Pistol Packing Momma

A Harrisburg Pennsylvania woman has sued a sheriff for revoking her concealed-weapons permit after she upset fellow parents by wearing her holstered pistol to her 5-year-old daughter’s soccer game.

Now, is there any reason to wonder why parents don’t want to volunteer to coach or officiate at these kinds of games? Parents now toting guns! Let’s see, I bet the calls go favorably for Mrs. Hain’s daughter! Or else!

Meleanie Hain now alleges in her federal lawsuit that Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo violated her Second Amendment rights and prosecuted her maliciously when he took away her permit in September.

Mrs. Hain, 30, successfully appealed the revocation last month, although the judge who restored her permit questioned her judgment and said she “scared the devil” out of others who attended the September 11 soccer game. You know, I know what the judge meant. But, he needs to rethink some of his theology, if he believes his statement is true! If only that’s all it took to scare the devil out of people!

Mrs. Hain said last Monday that her baby-sitting service has suffered, her children have been harassed, and she has been ostracized by her neighbors because of DeLeo’s actions. In one instance, she said, a neighbor who saw her in a local store had the manager ask her to leave because she was carrying her handgun.

Did you read that? This woman runs a baby-sitting service? Well, at least they should be safe and well protected as long as she is “packing heat,” unless one of the children accidently got their hands on her gun!

Mrs. Hain is being joined in the lawsuit by her husband, Scott, who contends he has lost his wife’s “companionship, consortium, society, and services” as a result of the harm she has suffered. “Consortium, society, and services”? Is that just a nice legal way of saying “sex”?

So, for the question of the day, should a parent be allowed to wear a holstered gun to soccer games, community events, school functions?

Why? Why not?

What You Talking About Willis?

Say it ain’t so! Sorry, can’t do that. If you can believe the news media, it is so.

Gary Coleman [Diff'rent Strokes fame] has been sued by a man who claims the actor punched him and ran into him with his truck in a Payson (Utah) bowling alley parking lot, causing knee, back, and neck injuries.

Colt Rushton, 24, of Spanish Fork, says he and Coleman got into an argument September 6, after he began taking pictures of the “Diff'rent Strokes” actor with a cell phone. [Now, if my name is Colt, do I really want it known that I was beat up by little Gary Coleman? Seriously!]

Coleman, who is now 40 years old [How can that be true?], was charged with misdemeanor reckless driving and disorderly conduct in Payson City Justice Court. A court clerk said Thursday there had been no notification that Coleman is represented by a lawyer.

In the civil lawsuit, filed Wednesday in 4th District Court, Rushton’s account of the confrontation said Coleman’s bodyguard, Paul Rohbock, told Rushton he would have to pay $20 per picture if he continued taking photos. [Probably a good idea—since Mr. Coleman has had such serious financial struggles in recent years.]

Rushton’s attorney, Dustin Lance, said Rushton stopped taking pictures, but when he later saw Coleman sitting in his truck close to the steering wheel, he thought it was funny and took another picture. [Well, Mr. Rushton, have you seen just how short Gary Coleman is? How else is he to reach the gas pedal?]

The lawsuit contends Rushton was attacked from behind by Rohbock or Coleman’s wife, Shannon Price [that’s bad form on her part, and Gary’s part—letting your wife do your fighting], and that his cell phone was taken away. The lawsuit also contends Coleman punched Rushton in the chest several times. [Have you seen Gary Coleman? Is Colt short? Or, does Gary Coleman take a two-foot ladder wherever he goes? After all, how did Gary Coleman reach Colt Rushton’s chest?]

You know, I don’t really mean to make fun of the situation, Colt Rushton, or even Gary Coleman. But come on folks, this is funny! I can’t really picture Gary Coleman going after someone—but again, he has had a troubled past and all kinds of legal and financial issues. So, I guess the charges could prove to be true.

How sad.

The Price of Integrity

A judge who gets it!

And guess what, it’s a New York judge who got it right.

Apparently, an owner of an upscale Manhattan restaurant filed a lawsuit against a supermodel over a damaged designer umbrella said to be worth $5,000. Yes, a restaurant owner owned a $5,000 umbrella—let that settle in first. Then, he loaned out the $5,000 umbrella. Then, when it was damaged, he sued for one million dollars. Yes, one million dollars!

That’s when the judge got it right! New York State Supreme Court Justice Joan. A. Madden threw out the lawsuit, calling motions filed by the attorney on behalf of Nello Balan a “waste of judicial resources.” She then fined Balan’s attorney $500 for filing a frivolous claim.

Good for her! I hope sure she makes sure the attorney pays every penny of that $500.

Balan sued supermodel Le Call for $1 million, claiming that he lent her a Jean-Paul Gaultier-designed umbrella—and that she returned it to him in two pieces.

Balan claimed emotional distress and said that the model had intentionally damaged the umbrella.

Emotional distress over an umbrella? Did he really claim that! Yes! He did!

You know, I don’t own much that is worth $5,000 or more, much less an umbrella! And, if I did, I don’t think I’d be using the umbrella, much less loaning it out!

At what point does something become of great enough value to you that you would sue over it being damaged? Would you sue someone over damaging your property?

Share you thoughts!