know you don't like it but you can...XXXXX..." No. That's absurd.


and you were there and know this?how?



"You're trying to say that she started it, which is completely untrue.."

see above and remember that aran saw the presanitzed versions on the forum and is not the most likely to be against oc .
So you think it's a reasonable belief that she walked up to someone and started an argument because she herself was open carrying, not only that, but that was omitted from the reason her LTCF was revoked? That's down right crazy. The simple reasonable answer is what Jahwarrior, Deanimator, and myself have been posting, and that is some people walked up to her and started an argument, she told them it's her right, and then used political power to screw her.

JDoe
September 24, 2008, 01:16 PM
Pistol-packin’ soccer mama brings on heat (http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_10545914)

MJRW
September 24, 2008, 01:31 PM
I'm generally one of the few voices here that says it is ok for people to be upset by guns, it is ok for them to ask us not to carry them, it is ok for them to not want it. I draw a very hard line between all that and the point where these people try to legislate their opinion. At this point, Nigel Foundling (I believe that is the former judge that started this) exceeded the point even I think is ok. He was ok to ask. He was ok to send an e-mail. He was ok to inquire if it was legal. He was not ok to compel the sheriff to revoke her license. The sheriff was not ok to try to enforce Nigel's opinion.

VARifleman
September 24, 2008, 01:35 PM
Fire up the grill and eat some crow...Aran and CD...from the link JDoe posted...

Jones, who is also the county’s public defender, said he wasn’t certain if Hain was breaking the law by wearing the gun, so he did not ask her to remove it. However, he explained to her that its presence was making parents upset and asked her to view the game from the other side of the field, away from the sideline were the kids were standing. She complied but continued to wear her holstered weapon, he said.

There was no confrontation, and police were not called to the park, Jones said.

Hain’s version of events is roughly the same as Jones’. However, she claims he raised his voice and talked over her when they spoke after the game. He denies that.

So..you have a public defender and a former judge push the sheriff to revoke her permit unlawfully because they didn't like that she was carrying, it was not because of any confrontation.

Aran
September 24, 2008, 01:47 PM
It's funny, I said nothing about her revocation, yet you're all over me about it.

Aran
September 24, 2008, 01:48 PM
Blast, a double post. I try not to do that. >:|

MinnMooney
September 24, 2008, 02:05 PM
WOW!!
I see the other forum is at 400 posts and we are over 100 already.

Outside (exposed) carry really gets peoples hair in a bun!
Actually, it's all about our rights and how one person seems to think they have the power to strip our rights.

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 02:14 PM
It's funny, I said nothing about her revocation, yet you're all over me about it.
And STILL no claim by the people who complained OR the Sheriff that she did ANYTHING except open carry.

I'm starting to think that in fact, there ISN'T anything else...

And I've changed my mind. She needs to HAMMER the Sheriff. He needs to be subsisting on generic dog food.

jahwarrior
September 24, 2008, 02:25 PM
hmmmmm, wonder where my last post went......

Aran
September 24, 2008, 03:56 PM
Revoked by Sheriff DeLeo

jahwarrior
September 24, 2008, 04:00 PM
Lmao!!!

Kentak
September 24, 2008, 05:19 PM
We have the complaint email to the Sheriff.
We have the Sheriff's letter of revocation.

Have you read EITHER of them?

If so, can you QUOTE for me any cause for revocation in EITHER other than open carry and the alleged "upset" attendent therefrom? If there were other more compelling reasons, do you suppose that the complainant OR the Sheriff would neglect to mention them? Why?

In Pennsylvania, is that a valid reason for revocation of a LTCF?

Do you care?

Yes, I care. I care about knowing as much as possible about a contentious issue before jumping in on one side or the other, rather than taking a knee-jerk position. I'm not going to apologize for that, and resent any implication that my support of RKBA is suspect because I do so.

The OP's links gave very little information about what occurred at the soccer event. There very easily could have been more to the story than what little was told. The more recent link to the news article helps a great deal in clarifying what did, or did not, go on. I would agree that it appears Haine was the victim of undue political influence, and I hope she aggressively appeals the action to revoke her license.

Now, what does PA law say about a sheriffs authority to revoke a gun license and on what grounds?

K

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 05:28 PM
Now, what does PA law say about a sheriffs authority to revoke a gun license and on what grounds?
Another participant on the PAFOA forums recently had his LTCF revoked... and reinstated for open carry.

She needs to sue the Sheriff, and if there's ANY conceiveable grounds, the former judge and his buddy. Defamation sounds promising to me. They all need to be HURT financially.

HonorsDaddy
September 24, 2008, 05:31 PM
I'm guessing by your attitude, Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus.

Oh, she had the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.

Now, you tell me, exactly what is the difference between engaging in LEGAL open carry and Rosa sitting in the front of the bus?

TAB
September 24, 2008, 05:36 PM
I'm guessing by your attitude, Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus.

Oh, she had the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.

Now, you tell me, exactly what is the difference between engaging in LEGAL open carry and Rosa sitting in the front of the bus?



its not the same... you can choose to be armed, you can not choose skin color. This argument is used on THR all the time... Its BS, stop using it.

HonorsDaddy
September 24, 2008, 05:40 PM
your idea that my rights are subject to being suppressed simply because someone gets their panties in a wad.

Being armed is my right - it is in fact a protected civil right like any other.

If you are unable to absorb this reality, too bad for you.

JesseL
September 24, 2008, 05:47 PM
its not the same... you can choose to be armed, you can not choose skin color. This argument is used on THR all the time... Its BS, stop using it.

True, but we have this wonderful tidbit from earlier in the thread:
In actuality, this incident is more like a religious Jew being told not to wear a kippa because it upsets the Holocaust deniers in the group.

Does that work better for you, or are you going to start in on some line about how the right to bear arms is less important than the right to religious freedom or people's "right to not be offended"?

txgho1911
September 24, 2008, 05:50 PM
I read this latest article as though the sheriff is inviting new legislation to clarify the law. I think he is backpedaling any way he can to save face.

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 05:57 PM
its not the same... you can choose to be armed, you can not choose skin color. This argument is used on THR all the time... Its BS, stop using it.
You can choose whether or not to wear outward manifestations of a particular religion, can't you?

So then it's ok for people to be harassed (especially by law enforcement) because they wear a kippa, or a crucifix or a beard, right?

The solution to harassment of Jews by anti-Semites, whether employed by government or not, is for the Jews to pretend to be Christians, right?

Bullies never moderate their behavior because they get what they want by being bullies. Their demands only increase.

Submission as a response to bullying is like using bloody fish guts as shark repellent.

TAB
September 24, 2008, 06:25 PM
So then it's ok for people to be harassed (especially by law enforcement) because they wear a kippa, or a crucifix or a beard, right?


you can not change religious laws. A gun is just an object, a religious symbol, is not just an object.

feedthehogs
September 24, 2008, 06:42 PM
She may very well have that right, but she seems to be pretty damned uncivil in today's world

Nothing in any of the stories posted presented an uncivil picture on her part. As a matter of fact when asked to go across the field away from other parents, she complied.

If there's a secret double bubble gum ring code letter out there that proves otherwise either post it or shut up already. Freakin people are worse than my 2 year old grand kid.

Tolerance has destroyed this country and its about time people did get up and shout at the top of their lungs, YOUR TRAMPLING ON MY RIGHTS!

Nobody has a right to get upset at open carry if its allowed under law.
You don't like it, YOU go away.
You don't like it, YOU stay at home.

I for one am sick and tired of the whinning Nancy men and women that are afraid of their own shadow and expect me to cower under the bed with them.

PCFlorida
September 24, 2008, 06:47 PM
Tolerance has destroyed this country and its about time people did get up and shout at the top of their lungs, YOUR TRAMPLING ON MY RIGHTS!

Thank you, very well put.

Flintlock Tom
September 24, 2008, 06:57 PM
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence."
George Washington

JesseL
September 24, 2008, 06:58 PM
you can not change religious laws. A gun is just an object, a religious symbol, is not just an object.

Sorry, but I consider my right to carry the tool I choose to keep for defending the lives of my family and myself to be every bit as deserving of respect and acceptance as any religious symbol.

And FWIW, I think that "shall not be infringed" sounds even more substantive and broadly applicable than "Congress shall make no law".

TAB
September 24, 2008, 07:16 PM
So I should be able to go down to the hardware store, buy a nuke, and strap it to my back... So that I can protect myself and my family.

nukes = arms... same argument as "shall not be infringed"

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 07:18 PM
you can not change religious laws. A gun is just an object, a religious symbol, is not just an object.
You can change your religion.

My 2nd Amendment rights are every bit as important as my 1st Amendment rights. In fact, without 2nd Amendment rights, I ultimately have no means to protect my 1st Amendment rights. A firearm is every bit as powerful a symbol of my right to defend my own life.

Unless I'm a Sikh, I can't defend myself or my family with a religious symbol, and then not that effectively.

Which do you think the doctor in Connecticut whose entire family was slaughtered by a couple of predators wished he'd had at the time, a menorah or a .45 automatic?

JesseL
September 24, 2008, 07:19 PM
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. :banghead:

Just like you're saying that stoning a woman who was raped is A-OK when it's done for religious reasons.

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 07:20 PM
So I should be able to go down to the hardware store, buy a nuke, and strap it to my back... So that I can protect myself and my family.

nukes = arms... same argument as "shall not be infringed"
Buy a dictionary before you play that game.

A nuclear device is a MUNITION, not an arm.

Your "argument" is facile enough to characterize you as a hoplophobe, and not a very original one.

TAB
September 24, 2008, 07:22 PM
Like it or not. Some people will never be able to bring a gun on another person, not matter what is happening. Rather that be out of fear, or religious beliefs. Makes little diffrence.


On the you can change religion comment... if you really beleave in your religion, Then you can not change.

VARifleman
September 24, 2008, 07:26 PM
And those people shouldn't carry because they couldn't actually use the gun. That's not pertinent though...stay on topic, TAB.

nukes = arms... same argument as "shall not be infringed"
You need to read through case law. That is not true at all. Arms has always mean small arms through the course of this country. You're sounding a lot like a Brady now...:scrutiny:

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 07:32 PM
Like it or not. Some people will never be able to bring a gun on another person, not matter what is happening. Rather that be out of fear, or religious beliefs. Makes little diffrence.

I have no idea what that means.

On the you can change religion comment... if you really beleave in your religion, Then you can not change.
And I really believe in the 2nd Amendment and my right to defend myself and my family. I cannot change.

zxcvbob
September 24, 2008, 07:35 PM
Are y'all trying to get the thread locked? (mostly I'm talking to the OC-is-stupid folks. Mostly.)

Kentak
September 24, 2008, 07:39 PM
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence."
George Washington

When and where did Washington say that?

K

cuervo
September 24, 2008, 07:44 PM
If you believe Wikipedia:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.

Tyris
September 24, 2008, 07:45 PM
So I should be able to go down to the hardware store, buy a nuke, and strap it to my back... So that I can protect myself and my family.

nukes = arms... same argument as "shall not be infringed"

Perhaps the most stupid argument I've seen you make. Even dumber than your rants against concealed carry and the fallacy of how it infringes property rights.

Nukes are ordnance, get a clue.

TAB is THR's own personal brady rep from california.

-T

TAB
September 24, 2008, 07:53 PM
wait so the argument that 2a is not clear as some people would like it to be in its meaning is a bad one?

Car Knocker
September 24, 2008, 07:56 PM
wait so the argument that 2a is not clear as some people would like it to be in its meaning is a bad one?
Care to translate this? And punctuation would be nice.

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 08:44 PM
"So you think it's a reasonable belief that she walked up to someone and started an argument because she herself was open carrying, not only that, but that was omitted from the reason her LTCF was revoked? That's down right crazy."


nope i'm saying unless you were there your statement was a guess

Kentak
September 24, 2008, 09:32 PM
A nuclear device is a MUNITION, not an arm.

So, the 2A gives us a right to have guns, but not ammunition? Don't tell the anti-gunners.

- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.

I believe this is the text of the address: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blfirstsou.htm


K

Deanimator
September 24, 2008, 10:42 PM
So, the 2A gives us a right to have guns, but not ammunition? Don't tell the anti-gunners.
"Dog" and "doge" mean different things, even though "doge" has the letters "d", "o", and "g" in it.

VARifleman
September 24, 2008, 10:54 PM
nope i'm saying unless you were there your statement was a guess

Oh...but you certainly don't have any problem asserting that she did start everything...

WHAT?! you mean when she told her version of what happened it made her look bad enough circling the wagons and hiding even HER version was deemed wise? say it ain't so!

And your assertion that the soccer league was within their rights and acted reasonable...

wheres this field? who owns it? and in pa if an organization leases the facility do they gain the customary tenants rights? as in the right to set conditions for playing/watching there

You have been looking for any reason to go after this woman instead of standing up for everyone's rights.

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 11:09 PM
"And your assertion that the soccer league was within their rights and acted reasonable...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CD
wheres this field? who owns it? and in pa if an organization leases the facility do they gain the customary tenants rights? as in the right to set conditions for playing/watching there


assertion? is there a new definition for that? i asked 3 questions in order to see if they could legally tell her what to do


and the first new definition "assertion" was a reply to the poster who pointed out that they pulled her version of the events from the website/forum. i find it odd that someone would hide their story when they believe they were wronged or that others would need to hide it for her.
i don't know what she did she has decided not to tell us. i am not much into following ANY party line. the syncophant thing is so.... high school

jahwarrior
September 24, 2008, 11:17 PM
wheres this field?
in Lebanon County

who owns it?

the city.

and in pa if an organization leases the facility do they gain the customary tenants rights?

no. is this clear enough for you?


i find it odd that someone would hide their story when they believe they were wronged or that others would need to hide it for her.

it's not so odd. when you're getting ready for litigation, it's common practice to shut up and lawyer up. it's no great mystery.

TCB in TN
September 24, 2008, 11:32 PM
Some people on here would believe Sarah Brady's version before someone OCing. They would argue against the sheriff's own words meaning anything, and would throw every single individual who believed in OC under the bus.

you can not change religious laws. A gun is just an object, a religious symbol, is not just an object.

Sorry bud personal beliefs are personal beliefs. This is one of the least persuasive arguments I have heard in some time!


nope i'm saying unless you were there your statement was a guess

But then again that statement was actually based on the revocation letter, whereas many of the negative statements, towards the good lady are based on exactly jack! I guess that not all "guesses" are created equally!

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 11:43 PM
Quote:
and in pa if an organization leases the facility do they gain the customary tenants rights?
no. is this clear enough for you?

really if a kids league chose to bar a parent they would have no recourse? we've encountered problems when private groups arrange to use a public facility and want to restrict who can use them and how. i know i barred parents when i coached kids and that was in a commonwealth state as well

jahwarrior
September 24, 2008, 11:46 PM
she can barred from sitting with other parents at games. her kid can be kicked out of the league. they can't force her to leave. if i was walking by, and decide to sit and watch the game, there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

TAB
September 24, 2008, 11:50 PM
she can barred from sitting with other parents at games. her kid can be kicked out of the league. they can't force her to leave. if i was walking by, and decide to sit and watch the game, there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

I would bet that some where in PA law there is a provsion about people watching children "play" that are not yours. That or a loitering law that would apply.

cassandrasdaddy
September 24, 2008, 11:55 PM
when i barred a parent way back when i called the cops and they told em if they came back they got to ride in the back of the cop car. it was a long time ago and i only barred 2in 5 years had a very good effect on the others and more importantly allowed the kids to have fun. we started doing it after the second brawl in one season.

jahwarrior
September 25, 2008, 12:05 AM
I would bet that some where in PA law there is a provsion about people watching children "play" that are not yours. That or a loitering law that would apply.

you'd be betting wrong.

VARifleman
September 25, 2008, 12:05 AM
You are breaking from the actual issue at hand. The fact remains....she wasn't doing anything unlawful, she was bullied by politicos because she was openly carrying a firearm which is perfectly legal, her permit was revoked for openly carrying.

For some strange reason, you hate OC, CD, and that doesn't make the least bit of sense because 2nd amendment advocates should stand up for the right to carry firearms.

dalepres
September 25, 2008, 12:09 AM
I would bet that some where in PA law there is a provsion about people watching children "play" that are not yours. That or a loitering law that would apply.

Most youth sports leagues like audiences. I'm sure you won't find any law like that anywhere in the world.

TAB
September 25, 2008, 12:21 AM
you'd be betting wrong.

Some how I doubt it,

you said

if i was walking by, and decide to sit and watch the game, there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

I have little doubt that the Local LEA can and would legally remove you.

jahwarrior
September 25, 2008, 12:29 AM
I have little doubt that the Local LEA can and would legally remove you.

oh, i'm sure they'd remove me. but it would violate state law, and they'd be working unarmed security at their local furniture warehouse after i sued their department for abuse of office, unlawful arrest, and violation of my civil rights. before you profess to know the laws of PA, maybe you should get to know them, first.

TAB
September 25, 2008, 12:38 AM
Tell you what, you go ask a lawyer, if your right, I'll pay for the hour, if i'm right, you do.

Deanimator
September 25, 2008, 01:14 PM
Some how I doubt it,
Have you noticed that you've been wrong about virtually EVERYTHING else in this discussion? Yet you persist in baseless assertions pulled from thin air?

Anti-gunners are like that.

Keaner
September 25, 2008, 11:12 PM
you can not change religious laws. A gun is just an object, a religious symbol, is not just an object.
This guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Henry-VIII-kingofengland_1491-1547.jpg

Scoffs at your foolishness.

buttrap
September 26, 2008, 12:46 AM
I am a bit upset with some of what I am seeing here. Anti gun right support on a gun forum? Unless Penn has a odd law like several weard states that says you cant OC if you have a carry permit this is just PC ride in the back of the bus anti-gun civil rights crime.

poor_richard
September 26, 2008, 12:48 AM
I'm guessing by your attitude, Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus.

Oh, she had the right to do it, but in a decent, polite society its just wrong to go out of your way to upset and annoy people.

Now, you tell me, exactly what is the difference between engaging in LEGAL open carry and Rosa sitting in the front of the bus?


ts not the same... you can choose to be armed, you can not choose skin color. This argument is used on THR all the time... Its BS, stop using it.

The reason you believe that is because you aren’t looking past the skin color. While it’s true that one may not choose skin color, it is also true that she chose to sit at the front of the bus, and not concede that stance on the issue.

It is not a “BS” argument.

Your other arguments seem to have about as much merit.

Seenterman
September 26, 2008, 03:15 PM
The Sheriff's letter? Some people have said her behavior wasn't as good as it could have been (I wasn't there and I wonder if those posters where) but it makes no mention of that in the letter.

"On September 11, 2008 you were observed at Optimist Park in Lebanon. At that particular time ou were carrying a weapon openly in a belt holster. Unfortunately, some of the individuals at the Optimist Park were upset. Consequently, you are required to surrender your license, as indicated in the following paragraphs"

Basically you upset some people so were taking you license.WHAT?
So if Anti's want they can just speed dial the police about ANYONE OC'ing and say that their upset now take their licence? Because that's how the letter makes it seem. Doesnt say anything about her behaviour behind dangeous, abusive, antagonistic or anything negative about the carrier. It states the complaintant's emotional state. When did random people's emotional state determe your rights?

Can someone else say dangerous precedent? Disgusting I feel bad for the sheriff, I dont think we should all harp the blame on this one guy. I think that the carrier should contact a lawyer and set up a cordial meeting with the sherrif stating her side
I was OC'ing , Its 100% legal, and other peoples objections should not lead to my punishment. I will be OC'ing at all subsequent games because it is my right and that should not be determined by other peoples "feelings".

Example:
I dont feel that I should pay taxes to the government due to my objections to us giving away 700 Billion to private companies because they ****ed up.

Yea thats my feelings, but they dont make it legal for me to stop paying my taxes. Well unless I want a free stay in hotel fed. Feelings dont = legality

Seenterman
September 26, 2008, 03:31 PM
you can not change religious laws. A gun is just an object, a religious symbol, is not just an object.

So I should be able to go down to the hardware store, buy a nuke, and strap it to my back... So that I can protect myself and my family.

nukes = arms... same argument as "shall not be infringed"


Who said we can't change religious laws? We can, we just choose not to because that would infringe on other people and as an american democracy we embrace all cultures and religions thats one of the best traits of being an American. But if we wanted we could add a constitutional amendment that banned Islam in the U.S.

That nuke arguement is only something I've heard out of an anti. I think it a ludicrous example. First off a nuke is a munition not an arm. Second who the hell have you heard advocating the right to bear WMD's? Saddam? No rational person in america would try to argue that. And dont give me any B.S. that Machine guns are WMD's or else Bush could have said we did find WMD's in Iraq, because almost everyone has full auto Ak's over there.

Sorry for getting a bit political, just trying to dispel how ridiculous that nuke argument is.

iowajones
September 26, 2008, 03:56 PM
There's got to be a joke in here somewhere about the difference between soccer moms and pitbulls (lipstick, and open carry?) - I just can't put my finger on it. Any ideas?

iowajones
September 26, 2008, 05:14 PM
Please don't take this as an endorsement of soccer over hockey, but here goes:

Q: What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?
A: Lipstick.

Q: What's the difference between a soccer mom and a pitbull?
A: lipstick and a gun.

Aran
September 26, 2008, 07:44 PM
Q: What's the difference between Meleanie and a pitbull?
A. ...

..

I'll get back to you on that one.

Aguila Blanca
September 26, 2008, 09:38 PM
Can't change religious laws?

Aren't the American Catholics who want to be able to take Holy Communion even though they are divorced trying to change religious law? They haven't succeeded, yet ... but they will. It's only a matter of time.

Of course you can change religious law.

bnkrazy
September 26, 2008, 11:42 PM
My wife is on a mommy board and one of the other women on the board and her boyfriend have been showing their support for Melanie by OCing to the soccer games with her. I just thought it was an awesome way to show their support and figured I'd share the link.

http://www.cafemom.com/group/416/boards/read.php?post_id=5838747

Steve Raacke
September 27, 2008, 01:35 AM
I'm waiting for the Opencarrydotorg guys to announce a OC meetup at the soccer field. :D

Aran
September 27, 2008, 12:26 PM
It's been discussed at PAFOA, to the conclusion of "inappropriate"

erictank
September 27, 2008, 10:06 PM
TAB said:
I would bet that some where in PA law there is a provsion about people watching children "play" that are not yours. That or a loitering law that would apply.

Think so? A loitering law?

In a PUBLIC PARK?

What exactly is it that you think people DO in public parks, anyways?

Deanimator
September 28, 2008, 11:28 AM
I have little doubt that the Local LEA can and would legally remove you.
Only if I were a registered sex offender, and or if that were part of some sort of terms of parole.

Neither one of those applies to me.

How about you?

lacoochee
October 15, 2008, 01:18 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/us/soccer_mom_gun/2008/10/14/140506.html

Gun-Toting Pa. Mom Gets Back Concealed Gun Permit

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:30 PM

Article Font Size

LEBANON, Pa. -- A mother who angered fellow parents when she openly carried a pistol to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game got her concealed weapons permit back Tuesday after a Pennsylvania judge overruled a sheriff's decision to revoke it.

Meleanie Hain lost the permit after other parents complained about the presence of the gun during a soccer game on Sept. 11. Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby, who said he also is a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, said the law required him to return Hain's permit.

But he questioned her judgment, saying she "scared the devil" out of others at the soccer field.

"Fear doesn't belong at a kid's soccer game from any source," Eby said.

Hain testified at the Tuesday hearing that she did not intend to intimidate anyone but felt she had to carry the gun openly because warm-weather clothing made it difficult to hide a firearm. She said her husband's line of work, which was not disclosed, made her a "greater target" than the average person.

"I'm certainly not looking to shoot anyone over a goal," she told Eby, also adding that she had carried an unconcealed firearm without any problems in the past.

George Christianson, a lawyer for the Lebanon County Sheriff's office, said the decision would not be appealed.

Hain said she was satisfied and plans to take her gun to a youth soccer game in the future.

"People have the right to voice their opinion ... and I have a right to my Second Amendment right," she said. "A gun-free zone says to a criminal: 'Easy target.'"

dogmush
October 15, 2008, 01:58 AM
good for her

Steve Raacke
October 15, 2008, 03:46 AM
I'm glad to see she won.

Mr. D
October 15, 2008, 09:52 AM
Wow, I'm glad to see that. Thanks for the update!

~Dale

Flyboy
October 15, 2008, 01:37 PM
I'd like to know what happens to the sheriff for exceeding his authority and improperly revoking her permit.

Perhaps that will be in the second suit.

Flyboy
October 15, 2008, 01:38 PM
Addendum:

But he questioned her judgment, saying she "scared the devil" out of others at the soccer field.

"Fear doesn't belong at a kid's soccer game from any source," Eby said.
This is why we need to keep carrying openly as much as possible. If we make it commonplace, the fear will go away.

SsevenN
October 15, 2008, 03:40 PM
Hain testified at the Tuesday hearing that she did not intend to intimidate anyone but felt she had to carry the gun openly because warm-weather clothing made it difficult to hide a firearm. She said her husband's line of work, which was not disclosed, made her a "greater target" than the average person.


Good for her.

But she could have left this out.

Doccers
October 15, 2008, 03:46 PM
This woman has singlehandedly caused an entire group of people to donate to the Brady Campaign.

Way to go. Way to go indeed.


Consider that next time you want to "make a statement". Consider just what "statement" you are making.

Japle
October 15, 2008, 03:53 PM
This woman has singlehandedly caused an entire group of people to donate to the Brady Campaign.


Don't care. Those people would support anti-gun organizations anyway.

Don't care. We must not give up our rights in order to avoid making some people nervous.

ByAnyMeans
October 15, 2008, 03:56 PM
I agree, would you rather she just hide her beliefs and rights in the shadows or educate the masses. I believe this educated alot of people to the fact open carry is legal and that people like ordinary soccer mom's carry guns for protection. You take the good with the bad and realize if your cause is just then you will be okay in the end. I believe her cause is very just.

Doccers
October 15, 2008, 03:57 PM
So because they were nervous about a woman openly displaying a handgun at a child's soccer game, they're automatically written off as anti-gun people who automatically support the brady campaign?

... Interesting.

See, I would have imagined that, up to that point, they'd likely be pretty neutral on the subject. Of course, that's just me.

Then again, I tend to try and convince people by conversation and teaching, rather than the "SCARE EM INTO SUBMISSION" tactic, as I've found to be it to be vastly more effective in the past.

[edit] ahh, I see, it's a HOLY CRUSADE!

So... How'd those crusades wind up, again? I seem to recall that they were less than successful.
Typically, ram-rodding your beliefs down someone's throat and hoping they submit does tend to have that... less than successful result, compared to other methods.

If you want to keep the ability to open carry, then I'd highly reccomend we all learn that there is a time and a place for it, just as there is a time and a place for being discrete. Sadly, not all of us have learned that yet, and wind up alienating a large swath of the public, making it a hell of a lot more difficult for the rest of us to educate and persuade people who are now quite convinced that anyone with a gun is as much of a loon as this woman seemed to her associates and local law enforcement.

rojocorsa
October 15, 2008, 04:21 PM
OK, I wan't there.......soccer phah, would never have happened at a rugby game, lots more blood, far less whining.......

YES.

cassandrasdaddy
October 15, 2008, 04:25 PM
I agree, would you rather she just hide her beliefs and rights in the shadows or educate the masses. I believe this educated alot of people to the fact open carry is legal and that people like ordinary soccer mom's carry guns for protection. You take the good with the bad and realize if your cause is just then you will be okay in the end. I believe her cause is very just.




so in the name of "le cause " her going off is somehow a plus?

Aran
October 15, 2008, 04:26 PM
Damn her rights, people were BOTHERED! Execute her at ONCE!

Doccers
October 15, 2008, 04:31 PM
Why yes Aran that's exactly what we are sayi- no, no, wait, that's not what we're saying at all, actually.
I have no desire to control what you write, None WHATSOEVER,
but may I make a request in that you do not resort to simple strawman arguments? It really doesn't make for very educational reading material, nor does it address the issue at hand.

K3
October 15, 2008, 04:39 PM
If you want to keep the ability to open carry, then I'd highly reccomend we all learn that there is a time and a place for it, just as there is a time and a place for being discrete. Sadly, not all of us have learned that yet, and wind up alienating a large swath of the public, making it a hell of a lot more difficult for the rest of us to educate and persuade people who are now quite convinced that anyone with a gun is as much of a loon as this woman seemed to her associates and local law enforcement.

Nice. Who gets to decide when it's appropriate?

jahwarrior
October 15, 2008, 04:53 PM
doccer said: This woman has singlehandedly caused an entire group of people to donate to the Brady Campaign.


doccer then said: may I make a request in that you do not resort to simple strawman arguments? It really doesn't make for very educational reading material, nor does it address the issue at hand.


ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

if you don't like open carry, that's fine.
if you think open carry is a right, but think hat it should be balanced with good judgement, fine.

i won't argue either point. not because i like avoiding arguments, but because the argument's old and tired, like your theories. this is a fact: the law was broken, and a woman's rights were violated. a judge agreed, and it's now a matter of public record that her rights were violated. a judgements been made; you can stop, now.

CliffH
October 15, 2008, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Doccers:

This woman has singlehandedly caused an entire group of people to donate to the Brady Campaign.

Also originally posted by Doccers:

So because they were nervous about a woman openly displaying a handgun at a child's soccer game, they're automatically written off as anti-gun people who automatically support the brady campaign?

Seems as if you automatically assumed they would be supporting the Brady group.

so in the name of "le cause " her going off is somehow a plus?

In what manner did she "go off"?

Seems to me from all accounts she was minding her own business, doing nothing illegal, then was harassed & had her license revoked. Then she had to go through the expense & trouble of hiring a lawyer and fighting the revokation.

Just because someone else gets scared (for no good reason), I shouldn't do something that's entirely legal???

I've had others around me be scared while I was riding dirt bikes & racing cars - and they were scared of the activities and what might happen, not because their persons were in any danger or anything dangerous was actually happening.

(I hate bringing in allegories like that but it seemed somewhat appropriate.)

Do ya'll not think that if more folks are exposed to handguns, they might not become a bit more accepting? Especially when the laws in their state make open carrying legal?? I guess not, judging from some of the statements posted.

ArfinGreebly
October 15, 2008, 05:34 PM
I'm feeling a little lazy just now.

Perhaps someone would like to do a search for posts I've made in the past containing the word "unremarkable."

Oh, and Doccers, dude, kinda close to the "trolling" line there, guy.

Bunch of clueless, government-will-save-us, tools-are-bad-and-scary folks whined and convinced an officer of the law to break the law in favor of their world view.

Sheriff screwed up. Judge fixed it.

Our society is full of you-must-live-according-to-my-rules losers, who imagine that all they need to is complain loudly and with enough voices to get their way, and the law be damned. In fact, a significant number of them imagine that whatever isn't commonplace must be illegal, 'cuz if it was legal, wouldn't everyone be doing it?

The formula for happiness contains two elements: 1) be willing to experience anything, 2) only do those things that are easily experienced by others.

However, this is not a formula for "what is right to do."

It is not the duty or obligation of people to guarantee the happiness or emotional comfort of those around them. In fact, it is simply not possible.

One is left with the duty to do what is right and to act within one's rights, and popularity is not a measure of either.

There are those who will attempt to extort others through the mechanism of "being offended."

No one is obliged to submit to extortion.

ByAnyMeans
October 15, 2008, 06:19 PM
Many people felt going for shall issue ccw permits was alienating the population but the issue was pressed and we have made great strides in the area. We can't be afraid to use our rights for then we will lose them. This woman did'nt "go off" or do anything wrong. She simply watched her child's game while armed and open carried for her own reasons. I thought that was the fundamentals of a free society.

cassandrasdaddy
October 15, 2008, 07:39 PM
"In what manner did she "go off"?"

iirc she owned up to getting a bit heated in public. the pa gun forumn found it prudent to "sanitize" the thread

jahwarrior
October 15, 2008, 08:36 PM
being offended by stupidity and saying so ain't the same as "going off," not by a long shot. "going off" is someone losing their mind, and shooting up a soccer field. sometimes i wonder if you guys actually think about what you're typing, or is it just mental diarrhea. the only other explanation i can think of is that you enjoy stirring up the pot, and don't really want to contribute anything useful.

Armueller2001
October 16, 2008, 12:41 AM
I wonder if exercising your first amendment rights at a soccer game is inappropriate too... Don't want to OFFEND or BOTHER people by wearing my McCain shirt. Or, heaven forbid, my GLOCK shirt!!! Oh my god he's got a shirt with a picture of a gun, CALL THE COPS!!!

Big45
October 16, 2008, 01:37 AM
WOW!!
I see the other forum is at 400 posts and we are over 100 already.

Outside (exposed) carry really gets peoples hair in a bun!
Actually, it's all about our rights and how one person seems to think they have the power to strip our rights. (emphasis added)


Unless you live in Arizona. Don't you wish you lived here too:D

loneviking
October 16, 2008, 07:26 AM
Unless you live in Arizona. Don't you wish you lived here too


Nope, I live in Nevada--just as good!! :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman Harassed for Open Carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!