imported post
This is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Mr. Kohr. I apologize in advance for the length, it is just that he was wrong on so may accounts that I didn't know where to begin or stop.
Mr. Kohr,
In response to your letter in the Lebanon Daily News I feel that I must answer some of your questions and correct you on a few things that you state.
What damages did she incur?
She suffered a loss of income and public embarrassment as well as an infringement on her rights, all while violating NO laws or threatening anyone.
If you are wrongly accused of a crime, you cannot recoup your attorney costs!
You can sue for damages when your rights have been violated by a Law Enforcement Officer, ever hear of Rodney King?
She claims that Sheriff Michael DeLeo has traumatized her in some way. If I understand correctly, she was not prohibited from owning her gun after her concealed-carry permit was temporarily revoked.
No, but she was then forced to carry in the same way that started all of this because the revocation of her CCW permit made it illegal to carry concealed. The alternative was for her to remain unarmed, leaving her vulnerable to attack. This may not seem important to you, but some people take personal responsibility for their own safety very seriously.
Let me first clarify by saying that I do not like guns, have never owned one and have never shot one.
This hardly instills confidence that yours is an objective opinion.
However, I do respect the right of individuals to own them based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Reading your letter, I would be led to believe otherwise.
But I also recognize the limitations of this amendment.
What limitations are you referring to? Would you also recognize the same limitations being placed on your other Constitutional Rights? For example, would you support a licensing requirement for being published in a newspaper?
Restrictions on gun ownership and/or gun responsibilities are not designed to take weapons away from the general populous.
Really, ever hear of the D.C. gun ban that was recently determined to be unconstitutional, or the Chicago gun bans, or the California AWB? How about the Gun Control Act of 1968? All of these have resulted in the loss of weapons by members of the general populace.
To extrapolate the Second Amendment to the degree many gun lobbyists and some (not necessarily the majority) gun advocates do would lead to the ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by those who could afford them. To this end it must be noted that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the federal government could not raise a standing army more powerful than the state militias.
The fact is that this is simply not true. If you read the writings of the founding fathers it becomes very clear that they were defining an individual right. Why would “The People” in the Second Amendment be different from “The People” in amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10? Are you saying that these amendments only apply to state sponsored groups? Even if your statement about the state militias was true, name one state militia that could defend against the active duty U.S. armed forces. Are you saying that the entire active duty military of the U.S. is unconstitutional?
I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game.
It is a matter of free choice. Why would someone who has gone through the process of getting a drivers license, walk to the grocery store instead of driving their car? Common sense would dictate that driving would be faster and more comfortable. Maybe they just prefer to do it this way over that. Who are we to judge their decision? As long as they endanger no one and break no laws, let them be. As for the advantage of open carry over concealed carry, often it is difficult or uncomfortable to conceal certain firearms, this is usually not a problem when open carrying. Also, open carry eliminates the hazards of clothing getting tangled in your firearm at inopportune moments. This is part of the reason why uniformed police officers open carry.
How is a youth soccer game different from a shopping mall, grocery store, or the street in front of a house? All have children present on a regular basis.
Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?
Personal protection and the protection of others from attack.
Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game. Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves.
No, they wish to make sure that the infringement of rights is not allowed to continue. As for the trauma suffered by people at the soccer game, this is a personal problem of the people traumatized, not the fault of Melanie Hain. Maybe they should seek counseling to address their fear of inanimate objects in the possession of law-abiding people. I have suffered trauma from the actions of other people, the way they dressed, the way they spoke, the cars that they drove, ect., as long as they were within the law, this is my problem, not theirs.
In an e-mail that I found posted on an internet forum you replied to Insane Kangaroo:
Thank you for the response to my letter. You sound like a paid political announcement. Politics have nothing to do with my writing. It is common sense that is lacking---that is the point.
I would have to agree that your writing lacks common sense.
There is no need for a gun at a soccer game for six year olds.
Unless you can see the future, there is no way that you can say this with any authority. If you can indeed see the future, then you can send the police to stop the danger before it happens, in which case she would not be a danger either. Otherwise, are you willing to accept full responsibility for the safety of every person in attendance? According to the Supreme Court, not even the police are required to come to your aid if they feel it is too dangerous to do so. Are you willing to make that commitment?
If another person showed up with a gun and started shooting, I assume that you would advocate that Ms Hain return fire
Yes, meeting force with equal force is the most efficient way to stop an active shooter.
and put even more citizens at risk.
Or, meet the attacker with equal force, thereby stopping the attack. Would you prefer that the victims just wait defenseless for their turn to die? Can you say that her return fire would be more dangerous than the attacker’s fire?
If the presence of return fire puts innocent bystanders in danger, and studies show that 11% of the time, police hit innocent bystanders, while only 2% of the time are innocent bystanders hit by shots fired by an armed citizen, are you saying that calling the police would put innocent bystanders at risk?
Your message smacks of the NRA.
The truth is true, no matter where it comes from.
As I had said, I do not advocate the move of Sheriff DeLeo and I respect the rights of citizens to arm themselves.
Then why should a law-abiding citizen be forced to sit back and take the violation of their rights?
They should have some consideration and respect for their fellow citizens though.
Why shouldn’t fellow citizens have some consideration for Melanie? She broke NO laws, she threatened no one, and she was within her rights. Are you saying that we should legislate consideration for other people’s irrational feelings?
Your personal feelings show throughout your writings. You don’t seem to be interested in truth, only your own irrational fear of weapons, which can do nothing by themselves, and the people who choose to take personal responsibility for their own safety. If I am frightened by the way that someone dresses, the way that they cut their hair, the way that they walk down the street, the presence of tattoos, or the music that they listen to (all of which can be said to be the sign of a gang banger), should we make laws banning these things to avoid my being “traumatized”? No, of course not. As long as they are not a threat to me or anyone else, they should be allowed to express themselves however they see fit.
(Name deleted from original letter for privacy reasons.)