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

[Shorts]

SigfanTN posted:

In fact what does revoking her permit do to prevent her from this mode of carry, since, again I have gathered from these posts, that PA only requires the permit for concealment?

I wanted to add a little bit more to this. In PA a permit is required in order to transport a firearm (unless a carrier plans to walk everywhere). According to PA courts, "carry" means any where in the vehicle is illegal under section 6106 without a permit.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/D...0&sr=TC&vr=2.0

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106
§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license
Effective: May 09, 2006


(a) Offense defined.--

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a [FN1] valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.


and


http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/D...0&sr=TC&vr=2.0

§ 6109. Licenses



(a) Purpose of license.--A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle throughout this Commonwealth.


[..skip...]




(d) Sheriff to conduct investigation.--The sheriff to whom the application is made shall:

(1) investigate the applicant's record of criminal conviction;

(2) investigate whether or not the applicant is under indictment for or has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;

(3) investigate whether the applicant's character and reputation are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety;

(4) investigate whether the applicant would be precluded from receiving a license under subsection (e)(1) or section 6105(h) (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms); and

(5) conduct a criminal background, juvenile delinquency and mental health check following the procedures set forth in section 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms), receive a unique approval number for that inquiry and record the date and number on the application.


(e) Issuance of license.--

(1) A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle and shall be issued if, after an investigation not to exceed 45 days, it appears that the applicant is an individual concerning whom no good cause exists to deny the license. A license shall not be issued to any of the following:

(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

(ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. [FN1]

(iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105.

(iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.

(v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution.

(vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug.

(vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard.

(viii) An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons).

(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).

(x) An alien who is illegally in the United States.

(xi) An individual who has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.

(xii) An individual who is a fugitive from justice. This subparagraph does not apply to an individual whose fugitive status is based upon nonmoving or moving summary offense under Title 75 (relating to vehicles).

(xiii) An individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, purchasing, selling or transferring a firearm as provided by section 6105.



[...skip...]

(i) Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit. Notice of revocation shall be in writing and shall state the specific reason for revocation. Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the individual whose license is revoked, and, at that time, notice shall also be provided to the Pennsylvania State Police by electronic means, including e-mail or facsimile transmission, that the license is no longer valid. An individual whose license is revoked shall surrender the license to the issuing authority within five days of receipt of the notice. An individual whose license is revoked may appeal to the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the individual resides. An individual who violates this section commits a summary offense.


(i.1) Notice to sheriff.--Notwithstanding any statute to the contrary:

(1) Upon conviction of a person for a crime specified in section 6105(a) or (b) or upon conviction of a person for a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or upon a determination that the conduct of a person meets the criteria specified in section 6105(c)(1), (2), (3), (5), (6) or (9), the court shall determine if the defendant has a license to carry firearms issued pursuant to this section. If the defendant has such a license, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county in which that person resides, on a form developed by the Pennsylvania State Police, of the identity of the person and the nature of the crime or conduct which resulted in the notification. The notification shall be transmitted by the judge within seven days of the conviction or determination.

(2) Upon adjudication that a person is incompetent or upon the involuntary commitment of a person to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L. 817, No. 143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act, or upon involuntary treatment of a person as described under section 6105(c)(4), the judge of the court of common pleas, mental health review officer or county mental health and mental retardation administrator shall notify the sheriff of the county in which that person resides, on a form developed by the Pennsylvania State Police, of the identity of the person who has been adjudicated, committed or treated and the nature of the adjudication, commitment or treatment. The notification shall be transmitted by the judge, mental health review officer or county mental health and mental retardation administrator within seven days of the adjudication, commitment or treatment.

[JohnKSa]

Since you concur in the point made, you should not find it alarming.

I didn't concur the point made. The inclusion of the word automatically makes the statement critically different from your assertion and the point of the difference is that while irresponsible exercise of rights doesn't automatically result in the loss of rights it certainly can.

You CAN lose any right if you use it irresponsibly. Furthermore, if you use a right irresponsibly it CAN result in OTHERS losing those rights as well.

Hitler isn't the result of jews having failed to exercise their right to live more responsibly.

That's not what I said. Hitler was the result of the German people using their right to vote in an irresponsible manner. The point of that illustration was that by using their right to vote irresponsibly they LOST their right to vote (at least temporarily) and so did those who DIDN'T vote irresponsibly.

That the limits of an individual right lie only within responsible exercise would be a very different sort of assertion.

No one has made such an assertion as far as I can tell. You're constructing a strawman by artificially restricting the premise and stating it in the converse.

No one is saying that individual rights lie ONLY within responsible exercise of those rights, but several are saying that the IRRESPONSIBLE exercise of individual rights CAN result in those rights being lost or infringed upon.

[Shorts]

No one is saying that individual rights lie ONLY within responsible exercise of those rights, but several are saying that the IRRESPONSIBLE exercise of individual rights CAN result in those rights being lost or infringed upon.

Which leaves us at a right that is still lost and/or infringed upon. The infringement either comes after exercising a right and it is not accepted by authority. Or a right is never expressed because of threat of infringement from authority. Either way, its a citizen's obligation to challenge such infringements so that authority understands that such behavior will not be tolerated by law abiding citizens. Their actions will be scrutinized. They will be held accountable, regardless.

[JohnKSa]

Or a right is never expressed because of threat of infringement from authority.

False dichotomy. There are more than two options here, it's not as if the only options available are not carrying openly at all or carrying openly at a kid's soccer game.

Either way, its a citizen's obligation to challenge such infringements so that authority understands that such behavior will not be tolerated by law abiding citizens.

I agree with this 100%. But at the same time, if such challenges are made in such a way as to turn the tide of public opinion against the exercise of such rights, the people may vote to restrict those rights. It's entirely possible that as a result of this highly publicized incident the people of PA could instigate their representatives to pass legislation that would restrict open carry in that state. That would be most regrettable.

[Shorts]

False dichotomy. There are more than two options here, it's not as if the only options available are not carrying openly at all or carrying openly at a kid's soccer game.

Oop, yes, you're correct. Though one should not have rights infringed because it was not the choice others would have made in the same position. Can it be expected? Probably. But it still will be challenged. It is this step that is the gut check for citizens. Some citizens may have more to lose than others. Some may have very little to lose. Some may decide to not even play the game. Either way, the infringement will not be ignored.

Offhand, if so many CCers have nothing to lose in regards to Open Carry, then why the grief? <-- somewhat rhetorical question but I'm curious to hear the answers.

I agree with this 100%. But at the same time, if such challenges are made in such a way as to turn the tide of public opinion against the exercise of such rights, the people may vote to restrict those rights. It's entirely possible that as a result of this highly publicized incident the people of PA could instigate their representatives to pass legislation that would restrict open carry in that state. That would be most regrettable.

It would be. Though in PA this is not the only legal challenge PA authority has faced or will face. It just seems to be the most publicized.



In DC vs Heller, there was a lot at stake too.

[JohnKSa]

Offhand, if so many CCers have nothing to lose in regards to Open Carry, then why the grief?

I don't think it's true that CCers have nothing to lose. For example, the PA legislature could make any kind of carry (including concealed) at school events illegal. That's already the situation in TX.

I don't think it's all that likely, but I do think it's slightly more likely than it was before Ms. Hain "made her stand".

It just seems to be the most publicized.

Which could make it the most important. Gun control laws, historically, have emotional, not rational bases.

In DC vs Heller, there was a lot at stake too.

Exactly. And we only won that one by the narrowest of margins. Which is pretty scary given that DC vs. Heller was a very carefully chosen battle that pitted a very reputable individual's right to both self-defense & firearms ownership in his own home against what was probably the most onerous gun control restrictions in the nation.

[Shorts]

I don't think it's true that CCers have nothing to lose. For example, the PA legislature could make any kind of carry (including concealed) at school events illegal. That's already the situation in TX.

I don't think it's all that likely, but I do think it's slightly more likely than it was before Ms. Hain "made her stand".

Schools APPEAR to be off limits for carry in PA:

Pennsylvania statute 912 where it states that possession of "a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of, or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school" is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

BUT the statute does allow "a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose."




Where they could try to enact laws are city areas and making those off limits (this soccer game was a public park - Optimist Park) BUT PA has state preemption law:

Pennsylvania's Firearm and Ammunition Preemption Clause

18 PA.C.S. § 6120 states, "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth." This type of language is known as a Preemption Clause and denies all counties, municipalities and townships from regulating the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms or ammunition.

Exactly. And we only won that one by the narrowest of margins. Which is pretty scary given that DC vs. Heller was a very carefully chosen battle that pitted a very reputable individual's right to both self-defense & firearms ownership in his own home against what was probably the most onerous gun control restrictions in the nation.

It was. And I had no say in the decision for Heller to go forward with this case. I had to hang on and wait for the results. I was rooting for this decision, but I also said "Why'd he have to bring it up?" and felt the same way for Heller that many feel about Hain. What I do feel important is to remember that it is not my direct fight, but the results can/will impact me. And the only way to help the particular cause is to support the person in the fight as best I can. If its the team, it's the team.

[Socrates]

Thanks Shorts. Excellent update on the Penn law involved.
In your debt, as are we all to Ms. Hain...

[alloy]

i saw her interview on FOX news last week with her lawyer. she seems practiced with the same answers i see posted here often. the interview left me with the impression that it was known in that town, that the next time these two people were in the same vicinity...she would be relieved of her pistol if she was open carrying. she did it for the money, or for the advancement of RKBA law..or both, take your pick. im not sure any of this works unless she pushes the boundaries a bit, i mean....if she was open carrying at the grocery store...this might not have happened, she had to open carry where she knew it would be an issue.

i wouldnt have done it, i got the permit years ago...to avoid all that whenever possible.

small towns(or large ones) dont like paying $1,000,000 fines. and a few cases like this will eventually lead to a more "hands off" policy regarding carry overall. but only if she wins. towns hate fines like this so much...that if he ever does it again he is likely to be eventually standing in the unemployment line.

[zukiphile]

Some of this will seem like mere housekeeping, but it all ties into the point of the thread.

I didn't concur the point made. The inclusion of the word automatically makes the statement critically different from your assertion and the point of the difference is that while irresponsible exercise of rights doesn't automatically result in the loss of rights it certainly can.

You seem to have misconstrued the statement you found alarming. The text of your post makes it clear that you concur with the statement as written.

Originally Posted by I

You can vote irresponsibly but that doesn't mean you thereafter lose your right to vote.

Since the process of the loss of the right is unqualified in that statement, your inclusion of “not automatically” is no difference, not even a critical one. I believe you implied a qualification into my statement that was not present.

Originally Posted by John

No one is saying that individual rights lie ONLY within responsible exercise of those rights, but several are saying that the IRRESPONSIBLE exercise of individual rights CAN result in those rights being lost or infringed upon.
***
No one has made such an assertion as far as I can tell. You're constructing a strawman by artificially restricting the premise and stating it in the converse.

I will not accuse you of setting forth a strawman since I believe your misconstrual was inadvertent. Musketeer can clarify his position but he appears to make exactly the assertion with which I take issue.

Originally Posted by Musketeer

Now she can by law keep doing so and I guarantee the result will be a far more restrictive law being passed on the matter. Good Work!

This describes a mechanism in which exercise of a right leads directly to its restriction. I think I’ve read that fairly.

Originally Posted by John

You CAN lose any right if you use it irresponsibly. Furthermore, if you use a right irresponsibly it CAN result in OTHERS losing those rights as well.

To say that something or anything CAN happen imparts little specific information. We do see instances where political action is taken after a right falls into popular disfavor. We also see instances where failure to assert a right leads to loss of the right.

Originally Posted by John

That's not what I said. Hitler was the result of the German people using their right to vote in an irresponsible manner. The point of that illustration was that by using their right to vote irresponsibly they LOST their right to vote (at least temporarily) and so did those who DIDN'T vote irresponsibly.

As is so often true of historical examples they can demonstrate more than one lesson. While Hitler was not popularly elected, the suspension of the german constitution was arguably achieved by legal means.

The responsive analogy to your historical example I suggest pertains to the OC soccer mom. She draws criticism for exercise of her right because others are hostile to the right. To blame the holder of a right (to OC or live) for the hostility of those opposed to the right (holders of anti-gun sentiment or the NSDAP) seems to depart from a coherent framework.

Whenever someone asserts a right, an opponent of that right will have his nose put out of joint. Rosa Parks upset quite a few people, but we do not look back on her as having crippled the cause of public transportation or hqving undone the urge to greater civil rights.

If the only bit of irresponsibility the critics of Hain can indicate is that she has done something people didn’t like, and she should not have done that, then I would conclude that the analysis critical of Hain has two errors. The first is that it holds the right to carry so weakly as a political matter that it effectively cedes the right to popular whim; as a political matter, arguing that people should be free to do what they should not do, while admirable on libertarian grounds, is unlikely to be popularly persuasive. The second is that it fails to take into account one manner in which popular attitudes can change, familiarity with a previously strange idea.

[divemedic]

The post that most bothered me was this one from Homerboy:

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.

There are those who complain when people carry weapons in the theme parks around central Florida.

The above sites have penetrating questions on them like:

No matter where you think it is permissible or acceptable to have a gun, Disney World is not one of those places.

Or this one:

thing is, i dont understand why anyone needs a gun. anti trust and paranoia is ripe. never ever in my life felt the need to carry or hide any weapon.

So if I bow down and disarm because I am afraid of what antigunners might say about me, or if I am afraid of hurting someone's feelings, I would be disarmed when this happens:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19648258.html

or maybe this:

http://www.wesh.com/news/14477835/detail.html

Crimes happen everywhere- Disney, Church, kids' soccer games. I carry a gun because it is my right. I own a gun because it is my right. Once I let others control my exercise of a right because I am afraid they will take it away, there is no point in having the right in the first place, because it is no longer a right, but a privilege that exists and depends upon the whims of others.

The COTUS is not there to protect popular opinion or popular opinion- it is there to protect the unpopular. The things which are popular need no protection.

[Playboypenguin]

Exactly. And we only won that one by the narrowest of margins.

And one thing a lot of people seem to forget is that Keller established gun ownership as an individual right but it also declared that it is not an absolute right and can be regulated by the will of the people/government. So if you do something as stupid as ticking off everyone except for a small far right majority with actions as stupid as carrying openly at a child's soccer game you run the risk of that right being removed by those very same people.

[OuTcAsT]

So if you do something as stupid as ticking off everyone except for a small far right majority with actions as stupid as carrying openly at a child's soccer game

PBP, I will ask this again, as I have seen no reasonable argument or explaination.

Please enlighten me - et-al, as to what is "stupid" about exercising your legal right to protect yourself, and family, in a totally safe and legal fashion, in the manner that you find most comfortable, and servicable?

Is it really your, (and others') only argument that it is "stupid" because it might make someone "un-comfortable"?

Please tell me what other rights you (yourself) would be willing to give up so easily, for the sake of someone elses "feelings"?

[Playboypenguin]

Please enlighten me - et-al, as to what is "stupid" about exercising your legal right to protect yourself, and family, in a totally safe and legal fashion, in the manner that you find most comfortable, and servicable?

If you have not been able to discern (from either he action itself or the multiple posts that state why in this thread) what was irresponsible about openly carrying a firearm around other people's children at a public event after being repeatedly asked not to do so I am afraid educating you is beyond my ability.

I could legally put on a thong bathing suit and a muscle shirt and hand out candy at a little league game here in my state. It is not illegal so it must be a good thing to do. Am I correct is thinking you would support me doing so around your children, even if I had been asked by you and the little league association to stop, since it is not illegal?

[OuTcAsT]

[

I could legally put on a thong bathing suit and a muscle shirt and hand out candy at a little league game here in my state. It is not illegal so it must be a good thing to do. Am I correct is thinking you would support me doing so around your children, even if I had been asked by you and the little league association to stop, since it is not illegal?

Well, do you have the "cajones" to do it?

If you have not been able to discern (from either he action itself or the multiple posts that state why in this thread) what was irresponsible about openly carrying a firearm around other people's children at a public event after being repeatedly asked not to do so I am afraid educating you is beyond my ability.

Well that's my point, the only reason anyone can give is " It's stupid because it makes people un-comfortable" And IMO that is merely pandering to folks who are equally "un-comfortable" with me having a firearm in my home.

If they want to try and legislate away my right simply because I chose to exercise it, well let em' give it a shot ( no pun intended ) But I would rather exercise my right, and possibly challenge it in court: (Heller) than have someone legislate it with their "feelings" .

[Playboypenguin]

Well that's my point, the only reason anyone can give is " It's stupid because it makes people un-comfortable" And IMO that is merely pandering to folks who are equally "un-comfortable" with me having a firearm in my home.

No, people gave multiple reasons. You are just disregarding those reasons because you do not personally agree with them.

[OuTcAsT]

No, I adressed most of those in posts #132 and #142 respectively, and asked for further discussion, no one gave any persuasive argument. I do not dismiss things simply because I don't agree. I would really like someone to come up with a reasonable explaination other than the "if we use it they will take it away" gambit.

Happy New Year BTW !

[Playboypenguin]

No, I adressed most of those in posts #132 and #142 respectively, and asked for further discussion, no one gave any persuasive argument

No, no one persuaded you. Many people gave persuasive arguments already. Continuing to ask them for more information does not diminish the validity of their standing arguments. Many people probably do not feel the need to continuously repeat themselves just for the sake of trying to convince someone that is not listening to them anyway becuse of their own preconceived notions.

[divemedic]

I have not seen anything beyond:

1 If we OC, people will wet their pants and take away our rights
2 We shouldn't open carry around childrens' events (Should we CCW at childrens' events? These posters do not say)
3 We shouldn't carry if we are asked not to, even if we have the legal right to do so, so we can respect the rights of others to be happy (Even in a public park. So what if you are asked by your neighbors to no longer own guns at all. Would you give them up to avoid the passage of a law making guns illegal?)
4 People who own guns are apt to go nuts and shoot other parents and refs at childrens' sporting events
5 Any one who wants to OC must be unstable (but no reason given- I guess anyone who doesn't agree is too unstable to know why)

[Playboypenguin]

If that is all you have taken from the discussion then you are obviously reading the thread with a biased eye.

[dm1333]

dive medic's post prompted me.

I'm curious if anybody who is against open carry has read through this and reconsidered their position?

[Conn. Trooper]

Lets look at the facts once again.
1) She was carrying an openly displayed firearm at a childs soccer game.
2) She had been asked by the league not to in the past, she did it anyway.
3) She stated that OC allowed her the option of a faster one handed draw as she held an infant in the other hand ( so she is going to engage in a gun fight one handed while holding an infant with her other hand).

I have stated my views on why this is a bad decision on her part, and I have asked why some people support her. I will ask again, what advantage is there or why would anyone do all of the above. A reason other than "Because its my right" would be nice. Thats the only answer I seem to get here. Try something else. Although dont get me wrong, just because I disagree doesn't mean its illegal, its just a **** poor decision, in my opinion. Anything other than "Its my right?"

[JohnKSa]

We do see instances where political action is taken after a right falls into popular disfavor.

Which is my main concern with this situation.

We also see instances where failure to assert a right leads to loss of the right.

Again, there's a big difference between asserting your rights and asserting your rights in such a way as to turn the majority opinion against your cause. In my opinion a children's sporting event wasn't the ideal location to make a stand for open carry. To put it mildly.

I believe you implied a qualification into my statement that was not present.

The problem is that you were stating your case in the negative without qualification. Here are examples:

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The existence of a legal right is not contigent upon its responsible exercise.

The continued existence of a legal right can be contingent upon its responsible exercise.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

You can vote irresponsibly but that doesn't mean you thereafter lose your right to vote.

You can lose your right to vote if you vote irresponsibly.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

... this is not an individualised judgment about past actions.

It can be an individualized judgement about past actions.

Since there are counterexamples, the lack of qualification in your statements makes them false.

[dm1333]

Conn. Trooper,
I'm not sure if my answers fit the context of your question but, winter in Michigan is a perfectly good reason for open carry. Multiple layers of clothing make concealed carry a little problematic. The number of meth labs and pot plantations cropping up on public land is another. I've been hassled by people in the woods before while carrying concealed but have never had that happen while open carrying.

[divemedic]

1) I carry wherever I go, even to Disney.
2) They can ask, but why does she have to bow to their whims?
3) What is she supposed to do? Leave her child there when attacked? Wait to die? We don't choose the circumstances of a defensive shooting, unless we are the aggressor.

She carried for the same reason I do. Do you carry? Why? Because it is your right? If you don't know why she carries, then I am not sure you know why you carry.

My answer? I carry a gun for the same reason I wear a seatbelt, own a fire extinguisher, have car insurance, and lock my doors at night. Just in case I need to. My life, my property, my family, is more important that someone's sensitive feelings and irrational fears.

Again, I carry a gun at the Disney theme parks. Am I irrational?