Woman Harassed for Open Carry

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.

Click to expand...

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.

It's funny, I said nothing about her revocation, yet you're all over me about it.

Blast, a double post. I try not to do that. >:|

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.

It's funny, I said nothing about her revocation, yet you're all over me about it.

Click to expand...

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.

Revoked by Sheriff DeLeo

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

RobNDenver...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

What is BS is

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.

TAB said:

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.

Click to expand...

True, but we have this wonderful tidbit from earlier in the thread:

Deanimator said:

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.

Click to expand...

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"?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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

She may very well have that right, but she seems to be pretty damned uncivil in today's world

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Click to expand...

Thank you, very well put.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence."
George Washington

TAB said:

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

Click to expand...

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".

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"

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

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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"

Click to expand...

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.