This is the same thing as the gun issue.... The State isn't looking to take away anyone's rights..... They are simply looking out for the child. As they should.....
If the loaded gun that is used for personal protection is in your nightstand next to your bed while you're actively sleeping....is it actively in use? I think the state's case has some holes in it.
They are doing their best to look out for the best interest of the child..... If you want to foster a child,, Jump through their hoops. Not a big deal. Get one of those night stand safes that you open with your fingertips.....
Except ammunition is supposed to be stored seperately from the firearm.
And when seconds count, you guys are minutes away. Problem not solved.
It was a legitimate question. Sorry if it pissed you off. You seemed to have a flip answer for the gun safe question.
I have zero issue with the guns being locked away. Zero issue at all. What I do take exception to, is the requirement to lock guns in a safe and require ammo to be stored separately in another locked safe.
Bear, like already mentioned...it is not allowed to keep ammo in the pistol unless in active use. That gets back to what I alluded to above about when does "active use" begin and end.
Also as parents, it's up to them to guide and teach their kids. I believe that applies to foster parents too.
Would it be ok to limit Grandparents from going to a mosque to worship as a prerequisite to caring for their grandson? Would it be ok to limit a Grandmother from running her anti-Trump blog?
Family caring for children when the parents can't shouldn't require infringement on rights anymore than parents caring for their own children. Rights come with risks.
Maybe just a poorly written rule that needs clarification but when infringing on people's rights as a prerequisite to doing normal human activities, we need to demand a clear picture of what exactly we are facing.
Of course storing firearms safely is the right thing to do. If there is a reason the grandparents show themselves to be a danger with how they handle or store firearms, thats different. Make the case. Until then they are just citizens trying to do the right thing and guilty of nothing that requires limiting or infringing on their Constitutional rights. Rights shouldn't be infringed on until a citizen does something wrong to warrant their rights being infringed upon.
Heck, even the State realized they were infringing if they actually said "If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights." as alleged. If they did say that, they know they are overstepping but they are actually wrong in their explanation. Inherent rights cannot be given up. We can choose not to exercise them or others can bar us from exercising them with force but they cannot be taken. They exist no matter what. Felons doing life still have all their rights, we just don't allow them to exercise them. Thats why the term is "infringed". As much as the left would love it, arms, free speech, freedom of religion, etc aren't granted by the Government or the Constitution. They are inherent.
HB 4955 is the right language, but should be unnecessary..
SEC. 8B. WHEN MAKING ANY TYPE OF PLACEMENT OF A CHILD IN
FOSTER CARE OR OF AN ADOPTEE, A SUPERVISING AGENCY SHALL NOT
CONSIDER THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OR LEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR
THE POSSESSION OF A CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSE.
It doesn't stop the State from considering unsafe use of those firearms, or the band saw in the garage, or the kayak, or the hockey gear, or the prescription meds, or the horse, or the lawn mower, or the bath tub, or the breaker box, or the gas can, or the lighter, or the rafting trip.
JL's Link
A magazine editor is free to pass on a writer's article because it supports Trump. That's different than the Government not allowing that writer to self publish the article.
Requiring safe use and storage is fine. Not allowing carry during the day, a loaded magazine with the gun in a bedside Quickvault and requiring registration of all firearms is where the State is wrong.
Letting a State set a precedent that concealed carrying is unsafe around children is wrong. If foster kids are at risk due to a law abiding, ex Marine, tackle shop owning grandpa carrying, why is ok for the neighbors to carry around their two kids? Why should it be legal to carry while walking down the street when kids are present?
Dang good point! If child safety is allegedly the goal and the regs say foster parents have to follow xyz.....why do the same regs not apply to the neighbor next door?
Fostering is a privilege. So is getting married, driving, being a real estate agent, and many other things requiring the State to grant permission. Infringing on rights of law abiding people as a prerequisite to obtaining a license isn't how things are supposed to work.
"Yes Mr Abdul, your license to sell mortgages is all ready. Just sign here stating you won't be practicing Islam anymore."
Just so you understand my point, I distinguish not between the two. I see no earthly reason a grandparent should be "given" the right, by the state, to care for one of their grand children if his parents have abandoned or is no longer there for him. None. They don't need the states approval to do that in my mind. Obviously they want to care for him and are concerned about his well being Much more so than any case worker or "state".
I agree that the requirement to have firearms and ammunition locked separately is absurd. We have the same law when transporting firearms here in CA.
Other than that I don’t really see a problem. As KC mentioned repeatedly above, being a foster parent is not a legal right. Being a grandparent does not give you any explicit right to your own grand children. It may give you a stronger legal claim (if you were contesting custody, for example) than a non-relative, but that’s it.
Once a child is placed in foster care a judge has already granted the state temporary legal custody of the child. As such the state has the right to determine who can and cannot care for the child based on the child’s wellbeing.
Citizens have the right to contest (through advocacy of policy changes) the statutes that regulate how that is defined, but that’s it.
CWS can’t deny a person’s application to become a foster parent because that person is a Muslim because the state has not determined that having a Muslim foster parents is harmful to the child.
The state has determined that unsecured firearms do pose a legitimate threat to the well being of the child.
It really isn’t that complicated.
The point I wished to make was that foster children are under the protection and guardianship of the State. The courts allow the State rather wide leeway in determining what is in the child’s best interest with respect to custodial care.
Yes, some of the rules seem absurd, illogical, or maybe even oppressive. If you have been a foster parent then you know first hand how frustrating it can be.
However, the State is attempting to make a one size fits all set of rules to protect children in a great variety of circumstances. This is difficult to do, and like all government programs there is bound to be some mistakes and ineptitude.
However, if you have been a foster parent you also know that it is completely worth it. It is hard, to be sure, but you have the opportunity to show unconditional love, support, and stability to a child that has maybe never experienced any of those things, and who has almost certainly experienced way more trauma than a child ever ought to.
Don’t let a disagreement with a certain policy push you away from taking that opportunity to support a child.
Bring a foster parent truly is a privilege.
I know of people who took in their grand children and received a Social Security Check for each child. I'm sure love was involved, but the check didn't hurt anything.
I know of another mother who had her children taken from her for whatever the reason. Her husband got custody. He got killed when a truck crushed him. Now, she's going to court with her new husband to get custody back for the two children from her mother. They're only looking for the pay check as neither are working. I feel sorry for the kids.
"Being a foster parent truly is a privilege." I agree, but I wonder one thing, how many are watching out for the kids without a govt. check?
Foxbo,
With respect, you can wonder all that you want but its obviously impossible to know. How many soldiers serve because they love their country, and how many do it for a check and medical benefits? How many cops serve because they love their communities, and how many do it for the pension?
See how that can go? Who can judge another person;s motive? Are anyone's motives entirely pure, or a mixture (love of country and a desire for medical benefits)?
One thing I know for sure, even with a "government check" foster agencies and state CWS are always short of foster parents, and desperately short of people willing to adopt.
In principle, (at least in CA) foster parents have to submit their personal financial details to the state to prove that they are financially able to care for the foster children. The state funded reimbursement provided to foster parents is not included in the reckoning, i.e. you have to posses your own income.
Furthermore, a certain amount of the monthly reimbursement has to be spent on clothing, toys/games, and allowance. Foster parents have to keep detailed, itemized records of those purchases and submit the paperwork to the social worker every month.
On top of that, the home inspection requirements (separate bedrooms for children beyond a certain age, fire extinguishers, etc.) add additional costs incurred by the foster parents. Foster children need to be taken to school, music lessons, sports, etc. just like a person's biological children. This all requires time and money.
If someone is actually making money as a foster parent they must be doing it at the expense of properly caring for the foster child (sadly, it does happen). In such cases the social worker is likely at fault for not recognizing this.
Foster children often come from families with multigenerational problems, such as addictions, crime, lack of education, etc. So placing them with a relative, such as a grandparent, isn't always easy. Quite often, the children do represent an income stream for the parents or biological relatives through welfare, WIC, housing subsidies, etc. and having the children removed from the home does cause the family to lose money. This can complicate the work of social services when they are trying determine what is the best placement for the children.
On any given day, there are nearly half a million children in foster care in the US. These kids are much more likely to be victims of human trafficking, to run away, to drop out of school, and to end up incarcerated than kids in the general population. It's an enormous problem, and most state agencies tasked with dealing with it are short staffed, have high burn out rates, and are going to make some mistakes. There are definitely lots of problems, and as is true with anything involving people, some folks are involved for less than pure motives.
But these kids need homes and families, whether temporarily while their parents get their lives sorted out or permanently when that isn't possible, and they need them now. Government alone cannot meet this. Everyday people that are willing to give their time, energy, and compassion are needed.
Anyway, I'll hop down of my soapbox. I know I derailed the original point of this thread but it's an issue I'm passionate about. I encourage anyone who has even thought about becoming a foster parent (or a mentor or some other similar role in the process) to search local agencies and /or contact their local Child Welfare Services.
It's went from, he likely wasn't told that, to its not infringing on his rights, to now its a privileged that is open to qualifications. On top of that, we get the loving side of ben telling everyone how sweet the system is for taking those kids in. I guess ben is fine as long as a pitbull isn't loose. Please man, save the good will speech for the mirror. Any man that would blatantly use the Lord's name in vane to describe a dog is in no position to preach to the rest of us about the good in life.
You both have a personal tie here and are doing your best to "correct" every one that disagrees with you. Telling them what it is about and how they should be thinking concerning it. This isn't about improper news, privileges, or what anyone thinks of the system that takes possession of these kids. It's about the right thing. Family taking care of family. However, the real issue at hand was did the grandparents have to surrender their rights in order to foster care for their own grandkids. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Because some of us aren't willing to base our feelings off what a state laws says about it. That's the issue and it appears the state and other legislators feel the same after reading that cited article in your first post. Not what one thinks of the system, where we get our news, etc.....
Good day and God Bless men
They are still the grandparents of the kids but they don't automatically get custody of the kids...... not to my knowledge anyways....
Yes,,,, They should get first consiration to foster the kids.... but the State is going to check them out the same as they would anyone else in the best interest of the kids.....
I know some of you guys are real believers in the system. Think you are dong the right thing. Doing it with good intent. I applaud and respect that. But, to say that this was simply about protecting the kids is as ignorant as anything I have ever read. Gun registartion is not a safety issue. PERIOD.
I must have missed your point about registration.... I thought the issue was about how the weapons are stored.....
I'm not really a gun "enthusiast"..... I've owned my hunting firearms all my adult life.... But aren't all pistols required to be registered ?? There's no such thing as registering a rifle or shotgun,, right ?? Is that what you are talking about ??
Everyone knows why the state approves foster parents. Its insulting to hear the speech's. I'm po'ed because the point is being lost by Kevin, you, ben and maybe a few others because they think the state should approve foster parents. Here's a news flash, every one else does too!!!!!!!!!. Therefore, nothing has changed except the states stance that the grand parent has no case due to not being a foster parent. Which is as spineless as anything I've ever read. It's a "Do what I say, or you don't get to play" issue with them. Yet, when he takes recourse, they demand they offer him no answer because he didn't cower to their wants in the first place. Where is this man's justice now? How is he going to get to take care of this boy if the state keeps playing this word play crap?
BB, are you serious? Have you never bought a firearm? All new and used sales that go through a FFL have to be approved by the ATF. This approval isn't a gun register. It's just a back ground check on he purchaser. There is no federal gun registry. Nor should there be. It does not one thing to improve safety. Only gets everything in line for confiscation or, infringement upon one's rights.
In Michigan you have to get a purchase license to buy a pistol but not a rifle or shotgun..... So it may not be called a "registry"...... but isn't a purchase permit in essence the same thing ?? Please excuse my ignorance but like I said.... I am not really familiar with buying and selling guns.... I have in my possession 2 pistols..... both of which were issued to me by the Department I work for.... My knowledge pertains more to the legality of carrying a gun....
Actually the present regulations mention nothing about carrying. From one of your earlier posts it states they must be stored in such and such a manner. That would mean they need to be stored. You may not read it that way, but rest assured one of the "benevolent" government goons would.
"So you seem to be suggesting that if the state says firearms and ammunition must be stored in separate locked containers, that violates his 2A rights, but if he can store them together in the same locked container it doesn't violate his 2A rights?"
What's the purpose of the 2A? I would say the former infringes as it places an additional burden on the owner if a need arises vs. the latter where both are secured together.
Why else would the new law be proposed? Clarification to prevent the government from overstepping its reach? Cuz that has never happened....
This is for the "safety" of the children? Yeah, so are "gun free" school zones. A government entity has told an entire group of citizens, even though you are a teacher, principal, etc and have a government issued CCW, we don't trust you to protect our kids. We prefer laws that are ignored. Hows' that working out?
How soon before this rears it's head in divorce/child custody cases? Where one parent is a ****ing whack job and intends to make the other pay, ie, by making it difficult for the other parent to own or possess a firearm. I've seen it happen, first hand in my own extended family.
Vigilance. Always. The fact that some shrug their shoulders and say, "I don't see what the problem is with the original law", tells me that their (our) inherent rights are up for interpretation by government agencies. Incrementalism is how we lose our rights. That's why we must be vigilant. Always.
Just wonder if confiscation ever takes place who on here will comply. And who will enforce it.
Do you believe open carry is your right ??? If you do ,,,, Do you believe it is your right to don full tactical gear and walk into the lobby of a Police Department with an AR strapped over your shoulder ????
Do you think it is right or wrong that the 2 guys that expressed their open carry rights in that manner in Dearborn Michigan, are in jail right now for doing so ??
Kevin, I'm pretty certain what this whole subject has been about and, your thoughts on it. You've made them very clear since the first thread. There is no denying it nor, did I confuse it. I just refuse to agree with your reasoning. The same can be said for you. No amount of definitions, telling people what's a good idea, quoting state statue, etc.... is going to change a subjective opinion on whether these requirements are a 2nd Amendment infringement. I'm not denying my feelings on this. And, I based them on my constitutional rights. So, a state law isn't going to change how I feel. Nor am I saying you should feel guilty about yours. I just don't agree with them. And, no amount of reasoning why I should is going to change that. We are fundamentally on opposing sides here.
BB, That is just another example of what happens to a Constitutional Right when the people let their state take it from them. And, I too would consider it a form of registration. Meaning it is an infringement on my 2nd Amendment
I was pretty sure you hadn't bought a gun in a long time. And, are more of a utilitarian type gun owner. Most of my police officer friends are the same way. It always confuses me though, because they seem to imply there is zero problem infringing on a person's rights if it makes their job a little it easier. Even though statistically its the law abiding gun owners in this country that offer them zero threat. That's not a cheap shot either. I respect the job they/you do and the inherent danger that comes with it. But, you/they knew that came with that.. And, It would seem to me that LE would feel strongly opposite of that though, due to their oath and responsibility. Maybe I'm wrong. I do not know. Its just a pattern I've noticed.
I'll stop because KPC will come along in a bit and bring up the nuclear weapon analogy as example for an "interpretation of your inherent rights" regarding the 2nd Amendment. I like and respect him. But, that one was hard enough for me to swallow the first time. God Bless men
That being said.... I don't think of myself as a gun nut like those dumb asses that put on full tactical body armor and walked into the Dearborn Police Department with AR's.
Do you think that was within their Constitutional rights ?? Do you think they did anything wrong ??
Hey man, I don't know you personally but I can honestly say I generally appreciate your comments on here, and I think you'd be guy a I'd like to be friends with. I doubt we really disagree all that much, but sometimes it is difficult to communicate via on-line forums. I'm not the best writer in town and the fault is probably mine.
But I enjoy respectful dialogue so I'll try to clear up a few things
1. I do not recall taking the Lord's name in vain over a dog. I did post on a pitiful thread once, and I guess my opinion differs from yours. I reread that post and all I saw was that I disagree with a lot of the hype about pit bulls being vicious killers (based on my reading of canine related literature and personal experience) but that since they are big powerful dogs I do not own one since I have a small children. That somehow invalidates my opinions here? Come on man. That is really way off the topic here and not relevant. If I did take the Lord's name in vain I am sorry for it and will gladly repent. It's not customary practice of mine.
2. You say everyone knows how that state approves foster parents. In my experience that is simply not true. Unless someone has personal experience with the process (which is often very complicated) then they usually do not know much. You made a sweeping generalization and then stated you were insulted "by the speeches". I'm sorry you felt that way. I was not directing my previous posts at you, and certainly didn't intend to insult anyone.
3. I do feel very strongly about children in foster care. By and large, their's is a very difficult row to hoe, and I do what little I am able to advocate for them.
4. I never said the system was great, the State was wonderful, or that the state should be the final authority on these matters. I simply pointed out what the law was, as far as I understand it. It's not my feelings, its the law. Heck, I actually said the rule about storing ammo and firearms separately was "absurd" and that the state made mistakes and was often inept. I really have no idea why you be "po'ed" by that. I did acknowledge I kind of hijacked the thread and apologized for that, but I really don't think I have said or implied some of things you charged with me. I'm a rural North Carolina boy living in California; I don't agree with probably 80% or more of what the state does. Most laws out here are absurd. But the law is the law, and my only recourse is to obey, move, lobby my state legislators, or challenge the law in court. My feelings are really admissible.
5. The law does not automatically grant grandparents legal custody of children that have been placed in foster care. You can disagree with that, and you are free to contact your legislators and lobby to have the regulations changed. If you ever find yourself in that situation you can hire a lawyer and challenge the state in court. For my part, I have been personally involved in the process enough to know that simply being family does not always qualify a person to care for a child. As I stated above, addictions, domestic violence, crime, etc. are often (not always!) generational . Lot's of crackheads have parents that are also crackheads. The state has a legal obligation to place the child in the best, safest home. Sometimes that is family, sometimes its not. It's not preachy to point that out.
6. With respect to the gentleman in question, if the only thing about him that did not meet the state's requirements was he stored his ammo in the same place as his firearm then I agree, denying him the opportunity to care for his grandchildren would be absurd (even if, strictly speaking, it followed the law). In his place, I would comply with the regulation (because my grandchildren would be more important to me in the immediate situation than where I stored my ammo), gain custody of my grandchildren and make sure they were safe, and if I felt I needed to I would then hire a lawyer and challenge the rule.
So far this thread has been fairly respectful and, I think, an interesting conversation about a couple of important issues (2A rights and the foster care system). Hopefully it encourages all of to safeguard our liberties and to help others less fortunate than us.
Have a great day man!
Parents safely owning, using and carrying a firearm and storing ammunition in the same safe as a weapon is legal and is NOT bad for kids. It's actually beneficial.
"With all due respect bowbender, that's just ridiculous. You are welcome to read it that way but you would be incorrect. If that were the case, it would be against the law for a foster parent to take a foster child hunting. We all know that's not the case."
We all know that is not the case? Really? What's ridiculous is that you would actually believe that a bureaucrat wouldn't see it that way. Sorry I do not place my trust and faith in un-elected bureaucrats to rule favorably on an ambiguous law. And it WAS ambiguous, otherwise the changes would not have been proposed.
BB,
"No one is going to confiscate your guns if you don't comply Bowbender..... They would take the kids from you if you refused to follow their rules."
That wan't the question, BB, nor was it if you and your co-workers are pro-gun. The question was if confiscation ever takes place (not related to thread subject) who will comply, and who will enforce it? Pretty simple and straightforward.
Apology accepted. Thanks for the conversation. Blessings.
Pretty stupid, but exactly what law did they break?
There was a thread here on the Bowsite about it. Every single poster including the owner of the Bowsite said those two guys are complete idiots.....and only hurting Law abiding gun owners....
Bowbender's Link
"Answer Bowbender.... No one is going to confiscate your guns."
Not to lend credence to Spike Bulls Connecticut post, the law IS on the books. Comply or confiscate.
"The state is sending letters to 106 rifle owners and 108 residents with high-capacity magazines saying they can destroy the guns and ammunition, sell them to a federally licensed gun dealer, move the items out of state or sell them to somebody out of state, or make arrangements to turn them over to local or state police.
Those who fail to do so could face serious criminal penalties."
The law IS on the books. All it takes is the call for enforcement. They criminalized an entire group of previously law abiding citizens. When it comes to politicians, I place as much faith and trust in them as I do used car salesmen. YMMV.
Spike Bull finds all of his information in his whacked out far right websites like Breitbart.... he historically has posted FAKE news......
I repeat..... No one is going to confiscate your guns...... Molan Labe.......
How does the State know who has high capacity magazines ?? Those things don't have serial numbers...... do they ??????
Bowbender's Link
28. Q: Will law enforcement be going door to door to confiscate unregistered assault weapons or undeclared magazines?
A: No, but just like any other item that is unlawful (i.e. contraband) to possess, if an individual is found to be in possession of an unregistered assault weapon or undeclared magazine, they are subject to arrest and prosecution.
I still stand by my belief that the day will come that this info WILL be ultimately used for confiscation.
