Little League Rejects Gun Sponsor
Filed under: In The News
Matt Carmel's offer to sponsor a New Jersey youth baseball team was rejected. Credit: Matt Carmel
A licensed gun dealer in New Jersey wants to sponsor a local youth baseball team, but his application was rejected. Now he's going out with a bang,
In October 2009, certified National Rifle Association instructor Matt Carmel -- who owns Constitution Arms -- applied to sponsor a team in the Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken baseball league. In his application to the South Orange-Maplewood Baseball Committee, he included "two letters of justification ... explaining the benefits of firearms, [and] all the sporting activities," such as the recent Winter Olympics.
"A week ago Sunday I received an e-mail from the committee saying that they had voted 8-1 against me and no reason was forthcoming," Carmel tells ParentDish.
When he inquired further, Kate Schmidt, the acting director of the South Orange Department of Recreation and Cultural Affairs, "conveyed a message to me from the committee saying, 'Well, we'll let you sponsor, but you can't use the word arms.' I said, 'OK, how about guns?,'" Carmel added with a laugh.
We were unable to reach Ms. Schmidt for comment.
While Carmel says he is "not suprised how it turned out," he feels that he is being singled out.
"They allow sponsors to sell liquor and tobacco," he says referring to Kwik Chek, a local grocery store that carries those items. "They allow the veterans of foreign wars, which some might argue glorifies war and violence." A list of team sponsors is available here.
Online, sentiment seems to be split.
At SouthOrangeVillage.com, commenter "TigerLilly" wonders if those who feel it was wrong to reject Constitution Arms as a sponsor "would feel the same way if it had been Planned Parenthood or the local abortion clinic."
At NJ.com, "sisteranne," wrote, "This is America. The man's allowed to own the gun store, and the team is allowed to decline his money."
In the mean time, Carmel has found another team that will allow him to be a sponsor -- Morris Rugby, a co-ed youth flag rugby league in a nearby town.
"I want to advocate for the Second Amendment," Carmel says, "I think it's extremely important. It's important to show my kids that you stand up for what you believe. You don't take it lying down."
Related: Little Leaguer Pitches Perfect Game - AND SHE'S A GIRL!
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- Here in dc since dec, 6 2006 retired FED BOARD GOV,inventor ,writter, FORMER GOVERNOR (founder of the republic of )DERIAN DOUGLAS HICKMAN
- Why did you lie and tell the world that, "The Left Behind Video game kills Jews and Atheists"?
- What's the penalty for falsley claiming relation to a person does it have to be for monetary gain or proven not just a social gesture











ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
3-09-2010 @ 1:23AM
Richard Chasey said...I think it should be made clear that Little league and Babe Ruth, are two completely different organizations, not that it matters little league would have turned him down as well.
Reply
3-09-2010 @ 1:40AM
Brian said...Long live America, the land of the free and equal opportunity. How disastrous our voices are when we find ways to speak out against those who are choosing and wanting to support our children and their activity. For goodness sakes, how many little leage baseball players would have stopped and wondered about the employment/business of their sponsor. Rather, they would quietly appreciate that someone had the spirit of "sponsorship", and helped them to enjoy a season of sport. When are we going to stand as a nation, and be a solid, unified voice for appreciation and service rather one of judgement? Let's not debate whether or not children should hear about guns. Let's teach gun safety, and let's appreciate anyone who is trying to operate a legitimate business, be it guns, ammunition, military equipment or even nuclear weapons. We must bring real life into the hearts and minds of our young children, at the right time, yes, but if we choose to make statements, such as this one, denying this business to be a sponsor, we are skipping over a very huge and important lesson of fairness and equality. Generations into the future, need to learn that now, in the 21st century, we began as a social nation to consider the needs of all people, and we began to discover how to make good social changes, without judging and pointing out any individual as wrong. We have reason for jails, we have reasons for guns, we have reasons right now for our poor among us. But, now we are beginning to see an outpooring of effort to eliminate the violence in the world, and the way in which we are making this progress is by being fair, understanding, and accepting until the time is absolutely right to bring about a solid and long lasting change. This is social training technique 101. Let's email the little league leadership and encourage them to embrace the community support of the gun dealer, and thank him for his contribution and his desire to support the efforts they are making with the youth. Let's encourage the community to teach gun safety first, and teach our children the art of appreciation towards our guns and the history behind that great and awesome weapon that has been used for good and for evil all down through the ages. Let's think on our feet, and remember to land on a square and fair deal for all involved.
BJ
Reply
3-09-2010 @ 2:30PM
UW_PhD said...This is the kind of discrimination and harassment that makes gun owners like Jews in 1930s Germany. This is the civil liberties issue of this decade.
Reply
3-09-2010 @ 2:53PM
Jim said...Please don't compare gun owner in America circa 2010 to Jews in Germany circa 1930. I really don't think guns owners and their children are in danger of being thrown into brick ovens!
3-09-2010 @ 5:47PM
John in Boulder Creek said...Please don't compare gun owner in America circa 2010 to Jews in Germany circa 1930. I really don't think guns owners and their children are in danger of being thrown into brick ovens!
That's the problem. The Jews in pre WW2 Germany didn't think they would either! Legal guns in America is a direct result of the framers of the Constitution wanting to ensure their government will never be able to rule us. You seem to want to trust your government? Why? What has our government done to warrant discarding the Constitution? It's not a living document you know. Not a relic or curiosity languishing in some museum. It was written with the blood and suffering of Americans just like us who threw off their oppressive and tyrannical government and created a government of and by the people. Who are you to give that up? There are powers who want Americans disarmed and herd-able like sheep. Maybe you are a sheep? There's lots of them masquerading as Americans here in the San Francisco bay area. It sickens me how many Americans are willing to give up my rights so they can feel safer. Cowards and traitors all! Organizations like the Little League should not politicize their policies. That's un-American and just plain wrong.
Reply
3-10-2010 @ 2:33AM
mbjisajjfan said...I'm sure he knew he would be turned down. He probably just wanted to get his name and business out there...Now it is...Good for him...
Just like a comment in the post said "He has the right to own a gun shop, and the team has the right to decline his offer"
Not that serious...
Reply
3-10-2010 @ 6:39PM
John Bates Thayer said...To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?
Reply