Pistol-Packing Pennsylvania Mom Sues PC

[fingerbanger]

Wake up

what is happening to my country? you think this situation, (given the information that was pressented to us) is same as blowing smoke in the face of restraunt patrons for the sole purpose of "being a prick". The way i see it the rkba doesn't have in fine print under it " as long as you keep it hidden ". or "if no one else finds it offensive". I am sick of this hidding in the shadows crap. wake up! they have placed the blame on us now. We have become the cause of the irrational reactions. why because the meer sight of a gun is scary. To hell with that. last i checked PA was still in america. Despite its proximity to NJ.

 

[Sinixstar]

You cease to be harmless when your presence is a detriment to the health of those around you. By intentionally smoking directly adjacent to a (presumably public) through way, you are generating a cloud of noxious fumes that will be inhaled by others before it dissipates. While technically not illegal, it is rude.

Carrying a firearm openly at a soccer game poses no threat to anyone, and there is no public or private health issue. Guns do not emit smoke (at least not till you discharge them! ), nor do they somehow make the environment around them less healthy. The comparison here is similar, but not exactly the same.

But your only legitimate gripe about my smoke is that it is rude. correct?

Some people perhaps feel that it is rude to be openly be armed in a family-type setting such as a kid's soccer game?

I mean, again - same analogy - if i go to the bar right next door, I can walk in, order a beer, light up at the bar - and nobody bats an eye lash.

Just as walking into an establishment such as say - sportsman's warehouse - with a .45 on your hip - people might not bat an eyelash.

So - how is the situation different - other then the fact that YOU think it's rude if i smoke to close to people (even if there's no legit legal ramifications), and others might find it rude or uncomfortable to be carrying in family-friendly environment (even if there's no legit legal ramifications).

Kinda all comes down to perception huh?

 

[Sinixstar]

what is happening to my country? you think this situation, (given the information that was pressented to us) is same as blowing smoke in the face of restraunt patrons for the sole purpose of "being a prick". The way i see it the rkba doesn't have in fine print under it " as long as you keep it hidden ". or "if no one else finds it offensive". I am sick of this hidding in the shadows crap. wake up! they have placed the blame on us now. We have become the cause of the irrational reactions. why because the meer sight of a gun is scary. To hell with that. last i checked PA was still in america. Despite its proximity to NJ.

It's not a fine print - it's something called common courtesy. When did THAT disappear in this country?
Again back to the smoking thing. Other people find it offensive - their problem not mine. However, I am going to be at least halfway mindful - even though i have no legal obligation to be - and walk a few steps away from the door.

What's the problem with that exactly?

 

[SaxonPig]

Deanimator- Too much to simply conceal the gun when in the park with a bunch of mothers and children?

Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should. The Supreme Court says I can burn a U.S. flag if want. But I would never to that because I know how much it would upset some people (I would never do it anyway, just making a point).

Even with legal open carry I wouldn't deliberately frighten people who shouldn't be afraid of a lawful person wearing a gun but the reality is that some are. Why look like a goon thumping your chest and proclaiming your God-given right to pack heat as people who aren't comfortable around guns freak out? How does this further our cause? How does this win friends? How does this make us look good?

Rather than insult and belittle people who are intimidated by firearms out of inexperience and ignorance, why not just cover it? What's the big deal?

 

[fingerbanger]

the problem is that slowly we are are being told / taught that we are the offending party. I don't see it that way. going back to your smoking analogy. you are also being told that it is offensive and polite society would prefer you quit that behavior. the same is slowly, almost imperceivably being said about carrying a firearm. it starts with open carry. if that domino falls how long will it be until the inevitable? nothing wrong with trying to be nice. i try not to be rude, but i will not live my life for others to not be offended, and i damn sure won't give up my rights so they can sleep at night. I deal with jerks every day, hell maybe i'm one of them. somehow my fragile psyche survives.

 

[Sinixstar]

the problem is that slowly we are are being told / taught that we are the offending party. I don't see it that way. going back to your smoking analogy. you are also being told that it is offensive and polite society would prefer you quit that behavior. the same is slowly, almost imperceivably being said about carrying a firearm. it starts with open carry. if that domino falls how long will it be until the inevitable? nothing wrong with trying to be nice. i try not to be rude, but i will not live my life for others to not be offended, and i damn sure won't give up my rights so they can sleep at night. I deal with jerks every day, hell maybe i'm one of them. somehow my fragile psyche survives.

Actually, no - that's not quite right at all.
I've smoked for about 15 years now, since back when you could smoke anywhere at any time. Hell the urinals in the mens rooms here in NV even used to have ashtrays on the dividing walls. I have ALWAYS taken my habit elsewhere out of common courtesy.
When I was growing up, my father carried, his friends carried, a good majority of my friends fathers and their friends carried. The vast majority of the time you could line all these people up and never know looking at 'em that they had an entire arsenal on their person. There was no NEED to display it.

What has happened over the years, and what has changed over the years - is that somehow now if you carry, and support gun rights, you have to wave the flag high and hard for everyone to see, or else you're not "gunnie" enough. Those people have always existed, and frankly - they used to be the scarey ones.
I hate to break it to you - but what has changed, is we have started the self-fulfilling prophecy of being "gun nuts". If carrying a gun is no big deal - why do we go out of our way to jump up and down and make it a big deal? Why are there sites like opencarry where people go out of their way to make it a big deal, and talk about their experiences in open carry, and the reactions they get and the looks and comments they get? Why are WE making it such a big deal?

Stop living up to the image.

 

[rbernie]

It's not a fine print - it's something called common courtesy. When did THAT disappear in this country?

Why is OC considered rude? More to the point, why should we accept that it's considered rude?

There is some minimal science that asserts that second hand smoke can be harmful to those exposed to it. No such culpability is applied to exposure to an OCed weapon.

So why again do we ACCEPT that it's considered rude? Why are we letting others frame the tenor and terms of the debate?

 

[goon]

It's not a fine print - it's something called common courtesy. When did THAT disappear in this country?
Again back to the smoking thing. Other people find it offensive - their problem not mine. However, I am going to be at least halfway mindful - even though i have no legal obligation to be - and walk a few steps away from the door.

Once upon a time it would have been considered terribly bad manners for a black man to marry a white woman.
How dare he think he's good enough to marry a woman who isn't "colored"? Doesn't he know that people are going to take offense to that?

What about that crazy black Rosa Parks? How dare that black woman have the audacity to not give her seat up for that nice, polite white guy? What an inconsiderate woman! Who does she think she is? Why doesn't she just settle down and stop offending people?

Wasn't too long ago that women weren't able to vote.
Women belong in the home. They should be barefoot and preganant all the time. Any woman who thinks she should have say in how this country is governed is off her rocker. Those women are so rude and pushy. Don't they know how much all their protesting bothers all us decent folk?


I'll grant you that my education isn't the equal of some on this board but it seems to me that sometimes the only way rights get recognized is when someone steps up and says "Sorry buddy, I know this pisses you off but I have rights too and you're just going to have to get over it." Eventually, enough people start to see us carrying our guns openly (or women voting, or people marrying other races), they'll just start to get used to it. It might still piss some people off but for the most part, it will be accepted and we'll have full use of the rights that we're supposed to already have.

FWIW, I still stick with "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
Sure, you can smoke all you want as long as you're not harming anyone else with it.
Smoking isn't like carrying a gun though - it's more like firing a gun.
You can fire a gun all you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else but you can't just walk outside and haphazardly send a few rounds down the street.
Same with smoking. Smoke all you want. Just don't harm anyone else when you do it.
If that means that you have to go to a special area to smoke (shoot) where your smoking (shooting) won't harm anyone else (adequate backstop), then it's your responsibilty to make that happen.

If you want a real analogy with smoking...
Well I support your right to carry your cigarettes either openly or concealed.

 

[Sinixstar]

Why is OC considered rude? More to the point, why should we accept that it's considered rude?

There is some minimal science that asserts that second hand smoke can be harmful to those exposed to it. No such culpability is applied to exposure to an OCed weapon.

So why again do we ACCEPT that it's considered rude? Why are we letting others frame the tenor and terms of the debate?

You don't have to accept it. I don't *accept* that smoking is rude. However, I understand that people's opinions differ from mine. I pick my battles - and that's not one worth fighting.

And again - science of whether or not second hand smoke is harmful - is irrelevant. I'm not breaking any laws. There is a perception among some, that guns are as dangerous as cigarettes. Is that ridiculous? doesn't matter - because at the end of the day - you're not breaking any laws either. Looking purely at the legal merits of the issues - we are in the same boat.

I also have to take issue with the idea that going through your daily life is somehow a debate? Are we really that paranoid? Are we really that entrenched in some sort of "us vs them" mentality - that the simple act of getting out of bed somehow revolves around framing the tenor of a debate?
I'm not talking about a debate -i'm talking about simply getting through day to day life, dealing with people that you may not agree with.

Although - if you want to get into the debate question - what does our cause more good? Stupid overblown situations like this that will surely get a lot of press and make us look like chest thumping idiots? Or would it be better to say "ya know what - i'll leave the .45 in my purse when we go to the park" - and save the fight for something that actually, ya know, makes a difference?

 

[Sinixstar]

Same with smoking. Smoke all you want. Just don't harm anyone else when you do it.
If that means that you have to go to a special area to smoke (shoot) where your smoking (shooting) won't harm anyone else (adequate backstop), then it's your responsibilty to make that happen.

If you want a real analogy with smoking...
Well I support your right to carry your cigarettes either openly or concealed.

Great - so where's the line?
Marina Del Rey - you cannot even BUY a pack of cigarettes in the entire city. You can't smoke in public ANYWHERE - whether it's in a "special area" or not. Because you MIGHT harm someone with your 2nd hand smoke.
So - why not the same with guns?

If we want to apply that logic - then there is ABSOLUTELY no reason under that line of thinking that anyone should be allowed to carry a gun. If you can only exercise your right safely in certain environments, and public space is not one of those environments - then by simple logic there is no reason for you to carry your gun in public space, Unless it is to or from a designated area where you can use it.

 

[General Geoff]

Although - if you want to get into the debate question - what does our cause more good? Stupid overblown situations like this that will surely get a lot of press and make us look like chest thumping idiots? Or would it be better to say "ya know what - i'll leave the .45 in my purse when we go to the park" - and save the fight for something that actually, ya know, makes a difference?

You don't know the whole situation; Meleanie doesn't just open carry at the soccer game, she open carries everywhere. She is accustomed to it, and trains on the fact that her sidearm is exposed and more readily accessible in case she needs to draw.

She has been on a televised debate, and she knows what she's doing, and backs up her open carrying with reasons and facts.

 

[Sinixstar]

You don't know the whole situation; Meleanie doesn't just open carry at the soccer game, she open carries everywhere. She is accustomed to it, and trains on the fact that her sidearm is exposed and more readily accessible in case she needs to draw.

She has been on a televised debate, and she knows what she's doing, and backs up her open carrying with reasons and facts.

Situation's kind of irrelevant. I'm also not going to watch a ratings grab on network news.

I've had people here so far imply that because some studies loosely link second hand smoke to health problems, that somehow i should be regulated - but others should not. Well - okay, but I'm sure there's studies out there that show that being around guns just might increase your chances of being shot. So - how is the situation different? How can we advocate - or at least excuse - regulation against one group, and protest regulation for another?

 

[General Geoff]

Situation is entirely relevant. If you don't see that then it's pointless arguing with you.

Smoking does not equal carrying a gun, never has, never will. Stop trying to compare the two.

 

[msb45]

Because the 2nd amendment says you have the right to "bear" arms. There is a difference here from smoking. Along with the PA Constitution stating "this right shall not be questioned" it brings up that there are extra protections for this right.

Smokers don't, pardon the pun, cloud this issue. If you feel that strongly about smoking file a suit or change the constitution. A more appropriate analogy would be someone who looks different or is wearing something different being arrested or God forbid "profiled".

She was within her rights per the US and PA State Constitutions. Her rights and permit were attacked for no legal reason. In fact without her permit she can ONLY open carry and remain legal in PA.

This is black letter law in PA and a common sense judge did his duty. The Sheriff clearly did not and should be held accountable.

Just like people like to bash NJ or CA gun laws and say get out I'll ask you to respect PA laws. I live here and like it just fine thanks. I personally conceal but open carry is part of living in a free state.

 

[Sinixstar]

Situation is entirely relevant. If you don't see that then it's pointless arguing with you.

Smoking does not equal carrying a gun, never has, never will. Stop trying to compare the two.

How very easy it is to dismiss an argument you don't like.
Let's see though....

People say banning smoking, or restricting smoking - is necessary because it poses a risk to others in the immediate area.

People (often the same people) say banning guns or restricting where/how you carry - is necessary because it poses a risk to others in the immediate area.

I'm not saying smoking and carrying a gun are the same issue - i'm saying from a legal standpoint - where do you draw the line in terms of restricting personal choice in the name of the greater common good?

Because the 2nd amendment says you have the right to "bear" arms. There is a difference here from smoking.

That would imply that the only rights you as a free person have, are those that have been outlined in the bill of rights. Correct?

 

[msb45]

I'm not saying rights are limited to those expressly named in the Bill of Rights. I'm saying that as an "enumerated" rights they have a higher standard of defense that the Sheriff trampled. There is no interpretation or grey area that may be found in the smoking analogies. That makes the situation more offensive to me as a resident of PA.

 

[SaxonPig]

I have learned that many people who post on these forums have an all or nothing attitude.

I agree the 2A gives me the right to bear arms and in PA (where incident occurred) the law allows for open carry.

I agree that the 1A allows me to scream obscenities in public.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

In a close environment filled with nervous women who worry about their kids (we see it as needless concern but obviously THEY do not) what's the harm in covering up? Is this REALLY that big a problem? Are we REALLY in jeopardy of losing our rights to show some courtesy for the feelings of others EVEN if we think their feelings are misguided?

 

[sfmittels]

Here in Arizona, open carry is legal without any permit. Concealed carry requires a CCW. A couple of years ago, my Harley club went on a ride, and one of our members carried open (she's ex-LEO). Perfectly legal, no big deal. But at the next club meeting, the club President asked that people not carry open because of his concern for our public image. No one in the club meeting commented one way or another, and the person in question wasn't there.

I guess my point is, open carry may be legal, but it can have strange and surprising effects on people. Personally, no one ever knows if I'm carrying or not, which is just the way I like it.

 

[Sinixstar]

I'm not saying rights are limited to those expressly named in the Bill of Rights. I'm saying that as an "enumerated" rights they have a higher standard of defense that the Sheriff trampled. There is no interpretation or grey area that may be found in the smoking analogies. That makes the situation more offensive to me as a resident of PA.

So then, you're saying that some rights mean more then others? or somehow certain rights deserve more protection then others?

 

[msb45]

The woman was at a wide open soccer field. How far should she be? Not being argumentative here but why is she getting the leper treatment? Supposing we're in a affluent predominantly white area and some scary looking people (pick you race, religious affiliation, ethnic affiliation, or fashion sense) show up and stand there. Should they get Sheriff Joe Bull Bob to come down and take care of business isn't there a recourse? To me this goes beyond a gun right thing to your government getting out of control (stepping on black letter law) fueled by a mob rule. If they don't like a law they can write their rep like I can.

Open carry done responsibly is a valid excercise of the right. My view is that saying hide it is tacitly supporting the view of guns are bad. I would not equate guns with profanity. What if they're offended by my McCain bumper sticker? My NRA hat?

I'm sorry if I'm coming on a little strong here but I'm a student of history. If you don't stand for your neighbor's rights he won't be there for you. Hey what the big deal I'll just pin this cloth star on my clothes? It's a first step. OK sure a shower sound great! (Final Solution)

 

[General Geoff]

So then, you're saying that some rights mean more then others? or somehow certain rights deserve more protection then others?

You're missing this entire argument. I could care less if you smoke in public, so long as you're not blowing it in my face. Just like I don't care if you carry openly in public, as long as you don't point the gun at me.

Can I get any more crystal clear here?

 

[mbt2001]

She wore a gun, if you don't like people wearing guns, move to China...

The Sherriff should be deported.

 

[msb45]

Sinixstar what I'm saying is that certain rights are more defined and less open to interpretation based upon the founding fathers fear of government. Lack of clarity is not an excuse here for the Sheriff's action. My belief is that if it is not illegal it is legal, if it is clearly enumerated in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or a State Constitution it is clearly legal unless rescinded by the appropriate legislature. Smoking is equally as legal. If the Sheriff came by and told her to quit smoking or asked her to leave because she had "deadly" cigarettes I be just as mad.

 

[Sinixstar]

You're missing this entire argument. I could care less if you smoke in public, so long as you're not blowing it in my face. Just like I don't care if you carry openly in public, as long as you don't point the gun at me.

Can I get any more crystal clear here?

I'm not missing anything at all. Your personal opinions have been clear for awhile now.

What i'm asking - is why is legislation against one okay - but against the other it's not?
Where's the outrage over limiting personal freedom in the name of public safety - just because it has nothing to do with gun rights?

You may not see the connection now - but you may not like the connection when you're smacked in the face with it (via some new law).

I've said this before - but we can't look at 2nd amendment rights in a vacuum. Allowing certain situations to progress simply because "it doesn't effect me..." is walking right into the lions den.

 

[Sinixstar]

Sinixstar what I'm saying is that certain rights are more defined and less open to interpretation based upon the founding fathers fear of government.

that's kind of a sketchy stand, especailly if you read some of hamilton's writings in Federalist 28 and 29. Hamilton pretty clearly makes his case that the militia is required because raising a standing army is not possible, and may not be possible for some time. Should there be an insurrection against the government, the militia would be needed to put down any such rebellion. That's exactly 180 degrees away from "people need protection from the government."
In fact, there's even allusions to the idea of using the militia as a way to circumvent posse comatatus (i know i'm not spelling that right) in F.29.