Soccer Mom Successfully Sues to Carry Gun to School Games

thumb_weapon_gun_smith_and_wesson_hand_ejectorMeleanie Hain is not a soccer Mom to be trifled with in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Other parents were a bit perturbed when she showed up to guns wearing a holstered pistol to watch her 5-year-old play. She successfully filed Second Amendment challenge after her concealed-weapons permit was revoked by the sheriff.

Hain, 30, successfully appealed the revocation last month despite the fact that the judge observed that she “scared the devil” out of others who attended a Sept. 11th soccer game and need better judgment.

Hain has complained that her home-based baby-sitting service has suffered, her children have been harassed, and she has been ostracized by her neighbors. I can’t imagine why.

For the full story, click here.

27 thoughts on “Soccer Mom Successfully Sues to Carry Gun to School Games”

  1. Former Federal LEO:

    “As a conservative Republican and NRA member…a gun owner and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate…”

    I’m an independent non-NRA member and proud owner of a Pre-64 Model 70, among a few other classics, and I still say the NRA is wrong when it claims the 2nd Amendment ‘confers’ any right whatsoever to bear arms.

    The Constitution is based on the concept that rights confer power and not vice versa. The 2nd Amendment is merely a refined restriction of specifically enumerated powers to the Fed to not interfere with gun ownership. It has never applied to the states.

    Strictly on the topic of proper gun handling, I agree 100 percent with everything you said.



  2. Mespo,

    “Since the Second Amendment clearly references State militias, the Court seems to be equating the District with a State thus my comment about broad application.”

    I’m sorry Mespo, but I have to disagree. The case employs the 2nd Amendment to strike down federal interference with gun ownership; thereby leaving the state gun control issue back where it’s been since the late 1800’s–unincorporated.

  3. Bob, Esq:

    here’s a passage from SCOTUS Wiki article on the Heller case that

    “Thus, the jurisprudence of the Second Amendment is almost wholly confined to laws enacted by the federal government. The District of Columbia is something of a governmental curiosity, and that could complicate the Supreme Court’s review of its handgun ban. While the District is considered by Congress to be a state for some purposes, that is not universally the situation. In the Heller case, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the District because the city “is a Federal District, ultimately controlled by Congress…The Supreme Court has unambiguously held that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in effect in the District.”

    That part of the ruling raises these potential issues: First, is the District, as the seat of the national government, not a “free State” of the kind mentioned in the Second Amendment so the Amendment’s guarantee of access to arms for a state “militia” does not even apply; second, is it a state like all of the regular states and thus, because of the 1886 decision in the Presser case, the Amendment does not apply; and, third, is it a unique federal enclave that — like the rest of the federal government — does have to obey the Second Amendment?”

    Since the Second Amendment clearly references State militias, the Court seems to be equating the District with a State thus my comment about broad application. Sorry to be obtuse.

  4. I went to law school with some Chicago police officers and they always had their guns with them and I was nervous whenever any of them sat next to me. I know it shouldn’t have, but it did. Soccer moms don’t need guns at kids events.

  5. As a conservative Republican and NRA member, I consider openly carrying/displaying firearms at such an event where guns are unexpected and inappropriate as foolish, ostentatious grandstanding, and potentially provocative behavior. The other parents and neighbors have every right to ostracize the ‘s(h)occer’ mom and they can choose not to patronize her business for whatever reasons. I do not think I would want a gun-totin’ exhibitionist nanny watching over my young children during cowboy n’ injun’ show n’ tell at her baby-sitting day care, especially since she appears so inconsiderate of others in the public arena.

    Had I seen anyone carrying a firearm at a little league baseball or soccer game, I would politely ask the person to consider unloading the firearm within their vehicle, installing a trigger lock, and then leaving it securely locked in the vehicle after I explained to them that I am a gun owner and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate. My reasoning for the request is that even for a gun owner who has used firearms for over 53 years, there are some situations where displaying a firearm, even though you have every legal right, is an extreme affront to others, including me, and soccer field bleachers or sidelines are examples.

    However, the sheriff did not have legitimate reasons to revoke Ms. Hain’s CCW permit and he deserves a strong legal reprimand for his actions. Just because as person, such as Hain, used poor judgment and was inconsiderate of those around her, that does not necessarily lead to her or others having a “character and reputation make (making) them a danger to public safety” as Sheriff DeLeo stated. If there were local laws against abject stupidity and insensitivity in this case, then DeLeo might have had just cause.

    There will always be people like Ms. Hain who push the envelope; the ‘look at what I can do just because I can’ types. Such actions tarnish the legitimate rights of others who happen to share her general gun ownership precepts, but who would never under any circumstances flaunt their 2nd Amendment rights just because they could.

  6. Mespo,

    You actually stated the dilemma but drew an odd conclusion.

    Heller did deal with a federal district, which there by precluded the need to address the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment as to the states. My question simply was did Scalia et. al. incorporate it anyway?

    I’m thinking no.

    Thus, I’m keen to guess how a federal court did what it did in this case.

  7. farmer john:

    One of the reasons liberals can’t talk to conservatives is the insistence of conservatives to use slogans rather than dialog. Maybe you’d prefer that I label you a fascist and then decry your comment. I won’t do that because that would make me the hit and run graffiti artist you apparently aspire to be. To quote another conservative thinker and conceding I have no knowledge of your weight or fondness for alcohol, I still say “fat, dumb and stupid is no way to go through life.”

  8. Bob,Esq:

    Heller struck down a DC law prohibiting handguns. Since DC operates under federal law it clearly has application there. I also believe it applies to Sate laws in contravention the Second Amendment as well since it has broad application.

  9. Farmer John,
    Many of the liberals that you are bashing are firm backers of the 2nd amendment. Mespo,I would agree with your earlier comment that it would make sense to ban weapons of any kind at school and sport functions. The macho testosterone can get crazy at some of those games. I can’t imagine what could happen if guns were at some of those events.

  10. Good for her. About time some of these stupid liberal wacko laws get challenged and thrown out.

  11. Ms. Hain is either one really terrified person, or a showoff who wants attention. Perhaps both. I’m in the uncomfortable position of supporting the right to bear arms, but being constantly made aware of the stupidity of some of those who bear and the inanity of the ARA.

    Don’t the macho proponents of the right to bear arms remember all of those Westerns where people were made to surrender their guns while in town, or at the saloon? If it seemed like a good idea in the mythical(and real)Wild West, why isn’t a good idea at soccer matches.

    The MSM has created a culture of people awash in fear of the world outside and a tandem mythology of the heroic individual, able to take care of her/himself. The Bushies and the faux conservatives have filled the court system with judges, who put political factionalism above the Law. The really heroic people of our country are those who are willing to question the assumptions of popular wisdom, created to keep us enslaved by our own psyches.

  12. Mespo,

    Do you happen to know if Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment as being good against the States?

    I’m not sure that it did; in which case I’m confused as to how a Fed Court could hand down such a ruling.

    Need to do a little reading; will check back later.


  13. Bob,Esq:

    I think a US v. Lopez argument might work in a given situation involving the commerce clause although it didn’t work in that case. I really was referring to reasonable restrictions at the State level, for example prohibiting firearms in courthouses or at schools or other “sensitive places.” I think a kids soccer game is just as “sensitive” as the school building the kids just left.

    Maybe JT can flesh out the status or State restrictions on firearms after Heller decision. Scalia took pains to say that the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  14. I know this one cause I learned it from Sarah. The difference between a soccor mom and a pitbull is lipstick and a gun!!!

  15. While I agree with the interpretation of the Second Amendment recently announced by the Supreme Court, I do not believe this should be tolerated. For years we have had laws limiting possession of firearms in places where violence is likely to occur. For example, Virginia had a ban on firearms in establishments serving liquor. Given the recent spate of violence at children’s sporting event, I think the right to keep and bear arms could be circumscribed here. I agree with Sally. There is no Constitutional right to endanger children. For a little sample of the mayhem that ensues at kids sporting events take a peek here:

    Anybody want to guess what the introduction of a gun would do to this situation?

  16. Why does she need to carry a gun to a child’s soccer game?
    If she had not made it so obivious, no one would have even known!

    It’s called a concealed weapons permit for a reason; it needs to be concealed!!

Comments are closed.