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

[dipper]

JohnH1963,
Everything you said in post #24 makes absolutely no sense to me AND, is NOT in accordance with the law in the area the woman was in.

In this case, she was openly carrying around a group of children at a game. This isnt illegal, but I would say it is suspicious behavior

Just WHAT makes it "suspicious behavior" --just the fact that the woman was carrying?? give us a break.

The Sheriff should have taken the woman aside and questioned her about this behavior. Checked her identification and ran her for warrants. Then taken the weapon away upon further investigation. When the investigation was completed, then the weapon should have been provided back to her.

On WHAT grounds?? Using WHAT law??

She was acting in a suspicious manner by openly carrying the pistol.

NO, she would have been suspicious if she was wearing a trench coat and trying to hide a firearm---how in the heck is open carry suspicious??

This is constitutional and what is known as a Terry stop.

Yes, but taking her firearm and permit is NOT---the initial stop can be fine it's what was done after that is/was unconstitutional.

I dont think the Sheriff should have taken it further, but the weapon should have been taken away and she should have been questioned about this behavior. I would not have concluded the investigation until the game was over

WHY?? on what grounds--the Sheriff overstepped his boundries---are you saying the sheriff can determine or make law on the spot?
Is that what you want??

If someone was openly carrying right outside of my residence on the street then my expectation is for police to stop and question that person.

Yes, and then follow the law just like WE have to.

I might get some flames for this post, but understand that I support common sense decisions. I believe its common sense to question people who have firearms out openly around children.

Question yes, take AWAY (from the women)a legally carried firearm carried in a place that is legal to carry it is not common sense----it's making your own law---law is not what anyone thinks it should be whether it's the general population or LE---it is what it is for EVERYONE.
REALLY, are you a firearms owner or what.?
I guess you would never bring children to a sportsman's day at a local club.
You must really think firearms are bad and children should not be exposed to them.

As a firearms owner and American citizen, I can't understand when someone in effect says they can understand when when some ignorant ( being nice here) Sheriff either doesn't know the law or makes law on the spot or chooses to ignore the law or whatever---and gives a citizen grief over a lawful activity.
Maybe next time, it will be some other lawful activity he doesn't like.

[Homerboy]

varoadking + 2 !!

Actually, make that plus 3! I commented on this story on the Topix forum and received an overwhelmingly negative response. While displaying a handgun is legal in PA, it doesn't make it right, and the woman is a moron for doing it. In this litgious society we live in, people just like to stir sh t up to get paid. I carry everywhere, and nobody knows it. Why would I give up my advantage. This wasn't an IDPA match here, this was a children's soccer game! Imagine if the cops DIDN'T stop her and she shot the ref for calling a foul on her kid! Displaying a weapon at inappropriate times causes a public alarm, and it should not be tolerated. While the woman had a right to display the gun, the other parents have a right to not feel threatened. She could just have easily excercised her 2nd Amendment rights discreetly, without raising alarm. People who disply weapons are usually looking for attention. I recall sitting in bar with my friends while off duty and watching some obvious rookie cop shooting pool. Everytime he went to shoot, his gun was exposed. He knew it, but he wanted everyone to know he was packing. I told him to cover it up after ID'ing myself. While the sheriff was wrong to take the permit, I would like to know why this woman deserves monetary damages. Did she lose wages due to not having the gun? How about for taking time off to pursue it? She should get an apology, and nothing more, and the sheriff should instruct his officers how to discreetly deal with situations like these.

[Homerboy]

Question yes, take a legally carried firearm carried in a place that is legal to carry it is not common sense----it's making your own law---law is not what anyone thinks it should be whether it's the general population or LE---it is what it is for EVERYONE.

When I said that on the Topix forum, the guys jumped all over me. Seems you only need a permit to carry concealed in PA, so you do not have to have one to open carry. Guys even said a cop has NO RIGHT to question a person, since a citizen doesn't have to carry ID if they don't want to. And are you REALLY equating taking a kids to a shooting range , where the point of the day is shooting, to a soccer game where children are playing soccer, and NOT shooting?

[dresden8]

What she did wasn't wrong, but it certainly wasn't the path of least resistance.

No, not carrying is the path of least resistance.

Here in Ireland we're specifically forbidden to defend ourselves with our firearms.

That is the path of least resistance.

It is also why the scum control poor housing areas and kill at will.

[Shorts]

Hain was not "making a statement". She has been OCing for a year now, including soccer games prior this one that started this entire ball rolling. But I see the points made in regards to attracting attention. Folks with either notice or they won't. They'll freak out or they won't. Fact is, Hain was legal. What DeLeo did, wasn't.


Last night I watched the episide of '30 Days' where the antigun lady from Mass went to stay with a former Marine who loves his gun in Ohio. The end was rather refreshing. The rest was tough for us gun folk to watch.



...now let's keep on with this "common sense" phrase. It has a good ring to it

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...p?release=1096

News Release

Pennsylvania Sheriff Seeks Dismissal
Of $1 Million Federal Lawsuit Brought By Woman
Who Took Loaded Firearm To Kid's Soccer Game
For Immediate Release:
12-26-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319 Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Washington, DC – Attorneys for Lebanon County (PA) Sheriff Michael J. DeLeo today moved to dismiss a $1 million federal lawsuit brought by Meleanie Hain and her husband, asserting that the suit has no legal basis and should be thrown out.

Hain claims she is entitled to $1 million in damages, including “emotional distress” and loss of babysitting clients, after Sheriff DeLeo revoked her license to carry a concealed firearm following complaints from parents that Hain posed a danger to the community by openly carrying a loaded semiautomatic firearm to her 5-year-old’s soccer games. Hain’s husband is also seeking damages, claiming that the sheriff’s actions caused him to lose the “companionship, consortium, society and services” of his wife, according to the Hain’s complaint filed in the case.

Hain stated in a Dec. 12, 2008, Philadelphia Inquirer article that she openly carries a loaded semiautomatic handgun because, “I don’t really need anything extra in the way of the gun if I’m going to have to pull it out and I’m holding a baby and trying to shuttle two or three other kids.”

The Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is providing free legal assistance to Sheriff DeLeo. “It should be obvious to anyone that a civilian bringing an openly-carried, loaded semiautomatic weapon to a child’s soccer game poses a grave risk to the community,” said Daniel R. Vice, Senior Attorney at the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project.

The Brady Center supports common sense gun policies that protect children and communities from gun violence. Every day, eight children and teens are shot and killed by a firearm and 48 more are wounded. Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S. Persons carrying loaded guns in public have repeatedly been involved in shootings, including accidental shootings of innocent bystanders. Studies show that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms have not reduced crime and, if anything, have increased violent crime, including murder and robbery.

After Hain filed the lawsuit, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence offered to provide free legal assistance to Sheriff DeLeo. DeLeo is represented by David L. Schwalm and Scott D. McCarroll of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Attorneys with the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project plan to assist DeLeo’s counsel throughout the case. The motion to dismiss was filed today in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

# # #

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in America, through education, research, and legal advocacy. The programs of the Brady Center complement the legislative and grassroots mobilization of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.

[Bud Helms]

Homerboy, I believe that dipper's quote by you (rpartially equoted here), "... take a legally carried firearm carried in a place that is legal to carry it is not common sense ..." was meant as "confiscate a legally carried firearm carried in a place that is legal to carry it is not common sense"

to take: to confiscate

I'm surprised at how many here believe that the sheriff breaking the law, i.e., confiscating a legally owned and used firearm, is okay on the grounds that you don't think carrying overt makes good sense.

Since when is my disagreement with what a person does, within the law, a basis to break another law to impose my will on that person behaving legally?

[Homerboy]

I don't think what Deleo did was right. He overstepped his bounds, but that is not worth 1 million dollars, and why would her husband WANT to "consort" with his wife? Seems to me he should be paying the sheriff! The woman was wrong to display the gun. While she had carried before to that soccer game, the original story I read said she took her jacket off! Why? A Glock 26 is speciafically made to conceal. Any reasonable person had to know it would cause some alarm. The cop should have taken her aside, questioned her, verified the gun was legal, and told her it is causing an alarm and to conceal the thing. I hope she gets ZERO dollars. I also hope Deleo takes a serious hit.

[dipper]

While displaying a handgun is legal in PA, it doesn't make it right

Well, Um, yes it does. It would be wrong if it was illegal.
If the people of Bucks County don't like it---change the law.
You don't get to pick and choose----change the law or keep walking.

Imagine if the cops DIDN'T stop her and she shot the ref for calling a foul on her kid!

My daughter, a Philadelphia Attorney says " the law doesn't deal in hypotheticals"

While the woman had a right to display the gun, the other parents have a right to not feel threatened.

Peoples' threat levels vary.
I really don't care what some Rosey O'donnell fears---especially when I am within the law--since I am within the law, seems to me THEY better adapt or stay home. Can't/Won't worry about everybody's threat level.

She should get an apology, and nothing more, and the sheriff should instruct his officers how to discreetly deal with situations like these.

Like, hey, sorry I stepped on your constitutional rights and took away your ability to defend yourself, forgive me because...... ( pick one)

I am ignorant and don't know the laws I have swore to uphold.
I knew better but don't really care about your rights.
I like to set laws on a case by case basis as I see fit.
I don't and never have liked that right so I ignore it.

The sheriff at the VERY least should be reprimanded and re-educated.

[Playboypenguin]

I never saw the purpose of OC in a city.

Sometimes, as it appears it might be i this case, it is not about tactical reasoning. It is about making a statement and making public display for the benefit of promoting gun rights. It is often done to show that normal people can and do carry responsibly. Unfortunately such stunts often backfire, but if you do not roll the dice you cannot win the game.

[dipper]

Homerboy, I believe that dipper's quote by you (rpartially equoted here), "... take a legally carried firearm carried in a place that is legal to carry it is not common sense ..." was meant as "confiscate a legally carried firearm carried in a place that is legal to carry it is not common sense"

to take: to confiscate

Thanks Bud, that is what I meant--you said it better.

[Socrates]

I think there is a 4th effect open carry has. It deters crime.
There is also another effect:
"Wow! Cool gun."

I don't see anyone trying to knock out our local police officer and take his Kimber...

We REALLY need to get over the it's a crime to display a gun thing. It's the first step the antis used to take away our right to bear arms, and, must be recognized as that. I hope people that support the Second Amendment will realize that the entire process of CCW permit issuance is against the law, and, needs to be addressed. It is financially, racially violating the Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Swiss have the right idea. Everyone is REQUIRED to have a gun, know how to use it, and attend shooting competitions, and training. It's not unusual to see a 13 year old girl biking to shooting, with a rifle, or select fire weapon she took to school.

Anyone checked on the Swiss, and, how much violence they have?

To put it briefly, they train constantly for war, and, therefore, are the last ones to be invaded. 800 years of freedom from invasion, yet they are in the middle of Europe.

[Bud Helms]

dipper:

I really don't care what some Rosey O'donnell fears---especially when I am within the law--since I am within the law, seems to me THEY better adapt or stay home. Can't/Won't worry about everybody's threat level.

Well, that really is an "in your face" attitude. As much as I agree that, "the other parents have a right to not feel threatened", it is no basis for violating the legal rights of another, we still need to be sensitive to the realities of the attitudes around us. I have no idea why Ms Hain chose to "go overt" at that time, in that place, but it does say something about her judgement. Of course this incident exposed a certain Sheriff's poor judgement too.

I still say we should all agree that we may not have some key facts in this incident. We are actually discussing a hypothetical situation, or at least a situation around which we have made assumptions.

[dipper]

Well, that really is an "in your face" attitude. As much as I agree that, "the other parents have a right to not feel threatened", it is no basis for violating the legal rights of another, we still need to be sensitive to the realities of the attitudes around us.

For the record Bud, while that may seem a " in your face" attitude, it isn't how I carry myself on a daily basis and I am sensitive to those around me.
When walking my Rotties(Always on a leash) I do everything possible to make sure my dogs don't bother anyone---and I often times get negative comments that I take in stride.
I am polite even to the women that say " what kind of idiot owns dogs like that?"

I hardly ever open carry but there have been times I have.
I don't expect to be bothered ( never have) if I do---legally of course.

There are some people out there that are just WAITING to be threatened and offended---it is part of their make up and mindset.
So, when I say :

Peoples' threat levels vary.
I really don't care what some Rosey O'donnell fears---especially when I am within the law--since I am within the law, seems to me THEY better adapt or stay home. Can't/Won't worry about everybody's threat level

I guess I am addressing them.
After 51 years of "making excuses" for my choice of canine, my choice to carry and use firearms, my choice to hunt etc. etc.----some things try my patience and my usual good nature.

So, if I am taking part in a legal activity, at this stage in my life, I am not going to make excuses and I am not going to worry that there may be one or two people in a crowd that may be offended.

Over the years, there have been some people that say " we should train our dogs in a very private location so the public won't see us" I say and have said--BS.

Point is, that when we feel it is necessary to "hide" what we can legally do, WE give the impression that we "kinda" think it is wrong too.
I won't hide while taking part in a legal activity and I just CAN'T worry about EVERYONE'S threat level---they vary to much.
If the VERY sight of a firearm or Rottweiler alarms someone---they need to get counseling.

Rant off!!

Peace.

[Socrates]

The 'citizen' that complained might well have been an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, who felt uncomfortable with her having a gun, or, was just being vindictive, and perhaps filed a false complaint with the officer.

From the initial video, NO mention was made of a 'group' feeling threatened, just one individual, who later regreted the comment to the sheriff.

I might suggest the rest of the people there would feel comforted that SOMEONE had a gun, so they aren't all sheep, ready for the slaughter.

dipper, I agree completely. I also happen to love Rotts, some of the best dogs I've ever been lucky enough to be around.

We REALLY need to expand the number of people that carry firearms. We have veterans that should have the right to carry, concealed or not. Retired LEO already have CCW as an automatic perk. Ideally, everyone that feels comfortable should be able to carry, to protect those that don't.

Anyone have a history on CCW, how it got started, and on what preverted law it's based on?

[Shorts]

Folks, since not everyone is caught up on the facts, I encourage you to do a little research before commenting about various aspects of the case based on speculation and random blurbs in the news.

PDF files of the official legal documents(complaint, transcripts from the appeal of permit revocation hearing, etc) are available online. As well as a number of posts from the folks directly involved.

[BeCoole]

If open carry was something you saw every day it wouldn't seem like a big deal.

[varoadking]

If open carry was something you saw every day it wouldn't seem like a big deal.

...like in the 19th Century?

Times have changed...people need to come to grips with that.

[MrNiceGuy]

The Sheriff should have taken the woman aside and questioned her about this behavior. Checked her identification and ran her for warrants. Then taken the weapon away upon further investigation. When the investigation was completed, then the weapon should have been provided back to her.

all the while the officer is openly carrying a pistol as well

awfully hypocritical...


next step is a petition that prohibits law enforcement from carrying around the soccer games as well...
they dont need guns either... it's just a soccer game

then they'll erect a large "barrel" around the field and make everyone wear fish costumes


while i dont like open carry, a woman watching her children play while carrying bothers me no more than a cop who carries because he's required to.

but imo an officer who uses loopholes in the law to harass a law abiding citizen should not be enjoy the privilege of enforcing the law.
THAT is the epitome of an "in your face" attitude which can only serve to exacerbate the situation.

[Cerick]

there are times where open carry may make sense, this wasn't one of them. Like many of you have said, it causes unwanted, and often negative attention from gun "haters." I would agree with concealed carry, just not open at your kids soccer game. The woman made a good statement saying, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, but thats pretty much the only good thing she said. When given a good oppertunity to voice the opinion for many of us, she didn't say much to help.

[Musketeer]

Her lawsuit is garbage. She claims to have been financially damaged because of the impact of people knowing of her permit and that she has a weapon while at the same time her open carry got the whole thing going.

[JohnKSa]

She claims to have been financially damaged because of the impact of people knowing of her permit and that she has a weapon while at the same time her open carry got the whole thing going.

Doesn't follow, does it...

[Shorts]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. My replies are not sound legal advice.

The law enforcement officer has to do whats right and make common sense decisions within their authority.

Law Enforcement is suppose to enforce the law. Depending where and when the commission of a crime is taking place nearby, they may act in order to prevent a crime. Common sense is not equal to legal.

In this case, she was openly carrying around a group of children at a game. This isnt illegal, but I would say it is suspicious behavior. How many people do you see openly carrying weapons around groups of children? If my children were in that game, then I would be very concerned.

She was OCing. Her kids were playing in the game. A regular activity and not the first time that Hain was attending a soccer game with a legal carry. It is NOT suspicious behavior.

The Sheriff should have taken the woman aside and questioned her about this behavior. Checked her identification and ran her for warrants. Then taken the weapon away upon further investigation. When the investigation was completed, then the weapon should have been provided back to her.

Again with the "behavior" She's watching her child's soccer game. This is where you should speak only of what you know. The Sheriff was no where near the game or on location. The Sheriff was first informed of the scenario from other parents AFTER the fact in order to complain. As for taking the weapon, well, no. She can politely and respectfully ask that it remained holstered for everyone's safety.

There are many good reasons to perform a Terry stop in this situation. There are very few times, if any, that the police have ever seen someone openly carrying a pistol at a game full of children. There have been incidents in the past which involved school shootings. She was acting in a suspicious manner by openly carrying the pistol.

No, there aren't "many" reasons. A parent on the sideline watching her child's game is not suspicious behavior. An LEO on duty would have gone over, checked ID. But it legally goes no further than that. Once it is established she's legal, that'd the end of the conversation and stop. The LEO cannot impose his personal OC opinions on her. OC is LEGAL in PA. This wasn't on school property and has nothing to do with schools.

This is constitutional and what is known as a Terry stop.

That's correct, it is.

I don't think the Sheriff should have taken it further, but the weapon should have been taken away and she should have been questioned about this behavior. I would not have concluded the investigation until the game was over

Ummm no. Once it has been established carry is legal, the LEO can no longer hold the person. To do so would be to detain, which would mean a confiscation of the weapon. And detaining a legal carrier is going to bring big headaches to LE Agency; it is no longer a legal Terry Stop. As for the firearm the LEO may ask to secure it, but she can politely and respectfully decline because it is safe and holstered. The LEO can take it from her person or respect her polite refusal (a citizen can refuse to consent but should not refuse to comply). She's a mom, watching her child's soccer game - NOT suspicious.

If someone was open carrying out on a large multi-acre Texas ranch then the circumstances would be different. Anyone who open carries in an area full of children or populated area should be stopped, questioned and their name checked for warrants. If someone was openly carrying right outside of my residence on the street then my expectation is for police to stop and question that person.

Not really. Property is property no matter how small. Doesn't need to be multi-acred.

I might get some flames for this post, but understand that I support common sense decisions. I believe its common sense to question people who have firearms out openly around children.

My friend, there are A LOT of people I think should have permits to exercise 1A.

[tranks]

it would be interesting to know how exactly the sheriff confiscated her firearm. if he used his firearm in the process, wouldn't it be robbery w/ a deadly weapon?

imho, this lady is not helping our 2nd amendment rights. her actions have created more negative news about CC and OC. the video makes all of us out to be uneducated gun-happy hillbillies to the anti-gunners. her responses had little to do with the questions she was asked and were very simple at that.

just because its legal to do something doesn't mean you should. use some common sense when you should OC and when to CC. i'm not saying not to carry but you don't need to be scaring the "sheep".

[dipper]

Her lawsuit is garbage. She claims to have been financially damaged because of the impact of people knowing of her permit and that she has a weapon while at the same time her open carry got the whole thing going.

Doesn't follow, does it...

Actually, according to the law, it does.

The way our current law is, for the women to do anything in this case, she HAS to show damages---it is her only LEGAL recourse.
In order to bring this case to court, she has to show how she was injured---that's the law.
Unfortunately, it is the ONLY recourse she has and the only way she can bring this case to light or to court---on a larger scale that is.
So, it isn't the woman's choice, it is the way the law is written--the way our courts work.
She can't bring the sheriff to court because he crapped on her constitutional rights in this case--she has no choice but to assess damages.
It is really the only way she can get " her day in court."
If she is angry and feels she was wronged, it's all she has to work with.

Another way that she or her family could have taken this to court is if she or her children were killed or injured while her permit was unconstitutionally taken from her which deprived her of her right to protect herself.
Glad that didn't happen.

So, she's working within the boundaries of the law.
Something the Sheriff didn't do.

For me, it would be worth it just to embarrass the heck out of the Sheriff---to find out if he is just ignorant or if he is someone who's judgment is lacking and therefore shouldn't be trusted to enforce the law.

[Shorts]

it would be interesting to know how exactly the sheriff confiscated her firearm.

He didn't.

1. She carried OC to her kid's game

2. Parents complained, emails were sent, plans were hatched

3. Sheriff revokes her carry permit (ironically enough w/o permit citizens can ONLY carry Open).

4. Hain and her lawyers go to work. (FOIA did good here).

5. Appeal of permit revocation, Hain gets permit back

6. Hain files suit - while the $1mil is the only thing people focus on, the suit is up to. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the suit is the requirement of reeducation for the LEOs, including DeLeo in regards to Carry laws (both OC and CC)

imho, this lady is not helping our 2nd amendment rights. her actions have created more negative news about CC and OC. the video makes all of us out to be uneducated gun-happy hillbillies to the anti-gunners. her responses had little to do with the questions she was asked and were very simple at that.

just because its legal to do something doesn't mean you should. use some common sense when you should OC and when to CC. i'm not saying not to carry but you don't need to be scaring the "sheep".

The interview in the link here is not the first, or the second...Isn't even the 3rd interview she's done on this matter. Considering you're not aware of the entire saga, I'm willing say you have no real idea what affect "this lady" is having on 2A rights.



As for "the sheep", is there a reason for them not to be rattled one bit? I mean, yes, Hain is going through this legal wrangling, but for what? Huh? Why is Melanie Hain going through all this trouble??

For the 2A people.

Sure, everyone won't approve of how SHE is going about doing her part but she's making some pretty big sacrifices standing up for what she, and supposedly all of us, believes in. What I see from her is she's actually putting her money where her mouth is. How many of us have actually done that instead of sneaking around the radar? It isn't about CC vs OC. That's what the sheep want it to be about. And we're pretty well defeated when they have us LAW ABIDING gun owners fighting against each other. Its about our politicians, elected officials and law enforcement agencies ENFORCING the law, the laws that are written and not shortchanging us. The longer we let ourselves be trotted around, the easier it is for "them" to take a little, and a little more and a little more.

I guess everyone has forgotten the election and the panic and "ohh my gosh we gotta do something now!" feeling. Well if we all go to sleep and let the Brady folks and the gun grabbers to continue to trample 2A rights while we take a nap, well, then we deserve it.




AGAIN. ANYONE INTERESTED IN KNOWING THE FACTS, LET ME KNOW AND I'LL POINT YOU IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THERE IS MUCH MORE TO IT THAT WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS THREAD.



...rant off...


sorry for spouting, but I have a soft spot about this one