Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[D-FENS]

Originally Posted by lildobe

Maybe the Pennlive person got their impression of what OC'ers look like from the video of the WHP reporter tugging on my gun

[headcase]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Actually, in the grand scheme of things, I don't do squat. Sadly the few things I do manage to get done seem more grand because many simply do nothing.

It's nice to see that trend slowly changing, but we've got a long way to go.

I have to disagree with your self-perception. In the grand scheme of things, both you and Rich do a ton of shit that does not only include the things you physically do, but also encompasses the encouragement and inspiration you provide that gets others off their asses to get actively involved.

This actually confuses me... how can you get off your high horse if you keep being self depreciating?

XRAY,

There are people who get what you're saying, although the examples you are giving are not enforcable. I would engage in this part of the discussion, but I have been refraining because I don't wish to give these people any ideas to help make their strategy more effective, which is what will happen if this issue gets debated much farther..hint hint....

And on a side note to XRAY- One, if you want to post in these discussions, you need to work on your hide thickness. Two, you still haven't answe....oh never mind, you get it...

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

Well good for you. I think watching a game means you are participating. I think there are some people who got ejected for whatever reason and they had no kids playing. Can someone get banned for mearly exercising his Right of Freedom of Speech? The answer is yes. I saw it happen. The next court case will be interesting. Come down off your high horse.

It would be a very interesting case and here's why I say that . . .

There is a specific state law which prohibits municipalities from enforcing any law or ordinance affecting the possession, among other things, of firearms. By granting a private league a license to use a particular field at a particular time, the municipality simply cannot allow the league to create a rule barring the lawful possession of firearms, upon penalty of a trespass prosecution for violating that rule. If the municipality could do this, to perform a simple end run around the state law (and the state and Federal Constitutions) for the whole town, all it would need to do would be to grant a license for all public property to, for example, a newly formed "Brady Municipality Clean and Green League" which would pick up trash, and, oh I almost forgot, ban possession of guns. Maybe the new league would even be so kind as to enact a rule whereby they stop and search anyone they encounter and hows about stopping and questioning anyone who looks a little too "ethnic" for good measure. No can do.

The initial and obvious difference between your no smoking example and a gun ban is the state preemption law. Municipalities can't ban guns, directly or indirectly. If they try, they will get sued. And lose. Big.

[Butlerite]

Originally Posted by mikey

Ditto!!!

Me three.. but not sure about the wimp part! LOL

[XRAY Joe]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

It would be a very interesting case and here's why I say that . . .

There is a specific state law which prohibits municipalities from enforcing any law or ordinance affecting the possession, among other things, of firearms. By granting a private league a license to use a particular field at a particular time, the municipality simply cannot allow the league to create a rule barring the lawful possession of firearms, upon penalty of a trespass prosecution for violating that rule. If the municipality could do this, to perform a simple end run around the state law (and the state and Federal Constitutions) for the whole town, all it would need to do would be to grant a license for all public property to, for example, a newly formed "Brady Municipality Clean and Green League" which would pick up trash, and, oh I almost forgot, ban possession of guns. Maybe the new league would even be so kind as to enact a rule whereby they stop and search anyone they encounter and hows about stopping and questioning anyone who looks a little too "ethnic" for good measure. No can do.

The initial and obvious difference between your no smoking example and a gun ban is the state preemption law. Municipalities can't ban guns, directly or indirectly. If they try, they will get sued. And lose. Big.

Then how can a league keep someone from attending if they use offensive language. I don't mean swearing, just maybe constantly disagreeing with some official. How does that happen? Freedom of speech right? I saw umpires toss people for minor verbal infractions. And guess what? They had to leave the field of play. Public property or not. And also guess what. Someone who gets tossed by an umpire for a number of times generally gets the boot for the season. Is the league violating his constitutional right to free speech in a public park?

Headcase. I missed the point of your last sentence, I don't get it. However I do like the little crazy superhero thingy you have for your banner. How do you get those made?

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

However I do like the little crazy superhero thingy you have for your banner. How do you get those made?

Friends of SFN make them...

[ShawnB]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

Is the league violating his constitutional right to free speech in a public park?

That is an easy question to answer.

YES

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

Then how can a league keep someone from attending if they use offensive language. I don't mean swearing, just maybe constantly disagreeing with some official. How does that happen? Freedom of speech right? I saw umpires toss people for minor verbal infractions. And guess what? They had to leave the field of play. Public property or not. And also guess what. Someone who gets tossed by an umpire for a number of times generally gets the boot for the season. Is the league violating his constitutional right to free speech in a public park?

So they just asked these people to leave and they left?

I'll ask you the same question you just asked me: how does the league keep someone from attending? They can keep someone from playing under the rules of play. Attending? I don't think so. Did they have the cops bodily toss them to the nearest sidewalk? No, right? What would have happened if they just stood there quietly and didn't leave? Nothing? Likely.

To add another dimension . . . if I had a nickel for every time I've seen bogus municipal charges tossed at a preliminary hearing and a dollar for every time the innocent citizen subsequently sued and "got paid," well I'd have a lot of nickels and dollars. In other words, they can try to force someone to leave just as sure as any meatball charges will be tossed and they can all get sued.

If a person was acting in a disorderly (and therefore unlawful) manner, that's different. What you describe (constant arguing, maybe looking to start a fight, etc.) might be where that was coming from -- can't say; I wasn't there.

[4XLT]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

I'm sure 4XLT would take offense also.

WTH did i miss now ??? lol doi need to reasd through 15 pages to get cought up ???? now that will offend me lol

[XRAY Joe]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

So they just asked these people to leave and they left?

I'll ask you the same question you just asked me: how does the league keep someone from attending? They can keep someone from playing under the rules of play. Attending? I don't think so. Did they have the cops bodily toss them to the nearest sidewalk? No, right? What would have happened if they just stood there quietly and didn't leave? Nothing? Likely.

To add another dimension . . . if I had a nickel for every time I've seen bogus municipal charges tossed at a preliminary hearing and a dollar for every time the innocent citizen subsequently sued and "got paid," well I'd have a lot of nickels and dollars. In other words, they can try to force someone to leave just as sure as any meatball charges will be tossed and they can all get sued.

If a person was acting in a disorderly (and therefore unlawful) manner, that's different. What you describe (constant arguing, maybe looking to start a fight, etc.) might be where that was coming from -- can't say; I wasn't there.

OK, so if you are a fan and you say something to an umpire and he tosses you from the facility. You aren't going to go? Well if you don't the cops get called and they remove you. Didn't anybody here ever see that happen? Call the ACLU for trampling your first ammendant right, because that is what happened.

I said before what happened to SFN should have not happened. All I did was bring up what a private organization may be able to do while it is the authorized (or whatever you want to call it) user of a public field.

If you rent a pavilllion in a park, can 20 other people come and use it while you are there? After all it is public property.

I will take Headcase's advice and stop commenting on this. He is a wise man.