Pistol-Packing Soccer Mom Sues Sheriff

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
I have mixed feelings on cases like this. I think they were wrong to try to pull her permit. However...

Legal or not it takes a special mentality to open carry in a public setting. Those who are willing to walk around with such an obvious chip on their shoulder are not necessarily the people I want carrying guns.

Viper GTS
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
Originally posted by: G Wizard
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: IGBT
..if you have a CW keep it to your self.

Yeah, I think her main problem is she carried openly. It's not illegal, but for some illogical reason it seems to panic people.
I'm going to go with the fact that most people don't want someone openly carrying a handgun around their children. Most people in this country don't desire to be around firearms in most situations.

There is a thread devoted to fund raising for this woman HERE. As well as extensive discussion with PA residents and licensed gun owners. PA open carry has a website and the discussion about "open carry" is constant.

I know you want to go on some classic amused diatribe about our rights and the government and blah blah blah, but there isn't much need to. The sheriff was ultimately wrong in pursueing the revocation of her license, we know that (or so says the court). Though he may not have been unjust in the initial complaint handling.

Sure it's her right to carry and "openly" (mabey) if she so desires. Though she should definitely use some better judgement on when to exercise that right.

No diatribe here. I totally agree with you. I even agree with the last paragraph of your post.

Why do you hate me so? :(
Oh, no hate here. Pure man love baby.

I was just ready to watch you bite some peoples heads off in a thread like this. :D

Well, you know me, I do love to get people chatting. :)

I am also fascinated by some of the completely illogical opinions by some people. Like the assumption she is trying to be a "badass" and intimidate people. Weird and alien to me. Or the insults thrown at her without even knowing her, like "redneck bitch." It's amazing to me.

The most amazing thing though is the questions of why she is suing. Holy crap, would any of these people questioning her legal grounds to sue hesitate one bit if a law enforcement officer took away their other constitutional rights with no cause???

Man love huh? Cool :D

I'd like to know why you keep referring to this as a second amendment issue.

You don't have this alleged 'right' in every state in the nation, to openly carry a weapon. You have the right to own a firearm, not brandish it. This is a statelaw, not constitutional.

Further up the thread:

"While this may not happen should you choose to carry openly, many urban law enforcement officers we have talked to have expressed a very negative opinion towards the idea. Some have suggested that law enforcement will do everything in their power to make your life difficult should you choose to."

proves the point....

so because law enforcement is going to break laws to make someone's life difficult, we should take it up the ass? wow...you have no respect for your freedoms or justice at all?
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Turin39789
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Honestly, I wouldn't want some total stranger carrying a gun at my son's soccer game either. People are fucking loons, I don't trust perfect strangers with my son...I don't care if the government gave them a permit to carry. Leave your fucking gun at home.

Honestly, if you look at the stats, the more law abiding citizens you have around you armed, the safer you are. You are least safe in areas in which the law abiding are disarmed.

This chick sounds like a loon. I'd question her sanity just for the decisions she made based on this news story.

I don't want her armed around me or my son.

Please explain, in detail, just what makes you think she's a loon from the article?

Who goes to a children's soccer game openly packing a pistol? WTF is wrong with this woman? She has had incidents in the past where people have expressed concern with her being armed in public. Hell, the judge who gave reinstated her license also questioned her judgement.

Sounds pretty looney to me.

She is acting in a legal manner. She never brandished the gun, nor threatened anyone.

I fail to see how legally carrying a weapon and exercising your constitutional rights makes one a loon.

And you fail at reading comprehension. The discrimination and continued hysteria occurred AFTER the soccer game hysteria.

Previous to that, she carried with no complaint.

The judge is acting just as you and others in this thread are acting: That the very act of being armed is somehow a threat to others. He is mistaken as are you.

The people who are wrong here are those who acted irrationally and caused a lot of fear over a woman who was legally armed, not threatening anyone and acting 100% lawfully.

Well, that is YOUR opinion. Not fact.

How is that not fact?

Because it is an opinion?

She was acting lawfully - FACT
Being armed isn't a threat to others - FACT
People acted out of fear, which led to more fear - FACT

I'm not seeing much opinion there.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I have mixed feelings on cases like this. I think they were wrong to try to pull her permit. However...

Legal or not it takes a special mentality to open carry in a public setting. Those who are willing to walk around with such an obvious chip on their shoulder are not necessarily the people I want carrying guns.

Viper GTS

Fortunately, your desires have no bearing on what is or isn't legal. Having a chip on one's shoulder is not a reason to limit a right.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Honestly, I wouldn't want some total stranger carrying a gun at my son's soccer game either. People are fucking loons, I don't trust perfect strangers with my son...I don't care if the government gave them a permit to carry. Leave your fucking gun at home.

Come make me.

If you don't like it you are free to move somewhere that doesn't offer that right to the people. Or you are free to try and take away the right. You will not succeed however.

Ooh, another internet tough guy. :laugh:

Not at all. Just saying, you can't tell me what to do, especially with the law on MY side, not yours. If you think otherwise you're free to demonstrate how I'm wrong.

Enough parents complain, she could be arrested for disturbing the peace. Even the PA Firearms Owners Association says so.

Then all laws are moot and can be erased. After all, if you just get people to complain you can arrest someone for being black, for having blonde hair, for sneezing, for being Republican...yeah, that's a great plan.

There are laws and procedures for a reason.
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Turin39789

Because it is an opinion?

She was acting lawfully - FACT
Being armed isn't a threat to others - FACT
People acted out of fear, which led to more fear - FACT

I'm not seeing much opinion there.

OK HOORAY!
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Enough parents complain, she could be arrested for disturbing the peace. Even the PA Firearms Owners Association says so.

Public Nuisance may also apply.

1. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
2. Circumstances that may sustain a holding that an interference with a public right is unreasonable include the following:
a. whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, or the public convenience, or
b. whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, or;
c. whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the person knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect upon the public right.

Public Comfort
-bad odors, smoke, dust and vibration

If enough parents complained, it could be a violation of public comfort and she could be escorted from the premises.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then all laws are moot and can be erased. After all, if you just get people to complain you can arrest someone for being black, for having blonde hair, for sneezing, for being Republican...yeah, that's a great plan.

There are laws and procedures for a reason.

The tyranny of the majority is, and always will be, the biggest threat to personal liberty.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Enough parents complain, she could be arrested for disturbing the peace. Even the PA Firearms Owners Association says so.

Public Nuisance may also apply.

1. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
2. Circumstances that may sustain a holding that an interference with a public right is unreasonable include the following:
a. whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, or the public convenience, or
b. whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, or;
c. whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the person knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect upon the public right.

Public Comfort
-bad odors, smoke, dust and vibration

If enough parents complained, it could be a violation of public comfort and she could be escorted from the premises.

Then the two laws are in opposition and one must be removed by the courts. You can't have conflicting laws. Guess which one will probably be removed.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Enough parents complain, she could be arrested for disturbing the peace. Even the PA Firearms Owners Association says so.

Public Nuisance may also apply.

1. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
2. Circumstances that may sustain a holding that an interference with a public right is unreasonable include the following:
a. whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, or the public convenience, or
b. whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, or;
c. whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the person knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect upon the public right.

Public Comfort
-bad odors, smoke, dust and vibration

If enough parents complained, it could be a violation of public comfort and she could be escorted from the premises.

Excuse me, Mr. Officer. My white friends and I are feeling awfully uncomfortable by the black man standing next to us. He is, without a doubt, violating our comfort.

Give me a fucking break.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then all laws are moot and can be erased. After all, if you just get people to complain you can arrest someone for being black, for having blonde hair, for sneezing, for being Republican...yeah, that's a great plan.

There are laws and procedures for a reason.

The tyranny of the majority is, and always will be, the biggest threat to personal liberty.

BINGO!

And this goes for all of our rights and freedoms.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: SampSon
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: IGBT
..if you have a CW keep it to your self.

Yeah, I think her main problem is she carried openly. It's not illegal, but for some illogical reason it seems to panic people.
I'm going to go with the fact that most people don't want someone openly carrying a handgun around their children. Most people in this country don't desire to be around firearms in most situations.

There is a thread devoted to fund raising for this woman HERE. As well as extensive discussion with PA residents and licensed gun owners. PA open carry has a website and the discussion about "open carry" is constant.

I know you want to go on some classic amused diatribe about our rights and the government and blah blah blah, but there isn't much need to. The sheriff was ultimately wrong in pursueing the revocation of her license, we know that (or so says the court). Though he may not have been unjust in the initial complaint handling.

Sure it's her right to carry and "openly" (maybe) if she so desires. Though she should definitely use some better judgement on when to exercise that right.

This.

I don't have a problem with people carrying concealed if they can do so legally. I seriously question her judgement for her actions by openly carrying a weapon to an event like this though.

You aren't going to change my mind on this.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Enough parents complain, she could be arrested for disturbing the peace. Even the PA Firearms Owners Association says so.

Public Nuisance may also apply.

1. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
2. Circumstances that may sustain a holding that an interference with a public right is unreasonable include the following:
a. whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, or the public convenience, or
b. whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, or;
c. whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the person knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect upon the public right.

Public Comfort
-bad odors, smoke, dust and vibration

If enough parents complained, it could be a violation of public comfort and she could be escorted from the premises.

Then the two laws are in opposition and one must be removed by the courts. You can't have conflicting laws. Guess which one will probably be removed.

Ahh, but they're not in opposition! You see, the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms. Pennsylvania grants the right to carry openly. Pennsylvania ALSO grants law enforcement the ability to restrict access to public land.

In other words, you can carry openly all you want, but that does not trump the fact that your access to a location can be prohibited, even on public land. The public nuisance law does not violate the laws permitting the right to carry, or the right to carry openly. The lady could carry openly all she wanted. The public nuisance law does not state she can't carry at a location, it states that law enforcement has the right to remove you from that location.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
This.

I don't have a problem with people carrying concealed if they can do so legally. I seriously question her judgement for her actions by openly carrying a weapon to an event like this though.

You aren't going to change my mind on this.

No, but I can make you look like a fool, and in the process, give others the proper information regarding their rights. Thanks for playing. Come again any time.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Enough parents complain, she could be arrested for disturbing the peace. Even the PA Firearms Owners Association says so.

Public Nuisance may also apply.

1. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
2. Circumstances that may sustain a holding that an interference with a public right is unreasonable include the following:
a. whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, or the public convenience, or
b. whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, or;
c. whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the person knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect upon the public right.

Public Comfort
-bad odors, smoke, dust and vibration

If enough parents complained, it could be a violation of public comfort and she could be escorted from the premises.

Then the two laws are in opposition and one must be removed by the courts. You can't have conflicting laws. Guess which one will probably be removed.

Ahh, but they're not in opposition! You see, the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms. Pennsylvania grants the right to carry openly. Pennsylvania ALSO grants law enforcement the ability to restrict access to public land.

In other words, you can carry openly all you want, but that does not trump the fact that your access to a location can be prohibited, even on public land. The public nuisance law does not violate the laws permitting the right to carry, or the right to carry openly. The lady could carry openly all she wanted. The public nuisance law does not state she can't carry at a location, it states that law enforcement has the right to remove you from that location.

That's nothing more than a loophole. The two laws are in opposition. If something is legal it's legal, and those acting within the law should face NO reprisals.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Just remember that the vast majority of "nutjob" spree shootings occur where law abiding citizens are disarmed.

When was the last time a spree shooting happened at a gun show? Gun store? Police station? Get the picture? They happen at schools, malls and in local areas that ban CCW most often.

Your best protection against nutjobs with guns are law abiding citizens with guns.

Actually, American style school/mall shooting sprees don't happen at all in my country, or at least not in my lifetime. There is very little gun culture here compared to America. Make of that what you will.

I know I can't prove the lower murder rate here is caused partially or totally by the lower number of guns, or even the lack of gun fetishism, but you can't prove your point either - you cannot claim that more guns equals less crime as if it were the truth. It may be your opinion but your insistance on it as truth is not logical.

Also, IMO, your 'law abiding citizens' are largely a myth, and even if they weren't a myth there's no 'good person test' with which we can determine who they are. I'm not going to trust someone just becasue they have a pathetic bit of paper saying they can carry a weapon.

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: sactoking
Ahh, but they're not in opposition! You see, the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms. Pennsylvania grants the right to carry openly. Pennsylvania ALSO grants law enforcement the ability to restrict access to public land.

In other words, you can carry openly all you want, but that does not trump the fact that your access to a location can be prohibited, even on public land. The public nuisance law does not violate the laws permitting the right to carry, or the right to carry openly. The lady could carry openly all she wanted. The public nuisance law does not state she can't carry at a location, it states that law enforcement has the right to remove you from that location.

Correction.

The second amendment does not grant any rights. It simply recognizes a preexisting right that would exist with or without the second amendment.

Similarly, the state of PA does not grant a right to open carry. In fact, there are no open carry related laws in PA. The state simply does not restrict the preexisting right to bear arms.

Also, in order for a public nuisance law to apply, someone has to be a nuisance. And, as I already posted, simply open carrying a firearm in PA is not grounds to be a nuisance or threat.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then all laws are moot and can be erased. After all, if you just get people to complain you can arrest someone for being black, for having blonde hair, for sneezing, for being Republican...yeah, that's a great plan.

There are laws and procedures for a reason.

The tyranny of the majority is, and always will be, the biggest threat to personal liberty.

Wow. The tyrany of the majority. What we have here ladies and gentlemen, I do believe, is actual genuine fascism. Not little wussy fascim where you shave your head and paint a swastika on your ass, but an actual belief that the majority vote is less important than one man's opinion.

Tell me, did you ever hear of something called democracy? You know from ancient Greece? Where people vote on stuff? Guess not.
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I have mixed feelings on cases like this. I think they were wrong to try to pull her permit. However...

Legal or not it takes a special mentality to open carry in a public setting. Those who are willing to walk around with such an obvious chip on their shoulder are not necessarily the people I want carrying guns.

Viper GTS

Fortunately, your desires have no bearing on what is or isn't legal. Having a chip on one's shoulder is not a reason to limit a right.

Oh blow me. I have a concealed carry permit, & am pretty much as pro-gun as they come. But the open carry folks are nutjobs.

Viper GTS
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I have mixed feelings on cases like this. I think they were wrong to try to pull her permit. However...

Legal or not it takes a special mentality to open carry in a public setting. Those who are willing to walk around with such an obvious chip on their shoulder are not necessarily the people I want carrying guns.

Viper GTS

I am of two minds about open carry. Yes, it does make some people irrationally uncomfortable because it is uncommon. However, if enough people started carrying openly to the point that it was no longer uncommon, that fear would likely dissipate significantly. There is also the argument that, as a crime deterrent, open carry is more effective than concealed because it gives visible notice to criminals whereas concealed carry can onlyreact once a crime attempt begins.

Personally, I prefer to carry concealed if possible simply to avoid potential issues. However, I can completely understand the open-carry movement, especially as it is a much more comfortable option in the summer. When hiking, I am always thankful that I can carry the revolver in a belt holster as opposed to having to find some way to conceal it.

ZV
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then all laws are moot and can be erased. After all, if you just get people to complain you can arrest someone for being black, for having blonde hair, for sneezing, for being Republican...yeah, that's a great plan.

There are laws and procedures for a reason.

The tyranny of the majority is, and always will be, the biggest threat to personal liberty.

Wow. The tyrany of the majority. What we have here ladies and gentlemen, I do believe, is actual genuine fascism. Not little wussy fascim where you shave your head and paint a swastika on your ass, but an actual belief that the majority vote is less important than one man's opinion.

Tell me, did you ever hear of something called democracy? You know from ancient Greece? Where people vote on stuff? Guess not.

Wow. Just wow. You're understanding of natural rights and the Constitution is so poor that I can barely containment myself enough to respond.

While there is value in a democracy, the rule of the majority should never outweigh the basic natural rights instilled in each and every person. Hence why we have a Bill of Rights to limit the majority from trampling on certain basic rights, including the freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms (to name a few).
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: Amused
Just remember that the vast majority of "nutjob" spree shootings occur where law abiding citizens are disarmed.

When was the last time a spree shooting happened at a gun show? Gun store? Police station? Get the picture? They happen at schools, malls and in local areas that ban CCW most often.

Your best protection against nutjobs with guns are law abiding citizens with guns.

Actually, American style school/mall shooting sprees don't happen at all in my country, or at least not in my lifetime. There is very little gun culture here compared to America. Make of that what you will.

I know I can't prove the lower murder rate here is caused partially or totally by the lower number of guns, or even the lack of gun fetishism, but you can't prove your point either - you cannot claim that more guns equals less crime as if it were the truth. It may be your opinion but your insistance on it as truth is not logical.

Also, IMO, your 'law abiding citizens' are largely a myth, and even if they weren't a myth there's no 'good person test' with which we can determine who they are. I'm not going to trust someone just becasue they have a pathetic bit of paper saying they can carry a weapon.

We have citizens in our country, you have subjects in yours.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I have mixed feelings on cases like this. I think they were wrong to try to pull her permit. However...

Legal or not it takes a special mentality to open carry in a public setting. Those who are willing to walk around with such an obvious chip on their shoulder are not necessarily the people I want carrying guns.

Viper GTS

Fortunately, your desires have no bearing on what is or isn't legal. Having a chip on one's shoulder is not a reason to limit a right.

Oh blow me. I have a concealed carry permit, & am pretty much as pro-gun as they come. But the open carry folks are nutjobs.

Viper GTS

Don't take it personally, it's people with attitudes like yours that are the greatest threat when it comes to firearms rights. You claim to be one of the gun guys , and yet you have a desire to interfere when it comes to other's using their rights. It's sad, really.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: FDF12389
We have citizens in our country, you have subjects in yours.

LOL yea, America, land of the free. Except when the govornment doesn't like you. Then you're fucked and you have no rights at all.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I have mixed feelings on cases like this. I think they were wrong to try to pull her permit. However...

Legal or not it takes a special mentality to open carry in a public setting. Those who are willing to walk around with such an obvious chip on their shoulder are not necessarily the people I want carrying guns.

Viper GTS

Fortunately, your desires have no bearing on what is or isn't legal. Having a chip on one's shoulder is not a reason to limit a right.

Oh blow me. I have a concealed carry permit, & am pretty much as pro-gun as they come. But the open carry folks are nutjobs.

Viper GTS

I live in a state where I cannot CC, and sometimes I open carry. How does that make me a nut job?