Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

I am not going to get into the OC debate due to 2 past warnings. God forbid I get banned.

1. Anyway did SFN OC at any games since she got her LTCF back?

2. I love to read the posts that "If someone tries to disarm me they will get shot" Now that is not the exact quote but it was what was implied. Now if a group of dads stands in an OC'ers way and refuses to allow them near the playing field, or shoves the OC'er, they will be shot? I don't think some dad will try to disarm anyone but I can see them making a stand. I am curious as to see what would happen. I think when you OC everything should be "yes sir, no sir". Any aggressive move with a gun, CC but especially OC would be very bad.

3. I think the League is figuring out what they are going to do for the future. I stated before a Judge told me as the authorized users of the borough (public) fields we were authorized to ban anyone for any reason we saw fit from the field of play. In this case it was outside of earshot. A parent watched the entire season from a parking lot 400 feet away. We were instructed to call the police and a trespassing charge would result. Of course when there was no practice or games the person was free to use the "public" property. My guess is they will put in a no firearms policy which I guess they can. That means no CC either. Maybe PA Patriot and gbrotz can comment on that. Better take up another collection because if they do that, it is back to court.

4. I hate soccer and always did. Kids should play an American game.

5. I have no problem with OC, I just think someplaces people do it is pretty stupid. Also most people see what SFN did as grandstanding. "Hey, look at me" attitude. I don't see it that way but open your eyes, most people do. Do a poll of the members here and most might feel that way. I don't know how to do a poll or I would. Of course everyone could only vote once to keep it fair.

the bold is in violation of STATE Law!!!!!

[XRAY Joe]

Originally Posted by normanvin

It sounds like the judge might have given his opinion on the matter. Did he cite any laws or court cases to back this up.




I am not a big fan myself. To each their own.

No he did not, but it sounded right to me. This is not some pickup game in the park. Leagues have to have the proper insurance to protect themselves and also the borough. As the authorized user of the property the league can set its own rules of participation. If you don't like it don't play.

I guess it is another day in court to figure this out. My guess is they will go this route. I am thinking they are getting their ducks lined up.

[shefearsnothing]

As the authorized user of the property the league can set its own rules of participation.

That is like saying if I am renting a pavilion in the park I can set my own rules that differ from state laws. Ummm...in a word; NO.

[XRAY Joe]

Hey fingers,

What is it with you and exclamation points? You are telling me that barring a person from the field of play for not following league rules doesn't happen? Get real. Parents get ejected and banned from games on a daily basis for violating a league's policy, whatever that policy may be.

If it happens go back to court.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

No he did not, but it sounded right to me. This is not some pickup game in the park. Leagues have to have the proper insurance to protect themselves and also the borough. As the authorized user of the property the league can set its own rules of participation. If you don't like it don't play.

I guess it is another day in court to figure this out. My guess is they will go this route. I am thinking they are getting their ducks lined up.

You raise a good point here. I hope this all subsides and that the soccer league, the field's ownership/maintenance (whether public or private), or the town/borough/whatever isn't actually getting their ducks in a row to attempt to limit carry rights and the like.

Originally Posted by shefearsnothing

That is like saying if I am renting a pavilion in the park I can set my own rules that differ from state laws. Ummm...in a word; NO.

No, the above is actually very true. It's critical to understand the usage permit or any contractual implications of the site license (if they can actually get one).

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

Hey fingers,

What is it with you and exclamation points? You are telling me that barring a person from the field of play for not following league rules doesn't happen? Get real. Parents get ejected and banned from games on a daily basis for violating a league's policy, whatever that policy may be.

If it happens go back to court.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She did nothing againt policy, rules or law.

[338winmag]

some one on pennlive just posted that all of us who oc are fat and are a bunch of wimps. i d like to meet him face to face and then have him say that to my face.any of you who know me know what I'm getting at.

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

No he did not, but it sounded right to me. This is not some pickup game in the park. Leagues have to have the proper insurance to protect themselves and also the borough. As the authorized user of the property the league can set its own rules of participation. If you don't like it don't play.

I guess it is another day in court to figure this out. My guess is they will go this route. I am thinking they are getting their ducks lined up.

I understand that it is a league thing. But I also understand that the park is still owned by the municipality. And the municipality can not make firearms laws. So I doubt the league could either.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

You raise a good point here. I hope this all subsides and that the soccer league, the field's ownership/maintenance (whether public or private), or the town/borough/whatever isn't actually getting their ducks in a row to attempt to limit carry rights and the like.



No, the above is actually very true. It's critical to understand the usage permit or any contractual implications of the site license (if they can actually get one).

Look at pre-emption.

[XRAY Joe]

Listen everybody, I just brought up a point.

SFN, then how did I do it? I just told you what a judge told me. It was not in court. But he told me what to do and it worked. I was just giving you a heads up that is what they might do. I suggest going back to court if they try that.