SFN is on the front page of the Patriot-News

[bigbear]

There is a pic and interview with SFN on page A1 and continued on page A9 of today's Patriot-News. I sent an email to the reporter, and it is reproduced below. Does it make sense? (It is two in the morning)

I would like to first compliment you on your interview of Meleanie Hain, which appears in today's Patriot-News, Page A1 and A9. In my opinion, it was written without the negative slant that has appeared in other publications.

I am a supporter of Ms. Hain. Up until about a year ago, I would not have been. Let me explain. I am a gun owner. I own firearms purely for personal protection, as I do not hunt, and don't collect them purely for their beauty. Up until about a year ago, I was unaware that openly carrying a firearm was permitted in the Commonwealth of PA. I thought that the License to Carry Firearms that was issued to me meant that I had to conceal my firearm. In fact, when I first received my LTCF, I was given a paper which stated words to the effect of, "Allowing others to see your firearm or openly brandishing it can result in the revocation of your permit."

A year ago, I learned more about gun rights in PA. I learned that open carry was legal. It didn't really matter to me, one way or the other, because I am more comfortable carrying concealed. In fact, I argued with others, asking them, "Why would you carry openly, it just lets criminals know who to shoot first." However, it has been shown that criminals have actually walked past marked police patrol units, (bikes and cars), uniformed police officers, and attempted armed robberies. So, I don't believe that openly carrying a firearm will be spotted by a criminal.

Now, with this case, my eyes have been opened to the concept of the chiseling of rights, a little at a time. Meleanie Hain was merely exercising a right that is guaranteed to her by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But, if you read what other posters have written on the forums, a lot of people are comfortable with giving up this one part of their right, because it doesn't really effect them. They may be gun owners, but they think that guns should be left at home. Or, they carry, but only when they think that they will need it. (By the way, if I really, REALLY think I'm going somewhere that I may need a gun, I'm staying home.)

What these people do not realize is that if they give up this part of their rights today, then when someone comes along and says, "Well, since you compromised here, we'll just take this part away, too." And the worst part is, most people will not stand up and say, "This is wrong. This is my right." Most will accept it.

Would members of the press tolerate a public official dictating to them what they should publish, and when? Or how? The Second Amendment is just as important as the First Amendment, the Fourth, and so on. None is more important then the others.

People have asked Ms. Hain, "Why would you carry a firearm to a park?" I will not speak for Meleanie, who is quite capable of speaking for herself. But I look at page A6 of today's Patriot-News, which reports on the beating death of two young boys at a playground in Phoenix, AZ, and I ask, "Why wouldn't you carry there?"

I feel comfortable in stating that if a situation like this would have developed in Ms. Hain's presence, or with her children, the story would have had a different outcome.

I will close by saying that the rights that we have today are important. We should not stand by and accept when public officials violate them, and we should applaud those that stand up for them.

Sincerely yours,

[Tomcat088]

I will say that I think this is a damn good email. I haven't read the article, but from what you've said it sounds good and if it got this kind of a reaction out of you, then I know it's good. Glad that you let the author know, put it in writing, and sounded like an intelligent adult, well done sir.

[shefearsnothing]

I think your letter is awesome. Thank you for sending it.

I agree that this article was done much better then those they have printed in the past. A few things though:

1. I did not "agree to an interview via email". It wasn't exactly like that at all. I have been turning media away because I think they all know the story and just need to let it rest for awhile. She did ask me some questions which I did answer but not exactly in "interview" format.

2. Funny about the picture they used this time. They sent a photographer to get a picture yesterday and I guess they didn't like the fact that he did not get a picture with my gun. He said that is what they wanted and I politely explained that as a rule I don't carry when I'm just around the house. I also explained that it's not "on display" but openly carried and with the jacket I was wearing it wouldn't be visible anyway. I realize that in the past I did agree to move my jacket for a picture but if I could go back and change that I would because I have been saying it's not on display and then...well actions speak louder then words. All I can do now is change that as I did yesterday. Anyway, guess they just didn't like a picture without the gun so.... whatever.

[gnbrotz]

Teaser with photo.

Text of article.

[bpvet]

Bigbear, good letter and comments to PennLive.

[shefearsnothing]

Ok, so in the teaser they did use one of the shots the guy got yesterday. Odd. I wonder which one is in the actual paper?

[crakkajakka15]

very good article

[Statkowski]

Over on pennlive.com's site under Interact (User-Generated Content, News Comments, Submitted Pics, Videos, Blogs, Forums & Polls), three guesses as to what articles have generated the most comments (and the first two guesses don't count):

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...non_daily.html - 52 comments

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind..._court_to.html - 30 comments

There are other news stories being discussed, but they're only in the single-digit category.

SheFearsNothing rules!

[wa3ra]

Holy Lord, are there some psychotic people posting comments in there.

[87th PVI]

Holy Lord, are there some psychotic people posting comments in there.

Ain't that the truth! Many of those posting against the issue are downright nasty & slanderous. I wonder how they'd react if someone came along & took away their rights under the first amendment? Revoke their internet access & see how that makes them feel. How about one step further & have big brother come knocking on their door to serve them a summons to answer for their slander.

Hey Melanie... I support you & this subject has come up at work where I've also heard nothing but support for you. (although I may have had to first explain to a few some of the deeper issues that are involved.)
I'd like to also thank you for the unintentional role you played in the York County Commissioners review and revoke their preemptive rule that has been on the books since the seventies concerning the carrying of a firearm in York County parks. See... You've done good things without even trying to already! & Kudos to your hubby too!