Gun-toting soccer mom's lawsuit against Lebanon County sheriff dismissed a year after

[middlefinger]

A Pennnia federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by Meleanie Hain and her husband claiming $1 million dollars in damages after Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo revoked her license to carry a concealed firearm, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Meleanie Hain, 31, was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a children's soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon, Pa. Her permit to carry concealed was revoked by DeLeo on Sept. 20, 2008. DeLeo said Hain showed poor judgment in wearing her gun to the game. Hain’s permit was reinstated by Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby on Oct. 14, 2008, but the judge asked her to conceal it when she goes to soccer games. Hain said she would continue to carry it openly under the Second Amendment.

View full sizeDan Gleiter, The Patriot-News/file
The home in which the Hains died was sold at auction.
She and her husband, Scott, 33, had been separated before he killed her in October 2009 in their Lebanon home. Their three children were home at the time of the shooting but were not injured.
The lawsuit was continued by Meleanie Hain's estate.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence provided free legal assistance to DeLeo, and the court adopted arguments supported by the Brady Center that DeLeo could not be sued for allegedly violating Hain's Second Amendment rights.
Chief Judge Yvette Kane of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said that the U.S. Supreme Court has "explicitly referenced prohibitions on concealed carrying of firearms as an example of regulations that have traditionally been considered lawful under the Second Amendment."sylva

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...s_lawsuit.html

[gnbrotz]

Chief Judge Yvette Kane of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said that the U.S. Supreme Court has "explicitly referenced prohibitions on concealed carrying of firearms as an example of regulations that have traditionally been considered lawful under the Second Amendment."

Except there was no prohibition on the venue in question, only the Sheriff's opinion that such behavior should not be allowed.

What stupid logic for dismissing the case. It's almost as if they didn't know the facts of the case. Sadly, it's more likely that they simply chose to ignore the facts/law, just like DeLeo did.

[andrewjs18]

that's really unfortunate...our legal system has yet again failed the American public.

[FNG19]

What stupid logic for dismissing the case.

Obviously, I'm no lawyer, and I have no inside information here. That said, I have to wonder if the fact that the estate was carrying on the suit played a significant role in the dismissal.

[gnbrotz]

Obviously, I'm no lawyer, and I have no inside information here. That said, I have to wonder if the fact that the estate was carrying on the suit played a significant role in the dismissal.

It shouldn't have (IMO). It's not like someone's estate/heirs continuing a suite (or initiating one, for that matter) doesn't happen. It happens all the time.

[billamj]

I'm just nauseated.

[andrewjs18]

is there a plan of recourse?

[phillykev]

Except there was no prohibition on the venue in question, only the Sheriff's opinion that such behavior should not be allowed.

Well, wasn't it also a judge's order as well?

What stupid logic for dismissing the case. It's almost as if they didn't know the facts of the case. Sadly, it's more likely that they simply chose to ignore the facts/law, just like DeLeo did.

I'm with you.

[gnbrotz]

Well, wasn't it also a judge's order as well?

The judge in this case noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not an unrestricted right. That limits can be put in place.

This civil suit challenged the notion that the Sheriff had the authority to impose his personal opinion, because Mrs. Hain's actions did not violate any existing law or prohibition. As a matter of fact, it took place on municipal property, where the right to carry a firearm is expressly protected by state law.

It's as if the judge said, "It's completely appropriate for maximum speed limits to be set on the public roadway, so the Sheriff was in the right for revoking someone's drivers license for driving 50 mph in a 55 mph zone. It's not illegal, but it was contrary to the Sheriff's personal opinion, and the court will support the Sheriff's personal opinion and dismiss the suit alleging that the Sheriff's actions were a violation of the driver's rights, even though the driver was penalized for behavior that was not illegal."

[Adam-12]

Is the estate going to appeal? Sounds pretty reversible.