Gun-toting soccer mom's lawsuit against Lebanon County sheriff dismissed a year after her death

A Pennsylvania federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by Meleanie Hain and her husband claiming $1 million dollars in damages after Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo revoked her license to carry a concealed firearm, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Meleanie Hain, 31, was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a children's soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon, Pa. Her permit to carry concealed was revoked by DeLeo on Sept. 20, 2008. DeLeo said Hain showed poor judgment in wearing her gun to the game. Hain’s permit was reinstated by Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby on Oct. 14, 2008, but the judge asked her to conceal it when she goes to soccer games. Hain said she would continue to carry it openly under the Second Amendment.

She and her husband, Scott, 33, had been separated before he killed her in October 2009 in their Lebanon home. Their three children were home at the time of the shooting but were not injured.

-----

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence provided free legal assistance to DeLeo, and the court adopted arguments supported by the Brady Center that DeLeo could not be sued for allegedly violating Hain's Second Amendment rights.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/11/gun-toting_soccer_moms_lawsuit.html

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit brought by a Pennsylvania soccer mom who symbolized the national gun-rights debate before she was killed in a murder-suicide.

Meleanie Hain's license to carry a weapon was revoked in 2008 after parents complained she endangered the community by openly carrying a gun to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer games.

A judge later reinstated the permit. But Hain and her husband sued Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo, claiming they suffered emotional distress and lost customers for her home baby-sitting service.

U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane tossed the lawsuit Tuesday. It had been continued by Hain's estate.

Hain's husband, Scott, fatally shot her in October 2009 at their home before killing himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110305797.html


Meleanie Hain speaks to the media after her permit hearing at the Lebanon County Courthouse in Lebanon on October 14, 2008. CHRIS KNIGHT

IMHO the sheriff was wrong in pulling her permit. PA has OC but I do wonder if some don't flaunt it a bit. Did she? Weird story in that a gun was used to take her life by her husband and this case certainly serves as a case for the antigun people.

I think I'm a little too hungover(not from alcohol just the results) from yesterday to make a coherent argument here on this today. Maybe later as you all discuss.

What they did has no impact on or connection to the guns and accessories I own. No laws can be passed to stop this kind of thing, which is common in Japan even without guns.

I think the Sheriff was completely in the wrong, but I don't think it rose to the level of $1M. Legal costs, and lost wages, time spent in in travel and dealing with the case, and a small-ish punitive fee for violation of Civil Rights, certainly. $100K would have been sufficient.

I'm not sure how the anti-side could make any points out of this, unless they can point to someone who claims guns are a magical protective field...

FTR, I exchanged some comments with Mrs. Hain on another forum before her death. She seemed like a calm, rational person and she will be missed by those that met her due to her involvement in this issue.

to carry in her own home where she was shot revoked? Are you suggesting she had a gun in her home that didn't protect her? Not being allowed to open carry in public, around children actually has nothing to do with this. She was killed in her home, where she had a weapon. You keep chasing that tail though, it's sort of funny to watch.

The murder-suicide info was included for context.
No, she was not prohibited from being armed at home. (No one is making that claim.)
The open carry at the soccer game is directly tied to the law suit.

not confused at all, disarmed at soccer field had nothing to due with murder-suicide. Her disarming at said field had nothing to do with her death, no reason to mention it. Is this different from ANY OTHER murder-suicide in the home? Does every victim of a crime at home now have a case against a police department because they couldn't carry a gun to the mall? To the school play? yes my friend, there is confusion. It's actually the confusion of the gun crowd trying make a case out of this.

The OP is about the law suit. The suit started because she was disarmed. The suit ended because of the murder-suicide.

While you are correct about "her disarming at said field had nothing to do with her death", that is not what the OP is about; and no one is making that claim. You might want to go back and reread the linked article.

but you can't possibly be that naive, they are wanting people to believe she is dead because she was disarmed! This is an epic fail, the disarming has NOTHING to do with her death. Now tell me, why are they suing, because she is dead,disarmed, or both? What is the case? If it's about being disarmed then her death is irrelevant. If it's about her death then the disarming is irrelevant. They have NOTHING to do with each other! Why mention them in the same context unless the author is trying to connect the two?

If anything this shows that guns don't always protect us. She had one at home.

Where I work I can't have a gun in my car so as I leave my house in the morning I put my firearm in the safe, i finish prepping and I walk out of my house unarmed and during this period of time I don't have access to my weapon because of gun control so if I am attacked as I go outside which is the most likely time when I will need the gun, I will be disarmed thanks to the law. That doesn't mean I'll sue the police if I do get attacked. This situation is shared by most gun owners and there's a good chance this lady was attacked when she was vulnerable.

The lawsuit was unrelated to her death.

"If anything this shows that guns don't always protect us"
You have finally come to the Revelation everyone else already did decades ago.

Go back, read again. Then come back and discuss intelligently.

And leave all the Strawmen(tm) at home.

Or that the lawsuit was dropped by the judge because she is dead.

The lawsuit was started by her & then continued by the family because PA is an OC state, no LTCF is required to do so. There was no prohibition where she was OC. The sheriff though decided that he would pull her LTCF simply on the premise that though she wsa completely legal that somehow she was suffering from some character flaw & therefore was not safe for a LTCF.

Her situation made more than local news simply because she was murdered by a family member by a gun.

At the time of her death she could have a firearm in her house. She could OC a firearm where legal. Only her right to carry concealed was compromised because of the sheriff's actions. And completely illegal action IMHO.

The case and her manner of death is only conincidence.

I guess though antigun people can and do claim live by the gun die by the gun and see a certain irony in this story.

The suit was brought WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE.

The only person confused about this, is you.

True.

But apparently neither do laws, the police, the courts or lawyers.

Yet, we still need them and rely on them.

I guess imperfection not a perfect argument.