PA soccer mom gets her concealed weapons permit back

[Little-Acorn]

Hats off to the judge, if for no other reason than he ruled according to what the law said and despite his apparently anti-gun personal opinions. He did exactly what judges should do: apply the law, not their personal preferences, and they decision came out right as a direct result.

I do wonder. Apparently other parents objected to her having a gun at the soccer game. The judge referred to these objections as "safety concerns". Why didn't he refer to them as "uninformed, paranoid hysteria"? He would have been much closer to the truth. Did any of those other parents voice any concern ove the fact she drove her car to the came? Cars kill a lot more people than legally-owned guns. Now THERE would be a safety concern!

As for safety, I'd say those parents were safer with this mom carrying her gun, than if no one had carried at the game.

--------------------------------------

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7643829&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Pa. Soccer Mom Gets Concealed Gun Permit Back
Judge Questions Whether Woman Used Good Judgment

Last Edited: Tuesday, 14 Oct 2008, 4:26 PM EDT
Created: Tuesday, 14 Oct 2008, 4:26 PM EDT

LEBANON, Pa. (AP) -- A Pennsylvania soccer mom who packs a pistol is getting her concealed weapon permit back.

Meleanie Hain on Tuesday persuaded a Lebanon County judge to rescind the sheriff's revocation of her permit.

She had lost the permit after other parents complained last month that she was carrying her loaded handgun in a holster at her daughter's soccer game.

Judge Robert Eby said even though the law required him to give her the permit back, he questioned whether Hain showed good judgment by ignoring other parents' safety concerns.

Hain said she's satisfied with the result and expects she'll be back on the sidelines with her gun in the future.

[mundame]

Judge Robert Eby said even though the law required him to give her the permit back, he questioned whether Hain showed good judgment by ignoring other parents' safety concerns.

Hain said she's satisfied with the result and expects she'll be back on the sidelines with her gun in the future.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................................

Ugly story. I wonder who she is afraid of? An ex who is threatening to kill her? If so, that would seem justified to me.

If she's just running around with general paranoia, that's not too good. Nobody cares to see people like that with guns, and our security so far in the United States does not demand it at children's soccer games. Usually.

Though that national internal security may change in the next few years.

[crin63]

That's awesome! That's a decent judge. Everyone and anyone who is legal, of age and not a felon should be able to carry concealed any time they want too. :clap:

[Little-Acorn]

Ugly story.
I agree. The sheriff disarmed a law-abiding citizen for no reason other than the silly paranoia of uninvolved, unthreatened, unthinking people. People like that sheriff, are the most important reason the 2nd amendment exists. It was an ugly act indeed.


I wonder who she is afraid of?
Uh-oh, my liberal detector is going off. Did somebody just try to pretend that a normal, law-abiding citizen is "afraid of" something or someone? When not the slightest evidence indicated anything of the kind? When the only people who have shown themselves as "afraid", are the uninvolved, unthreatened, unthinking soccer moms who reacted hysterically to the mere sight of a safely holstered and carried weapon?


An ex who is threatening to kill her? If so, that would seem justified to me.
My LD's leftist-big-govt needle just rose another notch. Did I just hear someone implying that a law-abiding citizen's right to lawfully carry a weapon, had to be connected to some outside events she had little or nothing to do with, such as a pissed-off person out to "get" her?


If she's just running around with general paranoia, that's not too good.
But if she's not in the least paranoid, but merely regards a personal weapon as no different from carrying an insurance policy from State Farm, you'll find that perfectly acceptable, right?

Sounds to me like the only people here who are "paranoid", are the ones raising a hysterical ruckus over the mere lawful carry of a legal weapon under good control, by someone who has never threatened anyone or tried to intimidate anyone at all.

You may be right in your statement that such "paranoid" people should not carry weapons. I agree in general - such hysterical fruitcakes certainly exhibit poor judgement, and perhaps should not be trusted. But even with such sad, miserable examples of humanity, I still maintain that their right to carry weapons themselves, should not be taken away or restricted by government, unless they are found clinically non compos mentis. To my knowledge, none of the whiny moms who objected at the soccer game, has been clinically examined or judged.

Is your point, that the moms who complained about a harmless occurrance of a law-abiding citizen carrying a personal weapon, should have their heads examined?

You may be right.

[avatar4321]

Judge Robert Eby said even though the law required him to give her the permit back, he questioned whether Hain showed good judgment by ignoring other parents' safety concerns.


She was the only one looking out for the safety of everyone by having a way to defend herself and others.

I question whether the Sherriff showed good judgment by ignoring the Second amendment.

[mundame]

Uh-oh, my liberal detector is going off. Did somebody just try to pretend that a normal, law-abiding citizen is "afraid of" something or someone?

Why not? Very, very, very few people, ESPECIALLY women, carry firearms openly in public. In this country. In Africa, young men careen around in the back of pickups firing AK-47s wildly all around, but we are not there yet.

So yes, of course I'm implying that this woman is possibly afraid of someone --- usually it's a violent, abusive ex, hello --- but it could also be a stalker. Or a rapist. Crimes like this are all too common against women. Women hardly ever carry firearms in public. So if she is doing that, the positive answer to why is that she's afraid of someone.

If she ISN'T afraid of anyone specific, if she's just doing an Annie Oakley tote them guns act, probably she's crazy and I don't blame the other mothers for wanting it looked into.


When the only people who have shown themselves as "afraid", are the uninvolved, unthreatened, unthinking soccer moms who reacted hysterically to the mere sight of a safely holstered and carried weapon?

Naaaaaah, very sensible. It's entirely possible she's a nutcase, likely to shoot up the field and kill the children. No one else there was carrying ------- this woman was dead out of style. And you KNOW how important fashion is to women......



Did I just hear someone implying that a law-abiding citizen's right to lawfully carry a weapon, had to be connected to some outside events she had little or nothing to do with, such as a pissed-off person out to "get" her?

Apparently not. That's how the judge ruled. But he wasn't happy, thought she was rude and showed bad judgment, and I hope that was all of it. Because crazy, like the Columbine kids or the many mass murderers who show up at McDonalds with their firearms firing at everyone there, isn't good for a soccer game.


But if she's not in the least paranoid, but merely regards a personal weapon as no different from carrying an insurance policy from State Farm, you'll find that perfectly acceptable, right?

Pretty eccentric, though. You do have to wonder about her. We have not yet come to that in this country........it may, of course. I have carried a pistol in my jacket pocket several times over the years on my farm; I always had some REAL good reason. (One time that crazy serial killer from Baltimore that went on a shooting spree was said to be in my area, for instance. And I had to get hay from a barn loft. I was perfectly convinced he was up there sleeping. He turned out to be in Virginia at the time, though.)

You talk as if you are living in Heinlein's "Beyond These Horizons," but you aren't, and none of us are. Yet.



Sounds to me like the only people here who are "paranoid", ar the ones raising a hysterical ruckus over the mere lawful carry of a legal weapon under good control, by someone who has never threatened anyone or tried to intimidate anyone at all.

You don't know she hasn't threatened or intimidated anyone. For all you know, she regularly waves the gun at every Jehovah's Witness who rings the doorbell.

Well, on second thought, that might be reasonable. Hmmmm, maybe that would help me......



I still maintain that their right to carry weapons themselves, should not be taken away or restricted by government, unless they are found clinically non compos mentis.

The law is on your side, so far.

However, I remind you that none of the mass murderers who regularly massacre families or classrooms full of students in this country are somehow EVER diagnosed as mentally ill. Or if they are, no one cares enough to make sure they aren't armed.



To my knowledge, none of the whiny moms who objected at the soccer game, has been clinically examined or judged.

There is no reason in law or out of law that they should be and no legal justification for doing so. They thought she was crazy. Unless she was defending herself from a violent ex or stalker, I agree with them. I sure wouldn't want to see that kind of person around my grandchildren, I can tell you.


Is your point, that the moms who complained about a harmless occurrance of a law-abiding citizen carrying a personal weapon, should have their heads examined?

Twisting another poster's obvious point out of all recognition is not useful in argument. I suppose it's supposed to be clever, but I can't quite see why. Your other arguments were much better.