Sheriff illegally takes away a Glock 26 from a Soccer Mom!

[zukiphile]

I stand by what I accused John of...and a lot of you are guilty of it too.

You all believe that if John Q. Public does not approve of a right then we should not exercise that right.

I believe his position is more subtle than that.

The moderate form of the anti-Hain sentiment seems to be that publicity can be good or bad for public acceptance of a right (which can have legal consequences for more than the single individual about whom an act is publicised).

I don't think we can know an episode of publicity was beneficial or detrimental until the effect is realised. Had Heller lost, his pressing of his rights woud have been to the general detriment.

[dm1333]

I will ask again to the people here, if OC is not appropriate at a soccer game, what locations are appropriate for OC?

Shorts, I'm one of the pro OC guys but I'll take a shot at answering your question to spark a little debate.

appropriate locations - out in the woods, on the water, working around the house, travelling in my truck, the library, local coffee shop, walking around town, shopping, winter time in Michigan or any other cold climate because it is a lot easier to reach down to your hip than to dig through layers of clothing to reach your concealed weapon, etc.

inappropriate locations - the same as what is generally considered a no no for concealed carry, including bars, banks, federal buildings, prisons,, the gym-pool-surfing (sweat, chlorine, salt, sand, etc. that really don't need to be all over my nice Glock), a persons home or property where they ask you not to carry.

Does this mean that I advocate only open carry? No, I have CCW'ed for years and have no intention of stopping. Carrying a gun is carrying a gun and arguing over whether or not you should tuck your shirt in and OC or untuck it and carry concealed seems a little silly to me.

[Playboypenguin]

Spell it out for me, where is OC ok?

That is backwards reasoning. When you get your CCW you do not get a list of places it is okay to carry. You get a list of places not to carry.

In my opinion, most places would be okay for open carry. I think most of the time people will pay you little attention. I have seen open carry right here in Portland and my only reaction was to talk to them about their choice of firearms.

It is not okay to carry at organized, semi-private events (and yes, youth sporting events are semi-private events and organizers can legally ask spectators to leave) where you have been asked to not carry.

If you are carrying in the park and someone gets offended that is their problem. You are not breaking the law, being callous, or confrontational. They have the right to leave or avoid the area of the park you are occupying. Interactions in such a place are fleeting and not static enough for you to take their wants into consideration.

When you are carrying at an organized event where the attending group of people is a set membership and interaction is long lasting and repeated things change. They cannot leave the area and still be involved in the organized event and your interaction with them is long term enough for your actions to be perceived as callous and confrontational if you continuously disregard the will of the group. At that point they have every legal right to ask you to leave the assembly.

[JohnKSa]

Is there a role for using the episode to explain to the public why her act was benign?

There could be. It would depend to a large extent on how the particular member of the public viewed the act before it was explained to them. In my opinion, in this particular case, it would be a hard, uphill battle.

You all believe that if John Q. Public does not approve of a right then we should not exercise that right.

I don't believe that at all. I believe that when public opinion is against us it behooves us to be responsible in the way we exercise our rights so that if a particular incident turns into a highly publicized event there's a reasonable chance that we can use that incident constructively as opposed to having it used against us.

Had Heller lost, his pressing of his rights woud have been to the general detriment.

True, however it was an excellent "battle" to choose. It pitted a very reputable's citizen's rights to own a firearm in his own home against what, at the time, was probably the strictest gun control in the nation. It's no coincidence that the pro-gun community throughout the nation chose that case to support heavily.

Obviously not every case is going to be that favorable for us.

The point is that we don't have the resources (or enough public opinion support) to fight EVERY battle. Therefore it is to our advantage to pick our battles wisely and also to act in such a way that we minimize the number of events that reflect negatively (in the GP's opinion, NOT ours) on the community as a whole.

So it the idea that Hain or anyone else should not carry openly because others might be offended it.

I haven't made any such statement. What I have said (several times and in several ways) is that if the goal is the acceptance of OC by the GP then it's wise not to OC in such a way as to inflame the GP against OC.

Is there any action short of not engaging in OC if someone objects that would qualify as common sense for the above purpose?

Yes, of course there is. Someone will always object--that's life, you can't please everyone. The situations we want to avoid are the ones where a large majority objects, and objects vigorously.

...publicity can be good or bad for public acceptance of a right (which can have legal consequences for more than the single individual about whom an act is publicised).

I would call that common sense.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

With the text parsed, I trust you understand why this is incorrect.

However it's parsed, one thing is still true. An unqualified statement in the negative is incorrect if a counterexample is provided.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by John

Yes, of course there is. Someone will always object--that's life, you can't please everyone. The situations we want to avoid are the ones where a large majority objects, and objects vigorously.

Is the Hain case one in which a large majority objected to her act? Or was this a few busy bodies at a soccer match and a LEO disregarding the law?

Originally Posted by John

However it's parsed, one thing is still true. An unqualified statement in the negative is incorrect if a counterexample is provided.

John, you appear to still misconstrue the statement. You have not provided a counter example to the statement actually made. If you believe your statement is a counterexample, you would seem to have construed my statement to be something like “No matter how irresponsibly people exercise their right to vote, it is never the effect that they lose that right.” However that is not what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Zuk

You can vote irresponsibly but that doesn't mean[, .i.e it does not follow as a necessary consequence that] you thereafter lose your right to vote.

Prior explanatory text bracketed. If an irresponsible vote meant that you thereafter lose the right to vote, the loss would necessarily follow the other.

That one thing can sometimes in some places follow another does not mean that it is a necessary consequence.

[JohnKSa]

In the original statement I objected you, you used the word 'contingent'.

X is not contingent on Y.

I believe what you're now saying is that you meant to say:

X does not follow as an automatic/necessary consequence of Y.

I agree with the latter, but the former is incorrect.

Or was this a few busy bodies at a soccer match and a LEO disregarding the law?

This misses the point entirely. The macro evaluation is the real concern. I don't see that the attitudes of the people who actually SAW her carrying openly (or were otherwise personally involved in the actual event) are anywhere near as important as the attitude of the GP towards the event.

[Oneholewonder]

JohnKSA,

Well said. I'm part of the GP. I own many long guns but don't own a pistol not because I'm opposed to them simply because I just haven't gotten around to taking the test and doing the paperwork and so forth.

I have no problem with OC if it's done with common sense. Going out to eat during deer camp on the upper penninsula and doing an OC might not raise any eyebrows. That's a different crowd of folks and a different culture than doing an OC at a kid's soccer game in Philly. There are places and times when an open carry doesn't make the GP uncomfortable and doesn't draw unnecessary negative attention to oneself. The fact that certain individuals don't seem to have the discernment to figure out when and where this is makes me rethink my support of OC laws.

I'm not an expert on OC and CC laws. I think anyone that's allowed to do an OC should also be allowed to do a CC. If that's not the case and CC is considered an extra right for the elite in certain states then I'm opposed to that. I live in CT and as far as I know in CT OC is not legal. Only CC is legal. The GP in our state is very much either anti gun (long and pistol) or agnostic. Those of us that own guns and/or pistols are in the minority. As far as I'm concerned OC when legal should only be done with great discretion and with the feelings of the GP and the place and circumstances taken into consideration. Again if there are states where CC is not legal so OC is the only option then I think it's time to change those laws and make CC the prefferred way to carry.

To most of the non gun owning or non pistol carrying general public there is a huge perceived difference by the GP of the mindset of somebody that's doing an OC, especially under questionable (even if legal) circumstances. To most of us an OC is just considered an aggressive, in your face, offensive and intimidating type of carry. Most of us in the GP consider a CC as a more subtle and defensive type of carry.

Personally, I'm glad to know there are folks that are carrying and as far as I'm concerned the more responsible, fully licensed folks we have carrying pistols the better - but only if they are required to do a CC under most circumstances such as in retail stores, at soccer games, and in other public places especially in crowded urban areas. Most of the GP just isn't down with the whole OC wild west mentality anymore.

As a member of the GP and fellow gun owner all I can do is tell you how the GP feels and most folks don't own pistols or carry and they agree with me. If you guys want to preserve your OC rights the best way to do it is to avoid confrontation whenever possible and exercise the right to do an OC with great discretion.

I do the same with my long guns. There are lots of things I used to do 20 years ago with my rifles or lots of places I wouldn't think twice about taking a rifle that I would never consider doing anymore. When somebody in a crowded place sees me with my uncased rifle they don't know me from Adam and they have no way to know if I intend them or their loved ones any harm. Even though it may be perfectly legal for me to do one thing or another with my rifle or to have it uncased in one place or another it's often not necessary and best to avoid so as not to make others feel uncomfortable or threatened or to cause a scene or conflict of which I want no part.

When you start carrying a long gun or pistol in a way that makes large numbers of the GP so upset they take action to stop the behaviour you have crossed the line of good taste. I believe as gun owners it's important for us to have common sense and discernment and to be good abassadors. We should go out of our way to make others in the non gun owning GP feel comfortable whenever it's possible and practical so as to win them over to our side rather than drive them to the side of the anti gun crowd. When CC and OC are both options many times simply doing a CC avoids all conflict and affords the gun owner the same rights and protections as an OC.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by John

In the original statement I objected you, you used the word 'contingent'.

Originally Posted by John in post #148

I find it quite alarming that anyone believes this.

Originally Posted by John

This misses the point entirely. The macro evaluation is the real concern. I don't see that the attitudes of the people who actually SAW her carrying openly (or were otherwise personally involved in the actual event) are anywhere near as important as the attitude of the GP towards the event.

That's a fair point. Do we have any indication that most of the general public is opposed to her exercise of this right?

If, as you correctly note, OC will nearly always offend someone, and those offended can leverage their discomfort into confrontations with OCers, where does that leave OC vis a vis public opinion?

[JohnKSa]

You're right, it wasn't in the original post I objected to, I lost track...

As long as it's clear that the irresponsible/unwise exercise of rights CAN result in their loss I'm good with however you want to say it.

Do we have any indication that most of the general public is opposed to her exercise of this right?

Are you asking if we have any indication that the GP is opposed to guns at a children's sporting events?

If, as you correctly note, OC will nearly always offend someone, and those offended can leverage their discomfort into confrontations with OCers, where does that leave OC vis a vis public opinion?

Again, it's not a matter of the micro (the particular someone who's always/nearly always going to be offended and how they handle it), it's a matter of how the GP views the confrontation and the original event.

[zukiphile]

Are you asking if we have any indication that the GP is opposed to guns at a children's sporting events?

Including the other specifics of this case too, yes.

One of the stereotypes the brady sort traffic in is that people who carry are typically unbalanced men who at best have issues of personal powerlessness and may at worst be mass muderers in the making.

A woman with a baby in her arms makes that bit of bigotry harder to rely upon in her case.

Imagine if this were a 21 year old male with baggy jeans and a backward ballcap wearing a tactical holster down to his knee and carrying a stainless 10mm 1911 with red dot sight and three in compensator. I would prefer to argue about the girl with a baby in her arms. At least that is how it looks to me.

[JohnKSa]

Imagine if this were a 21 year old male with baggy jeans and a backward ballcap wearing a tactical holster down to his knee and carrying a stainless 10mm 1911 with red dot sight and three in compensator.

My coworkers would tell you that I'm fond of reminding people that: "It can ALWAYS be worse than it is."

The point is that saying "It could be worse." is essentially meaningless in terms of evaluating the current situation. No matter how good or bad the current situation is, it can ALWAYS be worse.

[Oneholewonder]

Shorts,

Handing out educational flyers about open carry and the fact that she was following the letter of the law doesn't matter. Folks carrying pistols are in the minority so in the end the only thing that matters is the second ammendment, state and federal law, the opinion of the supreme court justices and the sentiment of the GP.

The GP in Philly made it clear they do not want soccer mom's doing open carry's at children's soccer games. If permitted folks use bad judgement as this gal did and if other permitted folks react to incidents like this the wrong way and fail to police their own, then the GP and media will simply overwhelm the local lawmakers who will have no choice but to support a new law taking away a right permitted folks previously enjoyed. It would be nice if we could all exercise all of our constitutional rights in a vaccuum without offending anyone and without enduring consequences but the world doesn't work that way. In reality we all use discretion every single day and withold exercising certain rights including freedom of speech in an effort to make life a little easier for everyone. Why is this concept such a foreign idea when it comes to the rights of folks legally permitted to carry pistols? Just because it's legal to do one thing or another does not mean it ought to be done without using discretion and thinking things through to their likely outcome.

It should be self evident after the public outrage, media coverage and very public lawsuit on this matter that even though the woman was within her legal rights the GP in Philly and elsehwere is not happy. Is the GP of Philly more likely to accept this very public "defeat" and move on and simply smile and nod the next time a soccer mom shows up at a soccer game with a pistol strapped to her side or are they more likely to be galvanized into forming a neighborhood assocation that obtains the signatures of 10,000 other members of the local Philly GP that don't want OC at soccer games either and then take those signatures to a local legislator who knows he can draft and support the legislation the GP wants because there are only a handful of folks who would oppose such regulation?

The war can be lost despite victory in one or more irrelevant battles.

[zukiphile]

As long as it's clear that the irresponsible/unwise exercise of rights CAN result in their loss I'm good with however you want to say it.

No worries. The bulk of the work in resolving positions is defining terms and developing clear statements. While it seems picky and tedious to some, it narrows the point of disagreement to the issue on which people actually may disagree.

"It can ALWAYS be worse than it is."

True, but my observation is that this not only isn't worse, it isn't bad. A girl carrying an infant must be amongst the least threatening images from which we might choose.

Have a good weekend.

[Oneholewonder]

Zukiphile,

The devil is in the details. There are times when getting too specific creates more disagreement than agreement. Many laws are intentionally left vague to allow for wiggle room and use of common sense especially in areas where concensus cannot be reached. Then when common sense fails and a situation like this arises that the GP opposes vehemently the courts get involved and the interpretation and re-examination of legal rights begins.

IMO it's unfortunate for law abiding permitted pistol owners when somebody decides to cause a scene and so much bad publicity like this because it harms rather than advances the cause of all gun owners. Nothing profound was accomplished by causing this scene or by this woman having her right to carry affirmed. No precedent has been set. An inconsequential battle may have been won temporarily but there's a very good chance a larger more important battle will be lost and the GP in Philly is likely to band together to take away more existing gun rights of law abiding citizens in PA. If that happens because of this woman's actions she has harmed the cause rather than helped it in my opinion.

Things may work out very well for her and she may win a multi million dollar lawsuit but there's a very real risk every person legally carrying a pistol in PA could become a casualty of her victory by being subject to more restrictive carry laws in the future. If I carried a pistol and was thinking about doing what she did where nothing profound was at stake and I had other options I would think about the predictable reaction of the folks involved and how that reaction might negatively impact me, those around me and other permitted pistol owners. Sometimes it's best not to exercise rights and defer to the interests of the many to serve the greater good rather than "flaunting" a right that doesn't conform to the societal norms of a particular place which can cause irreparable loss of rights and collateral damage.

[Shorts]

Shorts,

Handing out educational flyers about open carry and the fact that she was following the letter of the law doesn't matter. No? You mean education about laws and firearms makes no difference? Where were you during this election cycle? What's been the biggest mantra following the results?? EDUCATE. Educate anyone and everyone about so that firearms have a larger base of support. The more folks know and understand firearms and the laws the better chance that there will be less antis screaming for gun control Folks carrying pistols are in the minority so in the end the only thing that matters is the second ammendment, state and federal law, the opinion of the supreme court justices and the sentiment of the GP. About half the households in the US has a gun. That's a minority? Not a very large margin if you ask me. As for "minority" in general, you don't quit because you're outnumbered.



The GP in Philly made it clear they do not want soccer mom's doing open carry's at children's soccer games. umm, not necessarily. Are gun owners not included in the general public? If permitted folks use bad judgement as this gal did and if other permitted folks react to incidents like this the wrong way and fail to police their own, then the GP and media will simply overwhelm the local lawmakers who will have no choice but to support a new law taking away a right permitted folks previously enjoyed. You're assuming a negative consequence is the only way to go. That's false. It would be nice if we could all exercise all of our constitutional rights in a vaccuum without offending anyone and without enduring consequences but the world doesn't work that way.It would be. However, a the ability to exercise a right is not contingent on not offending another person's personal comforts. In reality we all use discretion every single day and withold exercising certain rights including freedom of speech in an effort to make life a little easier for everyone. Why is this concept such a foreign idea when it comes to the rights of folks legally permitted to carry pistols?You're wanting it to be a foreign concept to OCers because it helps rationalize the 'fear' argument, both yours in offending someone, and the general public that might be offended. You're also assuming the only result of a person seen with OC as negative, assuming OC is recognized. This"negative only" result is wrong Just because it's legal to do one thing or another does not mean it ought to be done without using discretion and thinking things through to their likely outcome.Agreed. An OCers think long and hard before OCing. Again, you're wrongly assuming OCers do not think things through. In fact, OCers have a bit more studying to do in regards to laws and behaviors in order to act appropriately & legally during interactions with citizens and law enforcement in their daily walk. This knowledge is especially important in populated areas as opposed to open carry out in the woods where its less likely anyone will notice.

It should be self evident after the public outrage, media coverage and very public lawsuit on this matter that even though the woman was within her legal rights the GP in Philly and elsewhere is not happy. And it should be evident that there are those who support her. So it isn't fair to say that the opposition wins when clearly there is support for both sides. As for the media coverage, much of that is steeply slanted against firearms in the first place. Hanging your hat on media coverage about firearms and uneducated public is shaky at best.Is the GP of Philly more likely to accept this very public "defeat" and move on and simply smile and nod the next time a soccer mom shows up at a soccer game with a pistol strapped to her side or are they more likely to be galvanized into forming a neighborhood assocation that obtains the signatures of 10,000 other members of the local Philly GP that don't want OC at soccer games either and then take those signatures to a local legislator who knows he can draft and support the legislation the GP wants because there are only a handful of folks who would oppose such regulation?That's their burden. Until then they can't oppress the rights of another based on the possibility they may be "uncomfortable". We don't cut off movie-goers tongues because they might yell FIRE in the crowded theater. An OCer has as much right to a public place as a anti. Same as a nonsmoker has the right to go to a bar where smokers are present. The nonsmoker can exercise the discretion not to go to the bar if he doesn't want to be in the smoke. Its a two way street. If an anti expects to never see a gun being carried openly, then they have every opportunity in the world to hang out in gun free zones. A person has a right to live. If they live in a "fearful life" that's their own doing. The fear they live with about guns is self inflicted, but they still have life

The war can be lost despite victory in one or more irrelevant battles.Refer to why education about firearms is important

[bigalshootmupper]

Seems to me that this issue is about 50/50 to be positive or negative for gun owners. To me this issue should result positive, but it probalby won't. But it really is depressing to see that the majority of people really believe that guns are evil and a person carrying a gun is more likely to cause more violence than someone without a gun. It is really sad when people that are pro gun think this way also - as is actually backed up by some in the previous threads (first I laughed out loud and then realized they were for real and I felt sick).

Am I the only one who, when carrying a gun, actually contemplates more (than when not carrying a gun) to try to stay out of a violent situation. If you really think that when you carry a gun that you are more likely to get in a confrontation, then you definitely should not be carrying a gun at all ever. I carry a gun to protect my life and it is used for last resort. When carrying, I make a mental note to try to stay out of situations that would require me to use my weapon. Am I the only one with this common sense? It seems to be that some members on this site think guns give them more reason to act violently and they should hide this from others. This is just wrong. It should be the opposite. This should be no debate.

It is the people that think they should hide the fact that they are openly carrying that are people that probably should not be carrying at all. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it. This may not be completely true for all as some fear what others think and they just don't want to offend others.

If you truly believe in a right for self protection, then you should support open carry. Openly carried is not gong to make someone want to confromt here and that person will not look for confrontation just because they are carrying. Unfortunately, the majority of people truly believe that guns make people invoke violence. If we all, including gun supporters, accept this then eventually all guns will be banned from carrying outside of your home. You can debate this all you want, but you know it is true.

Yes, this woman may have made a drastic statement. But the reason that it is seen as drastic is because we have let anti-gun people make everyone believe guns invoke violence. The more familiar people become with guns and with carrying guns, the more they will respect the gun and realize it is only for protection and not for aggression. Please stand up for this woman and change your thoughts to common sense that guns don't invoke violence.

[Oneholewonder]

You guys that are "all open carry all the time" supporters aren't getting why the vast majority of folks, including many long gun owners don't favor open carry.

Concealed carry is not about "hiding" anything. It's about carrying a weapon that enables you to defend your life and perhaps others without intimidating the vast majority of the general public that knows nothing about pistols. The issue has nothing to do with weather you are more or less likely to be involved in a confrontation. The issue is how the vast majority of non pistol carrying folks feel about seeing a total stranger walking down the street with a pistol strapped to his hip, especially when mom's and children are present. When guns and especially pistols aren't part of a family's culture there is a huge fear factor. You can leafleat most of these folks to death but lots of them are suburban folks that don't want anything to do with guns. Guns are no longer part of their lifestyle. They rely on the police for protection and would never think of owning a gun for any reason including defending themselves. I don't get it. I wasn't raised that way but that's the way it is in the majority of suburban households and bigger cities and suburbs. In many parts of the country the world has changed. Guns and hunting are no longer mainstream. As a hunter and gun owner I'm in the minority in the state where I live. There are fewer and fewer legally permitted pistol holders and fewer and fewer hunting licenses sold every year. The general public in my state knows little or nothing about guns and fears them and oftentimes the folks that own them.

That's just the way things are and things are likely to get worse not better. I think open carry is going to go the way of the dinosaur in many states because it's just not needed. A concealed carry is a much better way to go. The pistol owner that wants to carry a gun to defend himself may legally do so and the majority of folks that are afraid of guns aren't intimidated by seeing a total stranger walking around with a gun strapped to his hip.

It's a shame things are going this way but everytime there's a school massacre like Columbine or Virginia Tech it's a black mark against those of us that own guns. The media is everywhere. Video footage is all over the internet. The crackpots are exposed by the media now more than ever before. Some gun owning crackpots like this woman don't have the common sense to know how to get along with neighbors. This narcisism and refusal to voluntarily conform to societal norms is the reason laws are changed and gun priviliges are taken away and we gun owners are forced by law to do what we ought to be willing to do as good neighbors.

[Shorts]

You guys that are "all open carry all the time" supporters aren't getting why the vast majority of folks, including many long gun owners don't favor open carry. You aren't getting that OCers hear this concern and have been able to move past it. I haven't carried OC once in my life. It sure would be nice to have thet option to do so if I felt compelled

Concealed carry is not about "hiding" anything. It's about carrying a weapon that enables you to defend your life and perhaps others without intimidating the vast majority of the general public that knows nothing about pistols. And OCers understand that it will take time for the non gun owning public to become accustom to seeing firearms out in the openThe issue has nothing to do with weather you are more or less likely to be involved in a confrontation. The issue is how the vast majority of non pistol carrying folks feel about seeing a total stranger walking down the street with a pistol strapped to his hip, especially when mom's and children are present.Gun = criminal = bad? Sounds as though they are misinformed. When guns and especially pistols aren't part of a family's culture there is a huge fear factor. ...education....You can leafleat most of these folks to death but lots of them are suburban folks that don't want anything to do with guns. Guns are no longer part of their lifestyle. The same as it IS a part of the lifestyle of others. They rely on the police for protection and would never think of owning a gun for any reason including defending themselves. Well I'm not responsible for their thought process and its unfortunate for them that they don't realize the chances they take. I don't get it. I wasn't raised that way but that's the way it is in the majority of suburban households and bigger cities and suburbs. In many parts of the country the world has changed. Guns and hunting are no longer mainstream. As a hunter and gun owner I'm in the minority in the state where I live. There are even fewer legally permitted pistol holders and fewer and fewer hunting licenses sold every year. The general public in my state knows little or nothing about guns and fears them and oftentimes the folks that own them.And how does that dictate what other folks "should do"?

That's just the way things are and things are likely to get worse not better. Which is exactly why firearm owners shouldn't pack up and leave. I think open carry is going to go the way of the dinosaur in many states because it's just not needed.I think you're out of the loop and several states are pursuing OC lobby. Considering 44 states allow open carry in some form and only 6 don't (one being TX where a push is underway for legislation this session) and there are several states up on deck, looks like OC is actually not going away. Consider the other states in PA, VA and GA where courts have ruled in favor of OCers on several key issues. AZ, VT, UT, NM, OH, AK and others get along pretty well too. If you aren't familiar with them, then I don't think you're fully aware of OC across the nation and are in no position to comment on whether or not OC is going the way of the dinosaur A concealed carry is a much better way to go. The pistol owner that wants to carry a gun to defend himself may legally do so and the majority of folks that are afraid of guns aren't intimidated by seeing a total stranger walking around with a gun strapped to his hip.

It's a shame things are going this way but everytime there's a school massacre like Columbine or Virginia Tech it's a black mark against those of us that own guns.Agreed The media is everywhere. Video footage is all over the internet. The crackpots are exposed by the media now more than ever before. Some gun owning crackpots like this woman don't have the common sense to know how to get along with neighbors.Again with the personal attacks. Do you know Mrs Hain? Or is this your view of OCers in general? This narcisism and refusal to voluntarily conform to societal norms is the reason laws are changed and gun privileges are taken away and we gun owners are forced by law to do what we ought to be willing to do as good neighbors. Have you done ANYTHING this year in order to further the rights of gun owners or gun legislation? I'm not talking about OC specific. I'm talking about CCW rules/costs, reducing prohibited areas, etc. Have you contacted any of your state legislators? Have you educated anyone? If not, I'd say folks like you who are willing to "conform to the societal norms" are one of the reasons why guns and gun owners don't stand a chance at survival. You're not doing anything but giving in to the scared masses and falling in line. You seem to forget that we citizens ARE the government. Its our job to keep it all in line

[Yithian]

I avoided this thread for a valid reason. LOL

But, I couldn't avoid it long. It kept growing in page count. Calling me...

I am beginning to be ashamed to be a member of this community.
I have been here for a short time. But in that time I have watched as this site went from "Lets share our experiences shooting, and defend our rights", to "OMG! She did what she was intended to do. And broke no law doing it. What a shame on her."

The Bill of Rights, and the law, says she can open carry.
Enough said.

Everything else is hearsay and assumptions.

Some here (gun loving folks mind you... supposedly) think she had an agenda.
Others here think she was irresponsible.

Neither are proven.
She did what she was allowed to do. What agenda is there in that?
Irresponsible? Those here that spew that name are the ones irresponsible.
Responsible is knowing gun safety and use of the firearm. None of her reported actions show any irresponsibility.

If the GP doesn't want her to have her BoR, they need to move out of the USA.

What I gather, is that a lady was willing to not give a damn about appearances, and actually care to defend those around her, if needed.
The GP, the sheriff, and those here, that chose to belittle her (or her mentality), need to take a step back and realize where she lives.

We need to openly thank her, and apologize for her treatment.
She, who was willing to defend her family and community, was unjustly treated.

[Dangerwing]

Many of the posts in this thread have referred to the ambiguous General Public, the GP, this otherwise un-named mass of people that apparently feel guns are bad and soccer moms shouldn't have them, especially (God forbid) around children!?!? Im going to go out on a limb here and tell it like it is - there is no GP! It doesn't exist. The concept was created by individuals in an attempt to give credit to their individual beliefs. We could say the "GP" is Christian. So I guess the millions of Jews and Muslims living in this country aren't part of the "GP"? This thread indicates that the "GP" is anti-gun, or at least anti-OC. So the millions of gun owners aren't part of the GP?

Yes, there may be individuals that feel OC at a soccer game is inappropriate, but that does not warrant the title "GP". Many individuals may band together and try to get legislators to enact laws banning OC. This also does not constitute a "GP". I support OC and I am part of the GP. Dozens of folks on this thread alone have voiced their support for OC. Aren't they part of the GP? Everyone is part of the GP. One cannot logically make an on behalf of the GP argument for or against anything , because there is no issue on which 100% of the population agrees.

To those who have tried (and there has been many in this thread) I ask: Who died and made you spokes person for every member of our society? You obviously don't speak for me, so as a card carrying member of the "GP", I say you're fired as my spokes person!

[jughead2]

way to go Yithian. this old man totally agrees with you.

[alloy]

The Bill of Rights, and the law, says she can open carry.
Enough said.

right or wrong i wonder...you been exercising that right frequently at texas soccer games, or does practicality sometimes confuse issues, requiring people to make common sense adjustments?

[OuTcAsT]

You guys that are "all open carry all the time" supporters aren't getting why the vast majority of folks, including many long gun owners don't favor open carry.

Sorry, but the results of a 24 hour poll on this site do not agree with your conclusion, In fact, most believed OC was a useful form of activism.

Some gun owning crackpots like this woman

Wow....just, Wow. A member of a forum on responsible gun ownership says this about a woman who did absolutely nothing wrong, and took a stand for her rights, and WON ???

What I gather, is that a lady was willing to not give a damn about appearances, and actually care to defend those around her, if needed.

That was my impression as well, a commendable act.

refusal to voluntarily conform to societal norms

Being merely a gun owner alone puts you in that category. I also support CC and OC, I must be endangering gun rights every minute if this logic is true.

She did what she was allowed to do. What agenda is there in that?
Irresponsible? Those here that spew that name are the ones irresponsible.
Responsible is knowing gun safety and use of the firearm. None of her reported actions show any irresponsibility.

You seem to forget that we citizens ARE the government. Its our job to keep it all in line

DING DING DING we have a winner!

[divemedic]

At one point, there were lunch counters, laundromats, water fountains, neighborhoods, and other places where it was illegal for anyone who wasn't white to be or use. Blacks were relegated to the balconies of movie theaters, the back seats of buses, and were banned from many other places. Gun control itself began as a racial issue.

There was a time when women were not allowed to vote, hold certain jobs, or dress a certain way (like wear pants).

How did these people gain the rights they enjoy today? By meekly bowing down to the "general public" in hopes that they would leave them alone, or one day see fit to treat them as equals? Or did they do it through "in your face" activism?

Which way do you think is most effective?

[Playboypenguin]

At one point, there were lunch counters, laundromats, water fountains, neighborhoods, and other places where it was illegal for anyone who wasn't white to be or use. Blacks were relegated to the balconies of movie theaters, the back seats of buses, and were banned from many other places. Gun control itself began as a racial issue.

Please tell me you are not seriously trying to equate open carry issues with racial and sexual discrimination??? That kind of irrational thinking is what will kill gun rights.

If you are just trying to make a point about methods of fighting injustice you need to be a little more careful about drawing comparisons that could appear very offensive to people that have experienced true discrimination.

Also, if you are trying to make a point about how to fight injustice you need to understand that the leaders of all the movements you mentioned understood completely how-to and how-not-to come across in public. They did not run out and beat people in the head with their signs. The put forward a message of peaceful education.