K Cummings's Link
It was said by some (myself included) that IF everything was as reported, the case would likely hinge on what "actively in use" meant in terms of the storage requirements that were being imposed.
I came across the linked story and it seems to shed a little more light on the state's position, both in terms of the man's actual standing in the case, whether or not a foster parent would actually have their 2A rights infringed.
I never saw it as a right to bear arms issue but a rules in order to be a foster parent issue.
Now it would appear that the man may not even have legal standing in the case. It will be interesting to see what happens. I would like to be able to read the state's 39 page response but I haven't been able to locate it.
There often seems to be a difference between the actual facts and the way something is reported.
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.....
That would be my opinion, but I don't make the rules. I guess time will tell. I always thought that this issue would hinge on that specific aspect. Seems to me that all that would have to happen is to clarify that issue and all else would be irrelevant.
In my opinion, if the state DIDN'T require safe storage "when not in use," they would be failing to protect the child.
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.
I can understand what you are saying (and agree with some) however I think people are conflating two separate issues, and have been from the beginning. One is the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We get that. However, there is no "right" to be a foster parent. That is a privilege. So, IF one chooses to be a foster parent, certain rules must be adhered to for the protection of a child, that is a ward of the state, that is placed in someone else's care.
Think about the possible consequences of leaving a gun unattended while doing something as simple as taking a shower. A number of years back, there was a local child that drowned in a pool while the mother took a "quick shower."
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.
R 400.9415 Hazardous materials.
Rule 415. (1) A foster parent shall follow the agency’s hazardous materials policy.
(2) Dangerous and hazardous materials, objects, weapons, chemicals, medication, or equipment that may present a risk to children placed in the foster home shall be stored securely and out of the reach of children, as appropriate for the age and functioning level of the children.
(3) Firearms are subject to the following conditions:
(a) Stored in a locked metal or solid wood gun safe or
(b) Trigger-locked and stored without ammunition in a locked area.
(c) Ammunition shall be stored in a separate locked location.
(d) A handgun shall be registered. Documentation of the registration of the handgun shall be available for inspection.
This is the new proposed regulation:
The bill would amend the Foster Care and Adoption Services Act to do the following:
-- Allow an individual to possess a firearm or ammunition while on the premises of a foster home if he or she were permitted to possess a firearm under State law.
-- Require an individual who possessed a firearm or ammunition while on the premises of a foster home to store it in a locked secure storage container unless it was being used for a lawful purpose, or the firearm was inoperable and solely ornamental.
-- Allow an individual to carry a firearm on his or her person while in the presence of a foster child, provided certain conditions were met.
-- Specify that a supervising agency would be immune from civil or criminal liability for an injury resulting from the use of a firearm or ammunition that was stored on the premises of a foster home or carried by a foster care provider or resident of the foster home.
-- Specify that the bill would not bar, or authorize a supervising agency to bar, a foster child from lawful possession of a firearm for certain purposes while he or she was in the presence of an adult who could lawfully possess a firearm.
-- Prohibit a supervising agency from requiring a foster parent to provide it with confidential firearm information.
Sounds like a fair compromise and even though in my opinion all the original fuss was much ado about nothing. Certainly not the 2A violation that it was reported to be.
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.
This has been hashed out before, but what is being missed here is that even if what was reported to have been said is what was actually said, the state never attempted to infringe on someone's 2A rights. He has, and would still have that right. However, he does not have the "right" to be a foster parent. Foster parenting is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege has it's own set of rules.
Furthermore, what some staffer might have said, is not really relevant. Even the MI law currently on the books does not say he must give up any rights.
Let's not forget, foster parenting is not babysitting family. A foster child (even if it is a grandchild) is the ward of the state, therefore the state calls the shots regarding that child's care. Even if it was babysitting, the notion that putting conditions on care is a violation of a constitutional right fails. As a parent, I can pick and choose who babysits my child, and what the environment will be like.
Take the emotion out of it and think about it this way. If I am interviewing potential babysitters for my child, I have the right (duty to my child) to determine if the environment will be safe. Among other things, I have the right to ask a candidate if they own guns. I also have the right to ask if those guns are stored in a what that I think is safe. If the candidate says that they store their guns in a way that is unacceptable to me, for whatever reason I choose, I am under no obligation to allow them to watch my child.
If a potential candidate states that they have an unregistered handgun in the house, and they keep it loaded and resting on the nightstand, I have every right to say "I like you, and I'll let you watch my child IF you get your handgun registered, and you store it in a certain way. Otherwise, I will look for another babysitter."
Is that a violation of that person's 2A rights? Of course not.
There is no difference between a parent setting those conditions and the state (who is the parent in a foster situation) setting the same conditions.
K Cummings's Link
K Cummings's Link
"In 38 States and the District of Columbia, any firearms in the home must be locked in cabinets, gun safes, or other containers that are inaccessible to children; ammunition must be kept in separate, locked containers."
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?
I totally understand and I agree.
What seems to be getting lost here, repeatedly it seems, is that the government is not limiting his "right" to keep an bear arms. They are limiting his "privilege" to to become a foster parent, which they have every right and responsibility to do for the benefit and safety of the children in their care.
"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?"
That's a simple one to answer. Because they aren't.
The rules only pertain to when the gun is being "stored," not when it is being legally carried.
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."
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. To my knowledge, you do not need a "license" to be a foster parent. You simply have to meet the qualifications and requisite training, and pass a home inspection. Even so:
"Yes, Mr. Abdul you have the constitutional right to practice the religion of your choice, however you do not have the right to commit honor killings, or any of the other various things that said religion would permit, but go against the laws of the state in which you live"
"Yes Mrs. Foster, you have the right to be a member of a satanic cult, however if you choose to do so, we reserve the right to deny you the privilege of being a foster parent."
"Yes Mr. Johnson, you have the constitutional right to leave loaded guns in every room of your home, however if you choose to do that, we won't be allowing you to care for a foster child."
Do parents have the right to interview prospective daycare providers, and based solely on how they handle and store their legal firearms, decide whether or not to allow a given provider to care for their children?
You can call it wacko, or my interpretation, or a "grandfather trying to become the legal guardian of his grandson," but that is plain and simple incorrect.
A foster parent has no legal authority over a foster child. The child is ward of the state (court). Foster parenting is no more than a glorified child care where the kids live full time. The foster "parents" are paid by the state for their services. It is a temporary, paid situation.
Foster Care is part of a State-funded social program that provides temporary care for a child who cannot live with his or her own family. A child may enter foster care for a number of reasons including neglect, abuse, or a family crisis. A child with extreme behavioral issues may also enter foster care to supplement parents’ efforts and protect the child from endangering him or herself.
A foster home is a temporary solution intended to provide affection, stability and consistency to help a child grow and restore psychological wellbeing. Foster care is not meant to be permanent, so children typically continue to visit their own families until they may be reunited. While the child is out of the home, services are provided to help facilitate a healthy reunion.
If circumstances prevent a reunion with a child’s birth parents, Social Services will look to family members and other persons in the child’s life to see if a permanent home can be found. If another suitable opportunity does not exist, a foster family may choose to seek permanence either by adoption or legal guardianship."
On the other hand, legal guardianship is completely different:
Guardianship, as opposed to foster care, is a more permanent solution and is typically used for cases involving relative caregivers. Kinship care is usually preferred over foster care so that a child is able to maintain relationships with extended family in a safe and familiar environment. If a reunion with birth parents is ruled out, a guardian assumes legal and financial duty until the child reaches the age of 18. A guardian is assigned primary parental rights and responsibilities for the child’s care, protection and education. In some cases a probate court may extend guardianship beyond 18 years of age depending on the needs of the child.
A legal guardian has rightful control and can make decisions on behalf of the child, but the child will also maintain a legal connection with his or her birth parents. Birth parents may retain rights to visitation, access to information, and notice of accidents or serious illness; however, as long as legal guardianship is in effect, the rights of the birth parents are secondary and subject to limitations.
A guardianship arrangement may be temporary or permanent depending on the circumstances of the birth parents. Birth parents may request that a guardianship order be vacated and the child be returned to their care. If reunification with a parent is not possible, a legal guardian may choose to adopt the child."
If the grandfather in this situation chose to, and was allowed to adopt the child, no such restrictions would be in place. However, in the case in question, he was only seeking to be a foster parent, therefore the state calls all the shots, and justifiably so.
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".
It would be a whole different situation if the state went to the grandfather and demanded that he be the foster parent AND told him because of that, he could not keep and bear arms.
In this case, the state is saying "Here are the rules that must be followed if you want to hired as a foster parent. In light of those rules, would you like to be one?"
Not a whole lot different really than "Here are the rules that must be followed if you want to work at Taco Bell. In light of those rules, would you like to work here?
That is why definitions matter.
It would be one thing if the parents asked the grandparents to watch their child. That was not the case. The child was taken away from the parent, and he was going to be placed with someone, temporarily, in the event the parents could get him back. The state took the child, therefore the state is fully responsible for the welfare of the child. It just so happens, in this case, the child actually did go back with the parents.
If the grandparents adopt the child (hence they have full responsibility for the welfare of the child), no such requirements would be in effect.
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.
No, but we seriously considered it and looked into it at one time.
Many would agree that the rule might be "absurd," heck the government (city, county, state and fed) has a whole host of absurd regulations, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
As far as the rest, I agree...it isn't that complicated.
What does make things complicated, is relying on the way an event was "reported" in order to form an opinion on the validity of of the particulars of that event. Rarely is an event reported accurately, unless the reporter was actually present, and even then their own personal opinions and biases tend to taint the way they cover it.
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 never looked at the particular situation in terms of whether I liked the rules and regulations or not, just in terms of whether the man was being forced to give up a constitutional right or not...as was being reported.
I'm just getting rather tired (have been for quite some time actually) of reporting that is designed to titillate, enrage or advance an agenda, but in the end doesn't turn out to be anything like what was being "sold."
I believe the same thing happened in the Kate Steinle case. When the facts of the case were heard, as bad as they were, as much as they never should have been allowed to happen, they weren't quite what the public was told or sold. Therefore when the verdict came down, people were dumbfounded when the jury made the decision they did.
I don't care whether the source of the news is right leaning or left leaning, biased news is fake news and if the public can't rely on it's accuracy, it is worse than useless.
Part of the reason both the left and the right are always unhappy with the way things turn out is because everyone has unrealistic expectations of a certain outcome, based on the slant of news they choose to believe.
I actually fell into a reasonable, informational debate, when did Pat start allowing those here on the CF? ;-)
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?
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.
Not so much “where,” but whether or not we are willing to just believe whatever is reported without any independent verification.
People tend to consume “news” from the outlets and “reporters” that share their political and ideological bent.
Unfortunately, the reporters are lazy, the consumers are lazy. Add in a specific agenda, and the results are what they are.
Worse yet, in an era of 24/7/365 news from thousands of outlets, both real and fake, plus social media, in order to be noticed, everything must be reported as if it’s a crisis of mega proportions.
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 ??
This has so much in it, it's hard to know where to start, but I'll try to address it...at lease as it pertains to what I've said.
First of all, I started the thread, therefore I guess I should know what I intended it to be about. From my very first post...
"It was said by some (myself included) that IF everything was as reported, the case would likely hinge on what "actively in use" meant in terms of the storage requirements that were being imposed. "
...it had everything to do with the reality of the situation (whether or not the man was being denied a constitutional right), based on how it had been reported. That's what it has been about for me from the beginning.
Then, you chastise others for telling you how you should think...and then go on to tell others how they should think.
"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.
Then you go on to say...
"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....."
...which might be the most peculiar of all, at least to me. To me, this was never about who I feel should get first crack at fostering kids. Obviously, that should be family if at all possible. That's never been in question as far as I'm concerned.
Nor is it about "the system where we get our news," it's about the news we choose to believe as reported, and how that reporting drives a narrative that may or may not be accurate, and then what our expectations are based on our perception of it.
It's always been (at least for me) about whether or not a person was being forced to give up a constitutional right, because of rules that are in place, as was reported.
"That's the issue and it appears the state and other legislators feel the same after reading that cited article in your first post."
The only substantive difference between what is being proposed (Senate bill 527) and the current rules is being allowed to store the firearm and ammunition together in a locked storage container.
As far as House Bill 4955, that only states that the legal ownership of a firearm, or a concealed pistol license can't be considered in determining the placement of a child. If chosen, they would still" have to abide by the safe storage regulations. They just can be denied because the have them.
Nothing in the current regulation states that a person cannot carry a legal firearm, concealed or otherwise, while in the presence of a foster child. It only has to do with the way they are "stored."
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?
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 ??
While I do appreciate you attempting to tell me what the thread I started is about, let me just say that every post I have made has been in direct relation to what I stated in my first post which is the following:
"A while back there was a lengthy discussion here on the CF about the Michigan man that was reportedly told he would have to give up some of his 2A rights if he wanted to be a foster parent for his grandson. It was said by some (myself included) that IF everything was as reported, the case would likely hinge on what "actively in use" meant in terms of the storage requirements that were being imposed.
I came across the linked story and it seems to shed a little more light on the state's position, both in terms of the man's actual standing in the case, whether or not a foster parent would actually have their 2A rights infringed."
Now, if you ask me specific questions, and I answer them, I guess it's your prerogative whether you choose to then accuse me of getting off track, but in my opinion that says more about you than it does me.
"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."
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.
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!
You are absolutely correct. Everyone is entitled to their opinions for sure. I simply took issue with being told what a thread I started was supposed to be about.
Ultimately, the only opinion that really matters is that of the Supreme Court, and they have already weighed in on whether the 2A is absolute. Whether you, or I, or anyone else happens to agree with them is pretty irrelevant.
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.
"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.
What specifically are you referring to?
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....
"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 ??????
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.