FILE-This Oct. 26, 2009 file photo shows Jon Gosselin
after he exited the Montgomery County courthouse in
Norristown, Pa. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke,File)
Related Articles
When we last visited the hapless Gosselins (and who knew we would ever make a return visit?), Kate was undergoing a life-transforming experience by wearing a pink cowboy hat, riding a horse named Banjo and getting an introduction to shooting guns. Jon, meanwhile, was in drag.
This time, it's legally-embattled Jon's turn to man the guns, and it looks like it's gotten him into hot water, per MyFoxPhilly.com's "Judge Bars Guns At Jon Gosselin House":
Judge Arthur Tilson issued the court order Thursday in Norristown, Pa., after Jon Gosselin was photographed on Wednesday in Wernersville, Pa., shooting a .38 pistol on his property.
The judge also ordered Gosselin to register his pistol at a new address in Pennsylvania within 90 days.
Here's the thing--or rather, several things:
The headline would have us believe all guns are now banned at the house by all people. I suspect the order does not include Kate or anyone else, but couldn't tell based on how this is being reported.
Per NRA-ILA state gun laws, there is no requirement to register handguns in Pennsylvania.
If Gosselin divorce proceedings had resulted in a restraining order against him, Jon would not be allowed to possess a gun and the judge would have issued a very different order.
Wernerville PA is a rural area. Restrictions, in terms of noise ordinances, requiring shooters to be a minimum distance from structures, etc., are up to local government.
So I went to the Berks County website, and could find nothing of relevance there. I called the Berks County Sheriff and they told me to call the township. Wernersville, I was informed, is part of Lower Heidelberg. The lady there told me their ordinances are not online and she does not know, and referred me to the police. I spoke to a real nice sergeant there who has not heard anything about this story, but nonetheless informed me shooting occurs all the time during various hunting seasons, and he was unaware of any ordinance prohibiting it.
Which left me one call to make--Judge Tilson's office, to ask what rationale or law authorized the order. I told the lady who answered the phone who I was and why I was calling, and she replied (drumroll):
"I'm sorry, I do not wish to comment on it."
So what other reasons could there be? There's no evidence he made any threats--if he had, we'd be looking at a different headline. Safety? The only thing evident in terms of unsafe gun handling practices is I don't see where Jon is using ear or eye protection. It hardly seems a gun ban order or a registration order are warranted (how would one go about complying with the latter, by the way?).
The only thing that's obvious about this story is we really have no idea what is going on.
Which seems the perfect segue into noting Celebuzz is so indignant, they're asking their readers "Should Jon be allowed to own (or even touch) a gun?"
Nothing like having our rights defined by the least informed/most trivial-minded among us...which is typically the way it works, especially when "Authorized Journalists" are trusted to report on guns.
Comments
It's almost unbeliveable the idiocy of some of these so called "journalists". This shouldn't even be a issue. The judge doesn't seem to have a clue and needs to be retired at the first opurtunity. Anyone this ignorant of the law has no buisness being a judge. He must have slept through the class on the Bill of Rights.
When you have an idiot running around with a gun and at lest 8 innocent people living in a home, someone has to step in before the gun bearer does something to them that cannot be rectified. Death is final on this earth. Jon is again in a non-reality world and could do anything. With his recent past actions, he needs to be monitored.
mmmhhhmmmmm....Until he turns that gun on his children and then himeself..I'm just saying....Jon screwed up his life and when a person is as desperate as he is then I would not put any type of weapon in his hands and that includes a knife, razon and yes even a table fork.
ugghhhh Typo...RAZOR...
Frann, just who do you think you are, to judge Jon in this? Where was he "running around" with a gun? As far as I can tell, he may have kicked up his heels now that they're separated, but he's not done anything that shows he's dangerous, and there's no restraining order against him, so why take his gun?
It is you who are in a fairy-tale world, full of gun-totin' ogres that are just itching to slaughter innocent people. You think that anyone, not just Jon, is a danger to you if they have a gun. The fact hat we practice the four rules of safe gun handling and take our gun ownership seriously never enters your mind, and I suspect that you wouldn't open your mind's door if it did come knocking.
You, and that sorry excuse for a judge, are both wrong on this.
Then what do you want to do, VanM? Jail him? The world is full of things that can be used as deadly weapons. You can't keep all of them away from him. Yes, he's become a poor father, but he has yet to show truly dangerous behavior; at least I haven't seen any.
Jon is a "clear and present danger" to his family. Allowing him to have a gun on the property where Kate and the kids live was an invitation to disaster. Jon is unstable, desperate and has already expressed a hatred towards Kate. He has also shown he is willing to hurt his entire family (and himself) if he doesnt get his way. The judge made the right decision. Personally, he should have been banned from the property along with his gun.
Goodness, Frann. It's wonderful to know that there's at least one omniscient person around who knows and can predict the intentions of well, anyone. Now that you've reported on Jon's mindset -"Jon is again in a non-reality world and could do anything" would you please use your extraordinary powers to report on others who "need to be monitored"?
Criminals routinely disobey the laws of a "civilized" society, often causing "innocent people living in a home" irreparable harm.
It's simply criminal that you haven't used your powers in other scenarios regarding crime prevention. What's your excuse? Now - please use your uncanny powers and tell us all the names of the other folks who "need to be monitored." In the event that law enforcement won't take you seriously, at least the rest of us will know who to look out for, and when.
Thanks in advance for your consideration. But then, you already knew I'd say that, didn't you?
Nothing good could come out of Jon Gosselin having a gun.
When I see these kinds of judicial gun bans, I wonder if the person were to go to the local dojo and start practicing empty hand techniques what would the judge do?
The judge made a ruling similar to legal rulings made on people who have owned and abused an animal.
In certain animal abuse cases the judge may rule that the person in question may not own another pet for a period of time, because the owner has proven they are not trustworthy as to their care of said animal.
There is no law mandating that animal abusers cannot own another animal, it's a cautionary ruling made under by a judge in an individual case, and is left to the judge's discretion.
Similarly, regards to Jon's ownership of a gun, Jon has treated his family poorly, showing disregard for their safety. It's a subtle form of neglect, and possible intent to injure them emotionally.
The judge hasn't forbidden Jon to own a gun. He HAS restrained him from bringing it near his children, because he has shown poor judgement around them.
Later on this mandate may be lifted, but right now, the ruling is the best solution possible, until Jon can prove he's more responsible.
Thanks Jeanne, I had forgotten about the 28th amendment. That is the amendment that recognizes the right to have pets, correct?
@Kelly "He has also shown he is willing to hurt his entire family (and himself) if he doesnt get his way."
Where was he willing to hurt his family?!? EVIDENCE! You have none!
He hasn't hurt anyone, nor has he shown a willingness to hurt his family. Every single argument presented here hasn't given a single shred of actual evidence as to why Jon shouldn't be allowed to have a gun on the property. They are all just emotional appeals that don't reflect reality.
@Jeanne: the difference is that these are animal abuse CASES -- that is, the defendant has come before the judge on a complaint, been TRIED, all the facts heard, and this is part of the sentence. In other words, what we like to call DUE PROCESS. We're all for that. Now, what did Judge Tilson TRY Jon Gosselin for? Did Gosselin even appear before him? Did he have a right to counsel? Was he allowed to present arguments? Uh... no. In other words, what we like to call POLICE STATE TYRANNY. We're not fond of that.
Sean C. Young- Actually the 9th Amendment is the one that protects the right to own pets. Seriously.
When I lived in PA it was almost universally assumed by everyone I knew that "the law" in the state required guns to be registered. I checked, and there was no such "law"; not that I would have complied anyway. Somehow the general PA population has been tricked into believing that lie, and nothing I could say would convince any of them otherwise. The "authorities" I asked said that if I wanted to, I could come down and register my guns. I wonder if I could have arrested myself, too.
See, NOW we're getting more of what's going on. Jeanne says that Jon's not restrained from having his gun; just that he can't be near his kids with a gun. If so, that makes a little more sense. But so far, I've seen claims that he endangered his family, and little, if any, corroboration for the claims. Jon had better have truly proven dangerous to his family, or I'll still call a Constitutional foul
I think that the anti-gunners commenting here want the Lautenberg Travesty, er *ahem* Amendment, enforced against Jon, but i believe they lack the necessary evidence.
Jeanne said, "Later on this mandate may be lifted, but right now, the ruling is the best solution possible, until Jon can prove he's more responsible."
More responsible than what or whom? In a free society a person is assumed responsible until he is proven NOT to be. But, let's play it your way Jeanne. Prove to us you are responsible enough to own a computer and to comment on websites. If you cannot, your computer should be removed from your possesssion. Still like your idea of prior punishment?
How come I know that you are going to say "that's different" ?
A real "fatal" gun around ten children?
hmmm,, does not take a judge to figure that's irresponsible parenting!
Looks to me that a lot of PC minded, men hating, women's rights advocating busy bodies have decided to share their shallow thoughts and fantasies with us.
I no sooner post then Katrina shows up! Well Katrina, my folks had all fashion of real, actually loaded firearms all around our house when we were growing up, and, guess what, we're still here! We managed to avoid those death dealing devil machines for over 18 years and escaped without injury. Can you imagine?
But then, my parents were parents, not our friends who let us do anything we wanted to. They also managed to instill in us a deep sense of responsibility. Unlike yours.
Now, now--I promote women's rights here all the time, featuring updates from Liberty Belles, linking to Second Amendment Sisters, etc.
Not to mention that most important of a woman's rights... the right to self-defense.
John, Kate, and every one of their 8 kids have had their 15 minutes of fame. Time to move on.
joN has not broke any laws as i see it,i know the judge has said he needs to redgester it.but pa does not do that,if i was jon i get a ccw permit,& tell the world iam a American,the 2 amd.does apply to him as well.JOn NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF GUN LAWS IN all places he lives.
"Restrictions, in terms of noise ordinances, requiring shooters to be a minimum distance from structures, etc., are up to local government. . ."
WRONG! No gun or hunting matter is "up to local government" in Pennsylvania. Regulation of all hunting and firearms matters is preempted by the state. The only thing could be construed to be a municipal matter is that county sheriffs administer the state's concealed carry permits, and those are "Shall Issue" laws. Local officials and sheriffs do attempt to legislate on their own all the time, but it is never legal when they do.
David it sounds like a judge is making up law as he goes along.
Whats new!
I dont know anything about this jon gosselin or his wife I shut the TV off several years ago and never got a black box.
The country is already lost and it wont be restored until enough people get a backbone to restore it
Andy B: I understand PA has preemption and have written about why edicts proposed in Philly are illegal per state law. That's not what I'm saying here.
Case in point, Ordinance #176, Maidencreek Township, Berks County, Sec. 4, "Specific Acts Constituting a Noise Disturbance," item 7, specifically prohibiting "discharge of firearms or fireworks" between set hours.
Or Lancaster PA, Chapter 129, Art. V: "§ 129-13. Acts prohibited. A. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct (discharging a firearm) if he or she causes the discharge of a firearm anywhere within the City of Lancaster, subject to the exceptions set forth in Subsection B of this § 129-13."
Exceptions are made for lawful hunting activities regulated by the state, firing ranges, cops, defense of life, etc.
Or HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE NO. 75?68, Sec. 2 ? It shall be unlawful for any person to:...discharge a firearm within 450 feet of a dwelling house in any area designated a RED AREA...
OK?
How is it possible that you are a reporter if you don't understand basic geography and municipal boundaries? They live in Lower Heidelberg Township, which is separate from the borough of Wernersville. A borough can't be part of a township. This is a little detail, but if you can't get this right...
David: I believe the Maidencreek ordinance would probably stand up because it is a general noise ordinance that only itemizes gunfire as a one source. It might not stand up if it was applied to established shooting ranges that were in existence prior to the ordnance, that met noise criteria at the time they were established.
I would have to look at the Lancaster County ordinance more closely, but I suspect it would not stand up in many circumstances because it addresses firearms specifically and is too general a prohibition.
"They moved in October 2008 to Wernersville, Pennsylvania. They are back in Berks County where they lived before moving to Elizabethtown. Wernersville is west of Reading. The new home consists of a 26 acre property, main house, guest house, three-car garage, pool, and barn. They have recently installed a white security fence along the perimeter of the property. The home is in a revocable trust in their attorney's name, which is a matter of public record on the Berks County Assessor's Office website."
And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations
Does anyone have the URL links for Heather & Katrina (bet they are the same). As the local authorities need to be made aware that a schizphrenic mental patient is on the loose claiming an inanimate object is speaking to her (ir is it "Pat" SNL?) and controlling her actions, creating such a public safety problem?
Such self loathing and fear of Heather/Katrina's own inability to confront and control her inner demons. Truly everybody here needs to pray that they seek help in a timely fashion as their local village truly misses their entertaining fantasies!
Jarhead1982 - Heather was kidding, that's what Obama said to a bunch of whine & jeez heads campaigning in San Franscisco :-)
Don K
Jon's wife now owns the house she got it in the divorce finalized two days after she shot off the gun. It's his wife that does not want guns brought onto the property. Let alone the fact the guy has been accused of doing drugs and threatening peoples lives lately..
Where was that gun during the alleged NYC apt robbery/trashing? It wasn't conveniently "stolen" was it? And if Jon is fighting a harassment charge in NYC (filed with the NYPD on 12/20, shoving and threatening his ex-girlfriend, that's why she already had a domestic abuse expert lawyer when the whole apt thing went down) does that affect his gun responsibilities in PA? The judge in PA knows all about what is sealed in that arbitration ruling, so far only his ex-wife's desire to keep the father of their 8 children out of the legal system is keeping him that way, as in she hasn't pressed any charges. He'll undo all that effort himself in NY, up there the people he's messing with will have no such qualms. But does what happens in NYC affect rulings in PA?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!