Posted on 10/14/2008 5:40:20 PM PDT by neverdem
The Associated Press
A mother who angered fellow parents when she openly carried a pistol to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game got her concealed weapons permit back Tuesday after a Pennsylvania judge overruled a sheriff's decision to revoke it.
Meleanie Hain lost the permit after other parents complained about the presence of the gun during a soccer game on Sept. 11. Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby, who said he also is a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, said the law required him to return Hain's permit.
But he questioned her judgment, saying she "scared the devil" out of others at the soccer field.
"Fear doesn't belong at a kid's soccer game from any source," Eby said.
Hain testified at the Tuesday hearing that she did not intend to intimidate anyone but felt she had to carry the gun openly because warm-weather clothing made it difficult to hide a firearm. She said her husband's line of work, which was not disclosed, made her a "greater target" than the average person...
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Wimps!
Atleast you knew she had a gun.
maybe we should work on people not being afraid when they see a gun that is holstered.
what a bunch of idiots. But of course, this is what happens when the “anti gun” media is allowed to permiate our lives!
Thanks for the link.
As with most situations, once the cops arrive, it only gets worse.
I applaud her for putting it in everyone's face and being willing to put up with being disarmed indefinitely, however.
What ails those people, that they have this irrational fear of firearms???
From the sound of it these people pee their panties when a police officer walks by too.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Good grief!
I don't think she was wearing it to protect herself from the five year olds. The article stated that she had reason to believe her life was more in danger from other sources due to her husband's work.
Is her life somehow less valuable and less worth protecting when she is watching her child play soccer than it would be otherwise?
To then jump to the conclusion that just because a bunch of kids are around means protection is unnecessary, is absurd.
Obviously the judge ruled against the sheriff and gave her license and gun back, so he was certainly convinced this was not poor judgement.
I guess it depends on one's perspective. Knowing that more and more often we hear about perverts preying on little kids, I think that she showed exceptional judgement. Those little kids were probably the safest kids in town because there was someone there with the means to protect them.
Good on her, and good on the judge!
So, if there had been an armed policeman present, that policeman would have been showing very poor judgement also?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.