CCW permit revoked for legal open carry

It's too bad that the Mother has to endure the harassment, but this is one of those that is going to work in our favor.

Unless of course the PA legislature comes out with a ban on openly-carried firearms.

The second soccer mom protestor has a bad hairdo. If she drives a car with her hair in such disarray she should have her drivers license revoked.

If I was the mom, I would now open carry every time.

if you were the soccer mom, you now have no other legal choice but to carry it openly, every time.

This is a sham! I smell a great lawsuit and further humiliation to the "only ones."

He cites the section in Firearms Act section 6109e as reason for revoking her license, but I cannot see any justification for doing so. Hmmm.......This looks like a job for an attorney! :-0

Hmmm.......This looks like a job for an attorney!

Cue the Harvey Birdman theme music...

The Sheriff has picked his side of the argument. Let's hope free people stand up for theirs.

The general email address for the Sheriff 's office is:

[email protected]

His full name is:

Michael J. DeLeo

See

http://dsf.pacounties.org/lebanon/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=444853

for phone, etc.

And here's their local paper's story on it:

http://www.ldnews.com/alllistings/ci_10545914?IADID=Search-www.ldnews.com-www.ldnews.com

Perhaps another way to look at this is that the sheriff is trying to aggravate (educate??) all those other soccer moms - because of the complaints, she will be open carry at all the games; see what you started?

And here's the letter she received (in PDF):

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=3794

Wonderful logic there. They don't like that she's open carrying, so they revoke her CCW, forcing her to OC from now on.

Looks like PA's "shall issue" law is "shall issue unless the sheriff shows 'good cause' why it shouldn't be issued", which doesn't really sound like "shall issue" to me. Dave Kopel had a good (if old) analysis here.

The PA State Police website mentions 6109, saying, "In accordance with 18 PA C.S. §6109, a sheriff may deny an individual the right to a License to Carry Firearms if there is reason to believe that the character and reputation of the individual are such that they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety." Which to my mind pretty much means it's discretionary "may issue" just like CA.

Looks to me like the Sheriff must have "reason to believe" - i.e., some factual basis - that "the character and reputation" of the individual are such that they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. Character and reputation - to me, that statute requires the Sheriff to at least have some reasonably articulable factual basis that indicates her "character" was "dangerous to public safety."

From the description, it sounds to me like there was no objectively reasonable basis to believe she presented a danger to public safety. The only issue was some other soccer moms were "nervous". Sound like they're more dangerous than the woman with the gun. Also sounds like the sheriff acted arbirtrarily and capriciously and abused his discretion. I'd contact an attorney. And I am one.

It might be enlightening to ask for open records information to see if Sheriff DeLeo has qualified with his duty weapon in the last several decades. Generally, the "only ones" who are holding executive and/or administrative positions don't bother to follow their own agency guidelines as to firearm proficiency standards. They are not only above the laws that regulate citizens, they are also above agency policies that regulate the lower forms of "only ones". It’s just possible that it can be proven that Ms Hain has received better and more recent firearm training that has the esteemed sheriff.

Of course, a difference of opinion is not to be tolerated and should be punished. It also logically follows that because Ms Hain does apparently have her own opinions her character and reputation should be maligned and her “shall issue” CCW permit should be revoked. Sheriff DeLeo said, “She showed poor judgment.” Well, most assuredly, a single incident of perceived poor judgment is ample proof that one is lacking in character and enjoys a sordid reputation.

DeLeo is poorly named and badly equipped for manhood and no part of an American patriot. Did I mention he is also stupid? Well, I did to him.

I wish her luck with her expected lawsuit.

Even if open carry were legal in my home state (Texas), which it's not, I'd still *only* ever carry concealed. I personally wouldn't want there to be *any* after-the-fact suggestion I was trying to intimidate anyone, etc, by open carrying. It may not be fair, but it is a potential liability risk you open yourself up to if you legally OC that I personally would just as soon avoid, given the option of legal concealment.

Even though I agree with OC in principle, the fact is it does tend to make ordinary non-gun owning people nervous unless they see a badge or uniform. Not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's how it is.

Even if you live in a state where you can OC, but you have a CCW, then save yourself a heap of trouble and carry concealed. Why else bother with obtaining the permit in the first place? That said, I do think it's deliciously ironic that this soccer mom now has no choice but to OC until she can win a lawsuit to get back her CCW, which could take a good long while.

I think OC of long guns may be legal in Texas, but I'd never put that to the test in an urban area, even if I confirmed it on the law books
(unless, of course, there was an ongoing natural disaster and/or breakdown of basic civil order).

JJR,
A couple of points.
1) In order to carry concealed you have to ask permission of a government agency. This helps to turn the Right to keep and bear arms into a Priviledge to keep and bear arms.

2) Most people do not notice if someone is carrying openly. Yes, I know this as I live in an Open Carry state and I see it all the time.

3) If you are so worried about the possible accusation of intimidation, then I guess you carry in deep concealment since anything less can lead to an accidental flash of your weapon thus opening you up to a charge of intimidation. OTOH, deep concealment takes a lot longer to access, and can easily get you killed.

4) Do you like the way things are or do you want to change them? Going along with the status quo won't help to bring about change. By your logic Rosa Parks should have just shut up and ridden in the back of the bus.