Soccer Mom Wins Case, (Glock) 26-0
wesmorgan1OK, I'll save a bunch of typing and give you the main points as links:
* Judge (properly) restores concealed-carry permit.
* Soccer mom sues sheriff's office, claiming lost (babysitting) wages, emotional distress, etc.
I'm not about to question this woman's Second Amendment right, nor do I criticize the judge for reinstating her concealed-carry permit. My question is simple - what ever happened to common sense?
In court, Ms. Hain explained her thinking:
Meleanie Hain testified that she did not intend to intimidate anyone, but felt she had to carry the gun openly because warm-weather clothing made it difficult to hide a firearm, and she wanted to be able to reach it more easily if she needed to defend herself from an attacker. She said her husband's line of work, which was not disclosed, made her a "greater target" than the average person.
Now, she has her restored permit, and she states that she'll be carrying openly at future games/practices. She is, however, suing the sheriff's office over the whole mess. As part of her lawsuit, she's asking for lost wages because her babysitting business has waned in the wake of the controversy.
My questions are simple. and they're all based on Hain's own description of her situation. First and foremost, why couldn't she leave the weapon in her car during the game (we're talking about one hour at the most) or watch the game from her car? If she really is a "greater target" because of her husband's work--to the point that she feels the need for a Glock on her hip--isn't she actually endangering those other people by being around them? Does she really think that someone is going to attack her at a crowded soccer match? If she really is a "greater target," why on earth is she babysitting kids - isn't she endangering those kids as well? Did she brief those parents on the threat to their kids before taking the job of babysitting them? (Apparently not, since several have removed their kids from her care after this came to light.) A good deal of this just doesn't balance.
Barring evidence to the contrary, Ms. Hain certainly has the right to carry a firearm. I would suggest, however, that common sense would have dictated a much different outcome to this particular story. There is still a place in which we can respect the concerns and worries of others, and we can still exercise our rights in a responsible fashion.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
"Open carry" is rather ill-advised in most situations. It frightens and intimidates the uninformed, and leads to messes like this.
I carry concealed, and would rather not advertise the situation to every Tom, Dick and Harry within visual range. But Florida remains one of 6 states that forbids open carry, so the discussion is moot for me anyway.
What's the story on local prohibitions in Florida, Redbeard? Can local schools, hospitals, churches, etc. name themselves "gun-free zones?" One of the open-carry advocates in Pennsylvania, when asked about parents who might want gun-free soccer games, bluntly stated, "they don't have that right." Should that be the case, even where private groups and/or private property are concerned?
Private property owners in Florida retain the right to prohibit carrying weapons on their property if they so desire, with the one codified exception being the right of employees to have firearms in their locked vehicles in company parking lots.
Florida prohibits weapons in several specific types of places, such as schools, cop stations, prisons, courthouses, polling places, and bars and restaurants serving alcohol.
You know, Redbeard, this statement of yours stuck in my mind:
I don't think that's quite fair. It isn't a question of being "uninformed," but rather worried/concerned about the unknown person. When I see someone carrying, the question is not their reason for carrying, but rather their trustworthiness, mental balance and/or emotional state. (As we've noted in past discussions, the issuance of a permit is no guarantee of stability.)I think that the environment can lead to legitimate questions as well. If some person feels the need to carry at the same location where my kids are playing/staying/whatever, I'm going to wonder whether their reason for carrying puts my kids at risk, and I'm going to act more protectively as a result. Taking the current case as an example, there's no way that I would entrust my kids to a person who considers themselves such a "'greater target' than the average person" that they need to carry a handgun; truth be told, I wouldn't want them around that person at all, because--assuming that the "greater target" assessment is valid--the environment is obviously one of high risk. I wouldn't call that "uninformed."
Of course in Iowa, we're a "may issue" state... but in most cases it's left up to the discretion of the local law enforcement, and nobody really catches any slack provided it's just a handgun their sporting around (although I don't know anybody stupid enough as to flash it around and worry about it not coordinating with their summer motif... THAT's pretty silly) I'm literally surrounded by hunters who carry concealed weapons, and not to give too much away about myself, let's just say I used to be a manager at a skeet/trap/gun club and like to blow shit up for fun... does that make me such a bad person? Nah... and it's what our forefathers would have wanted. It keeps everybody honest. Even if I wasn't carrying, I could rest assured that at least one other person around me would be.
My biggest defense in a pro-wesmorgan sense would be that her being so stupid as to leave it not only open to suggestions, but that she leaves everyone around her open to her own vulnerability. Most that carry may at times not even realize they have it on them. MANY don't even keep them loaded. By her being so brazen as to carry it so unguarded and open to compromise makes her that much more undeserving of a concealed weapons permit. What's not to keep some punk or dumb kid (mainly one of her own, provided that she's obviously shown her own brilliance, so one can only assume she's passed that along through her DNA) from thinking they're a hero/smartass and whipping it out and doing something accidental/stupid.
She should be locked in a room with Vanilla Ice singing Ice Ice Baby nonstop, 24 - 7, until she's fully apologetic for what she's done... and then let it go a little while longer for the sole enjoyment of those who's lives she put in harm for her own lack of common sense. Brazen stupidity in a mini-skirt.
"When I see someone carrying, the question is not their reason for carrying, but rather their trustworthiness, mental balance and/or emotional state."
What do you suppose goes though the criminal mind when they see someone carrying?
Even an old socialist like Robert Heinlein understood, as he wrote: "An armed society is a polite society."
But still, I don't even let my family members know when I'm carrying. No reason to do so.
As for the bad guys, I'd rather not give them the whole plan up front. Better to keep them guessing, knowing that in a "must issue" concealed weapons permit state, the next person they try on for size might just be able to defend himself.
Even an old socialist like Robert Heinlein understood, as he wrote: "An armed society is a polite society."
Yeah. Nothing says politeness like a blood with a clock stuffed into his wasteband. And don't you know, South Central Los Angeles was voted the most polite neighborhood in the world. Imagine that.
"Nothing says politeness like a blood with a clock stuffed into his wasteband."
LOL! Just don't ask him what time it is!
We need more clock control. Do you know how easy it is to buy one at a clock show?
And all assault clocks should be banned. No one needs those.
why only limit the assault clocks?
I'm okay with banning all clocks, period.
When clocks are outlawed, only outlaws will know the time.
Depens upon who knows what time it is.
Does anybody really know what time it is?
Does anybody really care?