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

[divemedic]

1. So you admit to having a blatant disregard for both the law and the rights of private property owners.
2. They can not only ask, they can eject her from the event according to most laws regarding civil behavior. If she is creating a disturbance she can be removed.

1 Not illegal to carry at Disney, nor is it a violation of a "property owner's rights" to do so. I do not see a single clause in the COTUS that applies any such "right"

2 Since the sporting events are in this case being held on public land, no person has the power to ask you to leave. Simply carrying a weapon in compliance with the law is not creating a disturbance.

The law in PA is:

Section 5503. Disorderly Conduct.
a. Offense defined. - A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
1. engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
2. makes unreasonable noise;
3. uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

Simply open carrying a weapon does not meet this standard, and that is not just my opinion, the Judge in this case agrees.

IMO, the only people being disorderly in this case are the ones complaining about the OC.

[Shorts]

Simply carrying a weapon in compliance with the law is not creating a disturbance.

This in particular is surfacing in OC cases this year. And it is established that open carry alone is not a legitimate reason for a stop. Let me dig up some law here....


Now with me saying that OC alone is not a reason for astop, this does not mean that LEOs will not Terry Stop OCers (this is where LE agencies should brush up on their own OC laws. Afterall ignorance of the law is not a legitimate defense for citizens. It is also not acceptable from our authority). And OCers on the forums I've read through very adamantly suggest that they comply with all LEO instructions. The legal business will be sorted afterwards.

[Playboypenguin]

Not illegal to carry at Disney, nor is it a violation of a "property owner's rights" to do so. I do not see a single clause in the COTUS that applies any such "right"

I was under the impression that it is indeed illegal to carry onto any private property that is posted. Disney is private property and is clearly posted. At least that is what the pamphlet I received with my Florida carry permit implied to me.

2 Since the sporting events are in this case being held on public land, no person has the power to ask you to leave. Simply carrying a weapon in compliance with the law is not creating a disturbance.

Yes they can. I have personally been involved in just such cases. If the league had a permit to make use of the grounds they can indeed ask anyone causing a disturbance to leave and involve law enforcement. Law enforcement can also ask them to leave or take further action as they deem fit. We had to ask someone to leave my brother-n-laws wedding in St. Augustine, Florida and we once had to eject a person from a little league game because people were offended by him taking photos of the children. Both times the law was on our side.

Simply open carrying a weapon does not meet this standard, and that is not just my opinion, the Judge in this case agrees.

No, the judge agreed that her permit was not legally removed and that she was not legally barred from open carry at this particular event. This court hearing was regarding the removal of her permit. not whether she could legally be asked to leave the event. If law enforcement has simply made her leave and taken no further action against her she would have had little recourse except to sue the league.

[divemedic]

I was under the impression that it is indeed illegal to carry onto any private property that is posted. Disney is private property and is clearly posted. At least that is what the pamphlet I received with my Florida carry permit implied to me.

That is not the cases here in Florida. There is no legal weight to any signage. I don't know what pamphlet you are talking about.

[Playboypenguin]

That is not the cases here in Florida. There is no legal weight to any signage. I don't know what pamphlet you are talking about.

You are right. I found and reread some of the documentation regarding carrying on posted private property (the little yellow trifold). It is not expressly prohibited and the signs themselves carry no legal weight. However, the literature clearly states that ignoring signs that state no weapons allowed can constitute criminal trespass. It cites Disney as one such company that has successfully used that method of prosecution. I guess they would have to know you were carrying it first though. I would probably not risk it myself since I would not want to loose my carry permit if caught but I could see why others would chose to take such a risk. Even if you did get caught you would probably just be asked to leave.

Even though, she could still be legally asked to leave a public event and if she refused law enforcement could easily see that as disturbing the peace. Which in itself would give them legal cause to disarm her.

[Shorts]

Even if you did get caught you would probably just be asked to leave.

Even though, she could still be legally asked to leave a public event and if she refused law enforcement could easily see that as disturbing the peace. Which in itself would give them legal cause to disarm her.

Bingo.

OCers especially know to comply with this.

[ripcord55]

I also carry concealed in Pa. although I personally don't believe in carrying open for tactical advantage. I must agree with this woman's actions.go to any self defense class, and they tell you , when you make that commitment to carry a defensive weapon then it should be a 24/7 commitment.also when you make that decision you should make sure that the weapon is in your control at all times. This means concealed or open. Not in your vehicle where others could gain access without your knowledge,whether it be children or whoever.

[Playboypenguin]

Not in your vehicle where others could gain access without your knowledge,whether it be children or whoever.

Why couldn't she have carried concealed instead of open carrying. Why does it have to be open carry or no carry at all?

[Shorts]

Why couldn't she have carried concealed instead of open carrying. Why does it have to be open carry or no carry at all?

From Hain's own words (from interviews), OC is the best option for carry for her.


There is no other explanation needed.

[ripcord55]

I guess she is the only one who could answer that question. I only agree with her being responsable for keeping it under her control, no more!

[golfnutrlv]

My view is, conceal the gun in nearly every situation. I live in a de facto open carry state (WA). YOu can carry openly, but its not a good idea with all the anti gun Seattle liberals running around.

Additionally, carrying openly takes away a TACTICAL ADVANTAGE.

Scenario: bank robbery. Perp sees your open carry piece, and prevents you from having the opportunity to save your life, or anothers person's life. Better to carry it concealed, and maybe you will have a chance to save your life.

[Shorts]

What it boils down to is Melanie Hain is a law abiding, tax paying citizen who is taking responsibility for her and her kids personal safety.

She's a wife, a mother of three and she is carrying what she needs to carry, how she needs to carry, when she needs to carry, where she needs to carry.

If she is sold down the river by gun owners by questioning and regulating any part of the above then let us open the door to regulate all of the gun owners who wish to carry. Aren't the antis already doing that.

How about supporting a firearms owner who is actually on your side instead of selling her out.



DeLeo's actions are in question, not Hain's. DeLeo should have sided with the laws on the books, educated the folks that called him, understood their concerns and lead by example. If from that point the complaining citizens wanted to lobby to get the laws changed, then put the burden on them to change them.

[Playboypenguin]

From Hain's own words (from interviews), OC is the best option for carry for her.

It is the easiest method, but why does the second best method have to be not to carry at all? Seems like an illogical leap there to me. I guess saying "If they prevented me from carrying in an open manner I would have to put a jacket on over my gun" does not sound as dramatic as "If I cannot open carry me and my children will be defenseless against evil doers."

[Shorts]

The burden should not be on Hain to maintain permission to act in a legal manner.

The burden is on the complaining citizens to change the laws to prohibit carry, in any form at any location.

[JohnKSa]

...what locations are appropriate for OC?

I have to say that this if this question is genuine and it is a question that many OCers have, then it bodes ill for the OC movement and for the continued legality of OC where it is currently allowed.

How about supporting a firearms owner who is actually on your side instead of selling her out.

If you're really concerned about helping the OC movement, your primary goal should be to help this incident fade rapidly into the forgotten past.

Yes, she was within her rights to poke holes in her little part of the OC boat. The problem is that her part of the boat can't sink by itself.

[Shorts]

I have to say that this if this question is genuine and it is a question that many OCers have, then it bodes ill for the OC movement and for the continued legality of OC where it is currently allowed.

No, I'm asking folks to pony up the "appropriate locations" they think are ok. Obviously what OCers deem appropriate and what CCers deem appropriate are two different things based on the public's misconception of a firearm. Whether the gun's presence is in plain view or covered, if it's as bad as a gun being there, then it doesn't matter if people know it's there or not, the gun will still jump out of the holster and attack. If the argument is Hain with OC is liableto get angry and shoot refs, then the same can be said for CCers since merely possessing a firearm will equal shootouts. If you "aren't suppose to" carry around kids, then don't carry everywhere else kids go. If you "aren't suppose to" carry around adults in public, then don't carry around everywhere adults go. This brings us to, don't OC anytime anywhere because kids and adults are present. If it is about keeping the general public ignorant so they remain quiet, again, the burden falls on them to change the laws in their favor. It is not law enforcement's job to circumvent what is standing. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Won't be the first time

If you're really concerned about helping the OC movement, your primary goal should be to help this incident fade rapidly into the forgotten past.

Yes, she was within her rights to poke holes in her little part of the OC boat. The problem is that her part of the boat can't sink by itself.

The case is still ongoing so its doubtful it will be fading. But we'll see what happens overall.

Considering my location I think I've done my small part to help the OC movement (this thread isn't the extent, it is actually the most recent OC-anything participation). If participating on an internet gun forum thread about an ongoing OC case will sink the boat, well it's a good thing I know how to swim and at least live to go another day.

But I won't do is let errant information stand where I see it, especially with facts at hand. The editorials and opinions, I'm trying to leave those behind because, as we know the saying....everyone has one. Folks can go back and forth on those until the cows come home, and then after the leave again in the morning.

[Oneholewonder]

The U.S. is a large and diverse country. Common sense should be used regarding handguns and long guns. There are communities in the U.S. where folks may not bat an eye due to an OC. Philly isn't one of those communities. If you carry you should be a good ambassador and do your best to make others feel comfortable wherever you are. You cause suspicion and concern by going against the societal norms of a particular locale.

If you are an advocate of Open Carry and want to retain that right the best way to do so is to use common sense and not make a "majority" of other folks feel threatened for their lives or for those of their children especially when a more subtle and equally effective concealed carry is also an option.

Folks carrying handguns must come to grips with the fact that the world has changed. There have been too many school shootings and other massacres in public places for parents to ignore an open carry in the presense of their children in an environment where an open carry makes no common sense. In the Philly area this woman was not conforming to the societal norms of no carry or concealed carry therefore her behavior is troubling and suspicious.

The irony is actions like this by members of the "open carry at all costs" crowd are going to be the very acts that cause the silent "majority" to re-think open carry laws and eliminate them. The majority of folks don't carry so if the folks in the minority wish to preserve their rights to carry common sense and discretion should be used and folks that carry should think about how an open carry might impact the psyche of the majority of other folks that don't carry depending on where you are.

I take my fixed blade deer knife off and leave it in the car (not suggesting the same for a pistol) or I conceal it in a coat pocket before heading into Walmart to buy ammo in most places I hunt these days because there are lots of moms and kids in the store and I don't want to make them feel uncomfortable by walking by with a large knife openly strapped to my side. In most places where I buy my ammo that's just not done anymore. I could do it legally if I wished - but I know better and I'm not interested in making others feel uncomfortable nor drawing attention to myself.

Advocates of open carry laws need to educate each other about common sense and discretion. Better to have a right and not exercise it at times than to exercise a right without discretion only to have it taken away.

If the OC crowd doesn't police its own ranks and if it can't effectively use common sense to determine when it's o.k. to carry in the open and when it's not then the non carrying majority will almost surely spell it out for you and change the laws and further restrict your rights.

[Oneholewonder]

The U.S. is a large and diverse country. Common sense should be used regarding handguns and long guns. There are communities in the U.S. where folks may not bat an eye due to an OC. Philly isn't one of those communities. If you carry you should be a good ambassador and do your best to make others feel comfortable wherever you are. You cause suspicion and concern by going against the societal norms of a particular locale.

If you are an advocate of Open Carry and want to retain that right the best way to do so is to use common sense and not make a "majority" of other folks feel threatened for their lives of those of their children especially when a more subtle and equally effective concealed carry is also an option.

Folks carrying handguns must come grips with the fact that the world has changed. There have been too many school shootings and other massacres in public places for parents to ignore an open carry in the presense of their children in an environment where an open carry makes no common sense.

The irony is actions like this by members of the "open carry at all costs" crowd are going to be the very acts that cause the silent "majority" to re-think open carry laws and eliminate them.

Advocates of open carry laws need to educate each other about common sense and discretion. Better to have a right and not exercise it at times than to exercise a right without discretion only to have it taken away.

[Socrates]

TROOPER SAID:

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?"

My position is that the entire bodies of law that affect weapons carry are a travesty of the COTUS. We have state, Federal, and local laws written that according to our Constitution, should not be in place. I am a strict constructionist, and, when I read,

"Shall not be enfringed..."

I believe in the clear, simple meaning intended by the founders.

Second: In societies where weapons are common place, violence is minimal.

Switzerland has not been invaded in 800 years, because every man and most of the women are issued guns which they keep at home. Imagine a government that not only allows but INSISTS its citizens keep military grade weapons. That's points right there. Even more, they hold quarterly Schuetzenfests, at which shooting, carousing and drinking are expected. And it's entirely possible you will have your ass handed to you by a 13 year old girl shooting a select-fire StG90 assault rifle that she carried to the range from school, slung across her back while pedaling her bicycle. Swiss GIRLS are better men than most allegedly-male American liberals.

There is a story, possibly apocryphal but awesome nonetheless, that a ranking German (possibly the Kaiser) was visiting and watching the Swiss military on their summer maneuvers. He asked the Swiss commander, "How big a force do you command?"

The Swiss general confidently replied, "I can mobilize one million men in twenty-four hours."

The German asked, "What would happen if I marched five million men in here tomorrow?"

The Swiss replied, "Each of my men will fire five shots and go home."

Note that Switzerland was not invaded during either World War, and still used an updated version of the same bolt action rifle from 1889 to 1959, and kept it in reserve service until 1980.

http://arthurshall.com/x_2007_manly_firearms.shtml

The above is supported by history, and, our nation is similar, or was so conceived.
The above is a summary of what I believe is the basis for our country.

I also believe that when weapons are hidden, elected public officials become drunk with power, spending our money, violating the oath they take to uphold the Constitution, etc. I believe public officials need a daily reminder of their mortality.

I also believe in equal protection. If at the rate things are going, I end up in some ghetto, why should I not be allowed legal carry to protect myself? While I'm not black, about 200 years of laws have been written to deprive minorities of equal protection, under the Second Amendment. It's time that stops. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to be color blind.

I live near the liberal hippy center of the universe, yet, despite that, we have had, in our county, collusion between Sheriffs and police chiefs to deny CCW permits, first to blacks, now to pretty much anyone. If such corruption exists here, it is clear police should have no 'permit power' over any citizen of these United States, in his/her right to carry firearms.

[divemedic]

Most of the posters here sound like they take their opinions on guns from the Brady campaign: don't carry around kids, common sense gun laws, don't make people nervous, yada, yada.

The fact is this: it is the job of the police to enforce the laws as they are written, not some laws that the officer has made up on the spot. In the case at hand, the woman broke no laws (or the obviously antigun PTB would certainly have had her charged) yet has been harassed by the police with the full support of supposedly pro-gun people on this board.

If you help condemn the people who open carry in the hopes that the anti-gun people will leave you alone, you are wrong. Whether or not you think that OC is a good idea, the fact remains that it is legal. There are people out there who think that owning "assault weapons" is a bad idea, or concealed carry, or those evil "sniper rifles," "Saturday Night Specials," and even the "gun show loophole."

When they come for your guns, who will be left to stand with you?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by John

Which is my main concern with this situation.

Clearly.

Originally Posted by John

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.

Emphasis added.

I don’t believe anyone has indicated any irresponsible act by Hain other than tweaking some people. Is there a role for using the episode to explain to the public why her act was benign? Isn’t there pedagogic value in making people who don’t want Rosa Parks in the front of the bus to explain what their objection really is?

You could be right about her being an unappealing individual case, and I do not unduly discount the degree to which public opinion is barely more than a beauty contest. I was horrified to see Heller speak after his case was argued to the Sup Ct; he would not have been my choice for the human face of his case.

Originally Posted by Zuk

The problem is that you were stating your case in the negative without qualification.

The problem is that you agree with my statement as written, but imply terms into it, then find the misread statement “alarming”.

Originally Posted by John

Here are examples:

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

A right is either contingent on another condition, or it isn’t. If the contingent condition only exists sometimes, it isn’t genuinely contingent.

1. Our ability to see the next day’s sunrise is contingent upon our living through the night.

2. Our continuing ability to see the next day’s sunrise can be contingent upon our living through the night.

The second statement is nonsensical because its construction categorically prohibits description of a genuinely contingent condition.

Originally Posted by John

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

Emphasis added. The idiom employed in the bold phrase may not have added clarity. You can vote irresponsibly but it does not follow as a necessary consequence that you thereafter lose your right to vote. As I noted, you have not expressed any disagreement with that statement. If an irresponsible vote meant that you thereafter lose the right to vote, the loss would necessarily follow the other.

To note that one event can follow another is not a statement of causation.

Originally Posted by John

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

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

[Shorts]

Advocates of open carry laws need to educate each other about common sense and discretion. Better to have a right and not exercise it at times than to exercise a right without discretion only to have it taken away.

If the OC crowd doesn't police its own ranks and if it can't effectively use common sense to determine when it's o.k. to carry in the open and when it's not then the non carrying majority will almost surely spell it out for you and change the laws and further restrict your rights.

Spell it out for me, where is OC ok?

[zukiphile]

If the OC crowd doesn't police its own ranks and if it can't effectively use common sense to determine when it's o.k. to carry in the open and when it's not then the non carrying majority will almost surely spell it out for you and change the laws and further restrict your rights.

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

[Shorts]

Does it matter at all that Hain was acting peaceably and responsibly? That she was in possession of a firearm and was not committing any crime with it? That she prepared and carried educational fliers about OC in order to hand out to those who did inquire about it? That she did, at complainers request, move away without getting angry or belligerent? She didn't get hot-headed or rattled in her interviews when she was getting grilled.

Why are those positive, reserved actions ignored? Or does she not get credit for them?

[Danzig]

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.

Worse...most of you won't even admit to yourselves that that is the truth. "Well..I support the right to open carry but....."

Whatever. You privileged elite with your concealed carry PERMITS make me want to vomit. You willingly lick the boots of your masters by obtaining their permission to carry while deriding those who choose to carry in a way that requires no permission.

From now on I recommend that you ONLY exercise those rights that everyone around you is comfortable with. If it's even slightly possible that someone might be uncomfortable then I highly recommend that you refrain from the offending activity.

No more smoking for the smokers. No more eating meat. No more attending your churches.

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