Woman Harassed for Open Carry

Woman Harassed for Open Carry

Click to expand...

Shame on those worthless gun-phobes!

"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?

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

cassandrasdaddy said:

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

Click to expand...

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 It was not revoked for breaking any law, it was not revoked for disobeying a statute, it was revoked for UPSETTING PEOPLE!!!!!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!

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

Click to expand...

It's public, not private property. PA has state preemption, like OH.

I've just spent time editing out off-topic comments. Please keep this thread focused on the topic at hand.

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

i keep getting page load error from their server. maybe its real busy

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.......

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.

Click to expand...

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.

i tried to find out who owned the field and under what type of agreement the soccer folks use it.

Click to expand...

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.

I did get a laugh out of this thread when I read:

The Obama hits the fan

Click to expand...

I hope she continues to open carry.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Yes, all people who open carry should be shot on sight.

You got me there.

You got me there.

Click to expand...

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.

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 .

double post

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

Click to expand...

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...

cassandrasdaddy said:

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 .

Click to expand...

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:

What matters is the stated reason BY THE SHERIFF of why he is revoking her license.

Click to expand...

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...

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 .

Click to expand...

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.

In the News this AM

Pistol-packin’ soccer mama brings on heat

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.