Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[CQB]

Originally Posted by mikey

I could be mistaken..........but, I think this is sometimes refered to as TROLLING, but who am I to smear your good name....

To me, you are nobody.

But hey, this is the internet.

Trolling, experiment, point being made. I guess YOU could classify it as anything you want.

However, in the end, my point was made. Whether you see it or not, I could care less.

[CQB]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I can't speak for others, but for me, it wasn't your message that turned me off, it was your delivery. Such as they say, you can't shit at the dinner table and expect compliments on the meal.

I apologize for that.

[CQB]

Originally Posted by shefearsnothing

Archiver, I was repping you and hit something before I was finished with my comment so excuse the fact that it's "imcomplete".

mikey, I am not pissed. I am flabbergasted that someone could actually pass ANY judgement either way without FACTS. Not to mention he is arguing with those of us who WERE there who DO have the FACTS. UN. REAL. IMO that makes him JUST as guilty as the antis. He has no real information to go on...just whatever opinions he has formulated from what he has read which may or may not be hersay while the rest of us who WERE there are saying something to the contrary...yet we must be wrong. HOW DOES THAT WORK!? *throws hands up in the air* I mean, I am blonde but.... He is taking the word of the SHERIFF whose revocation was OVERTURNED by a JUDGE based on THE LAW. The judge admitted "I must rule based on the LAW..." and based on that he ordered my LTCF returned to me. Oh but that's right...the sheriff said...um....oh yeah, we don't know. I bet we can imagine though.

Yes, I'm just a guilty as an anti. Bravo!

Because I don't see eye to eye with you I'm no better.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by Archiver

The system itself is ridiculous. Despite what they would tell you... you're actually are Guilty until proven innocent. If she HAD committed a crime she should have been charged...but sheriff knew he had NO CASE! Why is the sheriff the SOLE arbitor of the license revocation? The Uniform Firearm Act needs to be amended to to include that a HEARING before a Magistrate MUST occur before a LTCF can be revoked.

Either a hearing before revocation, or a list of specific things that will result in revocation. Either way it takes the ability to arbitrarily revoke for BS reasons out of the sheriffs hands.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by TaePo

I think you misunderstand. I cannot loan or give my firearm to anyone unless they have a LTCF.

If I am committing no crime, someone attempts to take my firearm or does so, they have violated many codes.

I believe that, since I cannot lawfully give them my firearm, they cannot take it either as they are not an allowed person to secure it. Plus, they are committing assault, false arrest, strong arm robbery/robbery, possession of stolen property. Hopefully they are not ruled a prohibited person as well.

That was my meaning. If I am not breaking the law, and I cannot loan or give the firearm to them, they can have no expectation of gaining legal possession of it.

ETA = Disorderly Conduct, Reckless Endangerment, Endangering Child Health and Welfare?, Risking a Catastrophe. Forgot those possibilities, too. IANAL.

You forgot (not so) free trip to the hospital as well.

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by CQB

I DO NOT THINK THE SFN DID ANYTHING ILLEGAL!
...
Do I think the Sheriff was right in revoking her permit? Yes, I do think so.

Those two statements are in direct conflict of each other. She did nothing illegal or dangerous. Her permit was restored by a court of law, which in and of itself says that the Sheriff was wrong to revoke it.

So how can you say that the Sheriff acted appropriately by revoking her LTCF?

That's like saying it's appropriate for PennDOT to revoke my Driver's License because I chose to drive with my windows down, rather then use the Air Conditioner.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by CQB

That was not my point.

Nor did I say that.

What I did say is that the Sheriff did his job the way he saw fit. Those are his words not mine. He received a complaint, he acted on it. I will state this now, I told him that I thought his decision was wrong. However, he is the one who did what he thought was needed.

As for me OCing, no one made a complaint against me or you. So there was no need for LEO to respond or to even start an investigation. And for you to bring it up is a moot point. Nothing ever happened. You and I both know that we were received exceptionally well at all the places we went. This did not happen with SFN. Especially the cigar shop. Need I remind you of that. That is how getting our word out should be done.

I DO NOT THINK THE SFN DID ANYTHING ILLEGAL! I think that this whole situation is shitty. I support any and all gunowners no matter what method they so chose to carry, so long as it is legal. I do believe that OCing can be done a little bit more wisely. Again, my PERSONAL OPINIONS!

Do I think the Sheriff was right in revoking her permit? Yes, I do think so.

I find the two bolded statements confusing. You told him he was wrong, but you think he was right? Can you please clarify?

[TaePo]

Originally Posted by lildobe

Those two statements are in direct conflict of each other. She did nothing illegal or dangerous. Her permit was restored by a court of law, which in and of itself says that the Sheriff was wrong to revoke it.

So how can you say that the Sheriff acted appropriately by revoking her LTCF?

That's like saying it's appropriate for PennDOT to revoke my Driver's License because I chose to drive with my windows down, rather then use the Air Conditioner.

I think CQB might be hung up on the term discretion.

It is at the Sheriff's discretion to revoke if he "deems a person's character or reputation is such that...danger to themselves or others."

However, though this seems to give huge discretion, I do not think the courts would allow it without the Sheriff having some basis other than 'He does not like OC.' to prove that SFN was a danger to anyone.

Charges like threatening someone, DUI (multiple), drugs or such other ILLEGAL activity could be used to prove or deem someone a danger.

The sheriffs' thought they were given wide discretionary powers but are finding out they still must have a legal basis for their conclusions. (eg. not just opinions.)

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by lildobe

Those two statements are in direct conflict of each other. She did nothing illegal or dangerous. Her permit was restored by a court of law, which in and of itself says that the Sheriff was wrong to revoke it.

So how can you say that the Sheriff acted appropriately by revoking her LTCF?

That's like saying it's appropriate for PennDOT to revoke my Driver's License because I chose to drive with my windows down, rather then use the Air Conditioner.

The statute says the permit may be revoked if "the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety". If there was credible reason to believe that SFN is likely to pose a danger to public safety, then it would be appropriate to yank the permit, even if later investigation proved otherwise.

EDIT: I would add to the above that in this case, I am not aware of any reliable evidence that would have justified the revocation. If such evidence existed, I would think it would have been discussed in court, and thus we would have heard about it without having to compromise CQB's impeccable moral credentials.

The statute is ambiguous because likely can mean "probable" or "plausible". But a mere allegation, without any corroboration, is a terrible reason to yank a permit. Otherwise anyone with a grudge can call the police and say that you shot JFK, and you'll be landed with a huge bill to get your LTCF back in court.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by CQB

That was not my point.

Nor did I say that.

What I did say is that the Sheriff did his job the way he saw fit. Those are his words not mine. He received a complaint, he acted on it. I will state this now, I told him that I thought his decision was wrong. However, he is the one who did what he thought was needed.

As for me OCing, no one made a complaint against me or you. So there was no need for LEO to respond or to even start an investigation. And for you to bring it up is a moot point. Nothing ever happened. You and I both know that we were received exceptionally well at all the places we went. This did not happen with SFN. Especially the cigar shop. Need I remind you of that. That is how getting our word out should be done.

I DO NOT THINK THE SFN DID ANYTHING ILLEGAL! I think that this whole situation is shitty. I support any and all gunowners no matter what method they so chose to carry, so long as it is legal. I do believe that OCing can be done a little bit more wisely. Again, my PERSONAL OPINIONS!

Do I think the Sheriff was right in revoking her permit? Yes, I do think so. However, I'm not the one wearing the uniform and enforcing the laws. He is. What ever his actions are, are his and his alone. You may not agree with it. But it is what it is.

You all can point fingers and color me as anti-OC. It doesn't matter one bit to me. Those that know me should know better. But, this is what you get here amongst other gun owners when you voice opinions. You have all made that perfectly clear.

So let me close on this...

You asked for my opinions on how to. I stated them. They obviously weren't what you all wanted.

I stated that it is imperative that those in the eye of the press should watch carefully what they say and how they say it. One very important thing to remember...

NEVER GIVE A VERBAL INTERVIEW TO THE PRESS! Make sure when you give an interview, video is rolling. Past experience, maybe it will help you all out in the near future. I'm sure you'll need it.

I made a point that there is a lot of hate and discontent amongst many of you. Especially when it comes to someone voicing an opinion. You all didn't like that. It shows. Hell, the owner of this site has even stated that you should practice what you all do a little more wisely. Not his exact words, just me paraphrasing. I have yet to see any of you go on the attack against him for voicing his opinion.

A lot of big words were used in this thread. A lot of colorful pictures. A lot of finger pointing. A lot of assumptions. Especially coming from those that I personally know. Again, understand, this is all just my opinion.

Dude, you don't get it at all. Very few, if any one, cares what your opinions are. Everyone has a few and everyone is entitled to them. In this thread, you didn't just state your opinions, you put them forth rudely and disparaged others for damaging all the hard work that has been put into fighting to retain our rights. You just stated you thought the sheriff was right in revoking SFN's permit. That post, in and of itself, is ignorant, from someone who should know better.

You and others have insinuated that SFN is an attention whore. I don't know if she is or if she isn't, and neither do you. What I do know is that if a firearm owner finds themselves thrust into the media spotlight, they should be themselves, for better or worse. The same as we should be ourselves when we carry openly or concealed. Telling the truth is never a bad thing. You have very little control over how a reporter reports what you say, and unless you are a trained media spokesperson, attempting to play one on TV is stupid.

I know you OC. I know you are not anti-OC for the sake of OC. You are apparently anti-OC around kids. You are apparently anti-OC where there is the possibility of conflict with another human being. The superior attitude you displayed throughout this thread is what got you the responses you label as hate, not your opinions. Please try to absorb that and return to your normally, mostly even-keeled posting... Thank you.