Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not that cut and dried. They were assuredly not denied solely because they had a CCW. It had to have hinged on other factors, such as their inability or unwillingness to comply to the restrictions placed on firearm owners by the Agency who fosters the children out. The whole premise of those denied is agenda oriented, to demonstrate government overreach in persecuting legal gun owners. That most likely is not exactly the case, once the whole body of facts are laid bare.
You very well could be right. The government over reaches on everything, our rights are denied every second of the way now. So why not gun owners. And with computers, it's just darn scary that even your car can tell the authorities where you are at all times. Insanity. And to think the powers that be will keep this power for good is ludicrous. They molest innocent people just driving down the road with these silly DUI checkpoints. That is just a smigid of what is to come. The "National Nanny Agenda" in full force. A need to know where every one is and how they can spy on them 24/7. Then accost them just driving down the road.
I don't think Police officers should be foster parents. It takes a different mentality to violate peoples civil rights regularly such as DUI Checkpoints then moan because yours were violated thus you cannot adopt. Not to mention arresting people for having two drinks or less- criminalizing them, ruining their life.
Some of the known anti gun posters posting in this thread keep dwelling on the assumption of "walking around with a loaded gun in your house". Ugh news flash, you don't need a concealed carry permit to do that. A concealed permit pertains to carrying outside your house, concealed on your body.
These potential parents were denied based on that, just one step away from banning any gun owner from adopting a kid which I suppose some of you would enjoy making that a law. I was adopted, my dad had guns in the house, he taught me shoot starting at age 7 or 8. The climate from some of you in todays politically correct world I would never have been adopted to a loving family if you had your say so.
And let me add another thought. Anti gun people use this as a excuse for "looking out for the welfare of the child". I think that is a smoke screen. What I think is the true objective from them is that the more kids raised in a anti gun or gun free household the less chance they will grow up knowing how to use one or caring about 2nd amendment rights. In essence, more future people ignorant and less likely to give opposition to gun restrictions.
I am proud to say that just today I took a friend out shooting for his first time and he loved it so I just created a new future pro gun voter and he is already talking about getting his own AR-15 how about that you anti gunners?
I am just surprised this is from Nevada , I would expect it from some place like California, New Jersey maybe New York, any place place where liberal democrats reign. I guess too many Californians have migrated to Nevada.
The big question is... how in the world did the child's worker become privy to this couple NOT locking up their guns?
There is a BIG part of this story we're not knowing about.
.
The big part anti gun posters are missing is a concealed carry permit pertains to carrying a gun concealed on your body out in public. It has nothing to do about having one on your body inside your own home which you don't need a permit to do so.
A person who is issued a concealed permit went to a class, passed a law enforcement back ground check. The only reason the worker became privy to it is because they have a recorded permit on file.
But lets talk about guns locked up in your house. At some point if you go out to the range and shoot them they obviously have to become unlocked and visible to said child. That will probably naturally raise the childs curiousity about them. The proper thing would be to then teach the kid who to use and respect them safely.
But what I think, is these laws created by anti gunners, is to limit future responsible gun owners and lessen opposition to future gun restrictions. Because once a person knows how to use one, and finds out how fun it is to shoot, they won't cave in or believe the lies anti gunners say when they want to ban or restrict. Anti gunners want ignorant voters.
The big part anti gun posters are missing is a concealed carry permit pertains to carrying a gun concealed on your body out in public. It has nothing to do about having one on your body inside your own home which you don't need a permit to do so.
A person who is issued a concealed permit went to a class, passed a law enforcement back ground check. The only reason the worker became privy to it is because they have a recorded permit on file.
But lets talk about guns locked up in your house. At some point if you go out to the range and shoot them they obviously have to become unlocked and visible to said child. That will probably naturally raise the childs curiousity about them. The proper thing would be to then teach the kid who to use and respect them safely.
But what I think, is these laws created by anti gunners, is to limit future responsible gun owners and lessen opposition to future gun restrictions. Because once a person knows how to use one, and finds out how fun it is to shoot, they won't cave in or believe the lies anti gunners say when they want to ban or restrict. Anti gunners want ignorant voters.
Yes but you need to have established a relationship with them of trust in which most foster kids have a challenge with. And honestly, probably 1/3 or more would be apt to steal and misuse a gun because their cognitive abilities were very low. You see foster children as a whole, are not like regular children. Most are special needs, very slow. You don't want guns around them. That is my experience with the years I fostered, a gun in my house would be disasterous for us and the child. They just all too often, have no fear. And all too often, they don't have the maturity to be taught a healthy respect for guns. That requires a certain maturity level. Of course some kids are fine, one we had works at a large grocery chain...he'd loved to shoot guns....but so many are so below average in every way that the laws are made for them. For their safety. Now had I have not been a foster parent, I don't know my opinion upon this subject.
To ban guns in general is bowing to a National Nanny Agenda imho. We need to carry them, and even if it becomes illegal, it never really morally will be. Its a right, period.
We need them to protect ourselves with guns unless.... having them means there is a likelihood a kid will use it against us or themselves, which is the problem when you take in foster kids. But other than that, to find another reason to ban guns is ludicrous. Guns in general, make for a safer enviornment overall. And Foster parents are a very minoot part of the whole population
I am just surprised this is from Nevada , I would expect it from some place like California, New Jersey maybe New York, any place place where liberal democrats reign. I guess too many Californians have migrated to Nevada.
This thread shows why many are not good foster parent material. It doesn't matter how many times it's noted that nobody tried to argue they wanted to leave guns laying around unlocked you still get post after post complaining about how the system is right in not allowing people leave guns laying around.
The next argument for guns laying around being a bad thing is surely coming in the next couple posts.
The bill would allow Nevadans with concealed-weapons permits, and law enforcement officers, to carry loaded weapons on their person in a home or car and still be eligible to be foster parents. If not carried on their person, the weapons would be required to be kept in a secure safe , but they could remain loaded.
With all due respect,
Not necessarily. It is a privilege granted by the state, to participants who are willing to meet the stringent criteria of fostering children. It really is that simple. There are no nefarious anti gun laws at work here.
No there are is no indication of nefarious anti-gun laws, like not allowing homosexuals, veterans or muslims to adopt kids isn't nefarious anti-Gay, anti-Veteran or anti-Islamic laws. Do you agree? I can provide various specious arguments as to why each of those groups should not be permitted to adopt.
By the same measure of privilege, you would agree then; that mortgage, loan, banking and insurance companies, could all place stringent criteria on issuance of financial services; indeed they not being a government organization have no requirement to even be concerned about constitutionally protected rights, as they are not restrictions on them, but government. That prohibiting people who fail to meet their stringent criteria on firearms ownership would not be in any way be an anti-gun initiative? After all there is no right to banking services, or mortgages or loans, or insurance. I can easily argue that gun ownership is a needless risk that people take in the mistaken belief it increases their safety, but in fact decreases it, I only need to pull up a couple of David Hemenway's studies and it's all there in black and white (I happen to disagree with his findings, since he ignores a large body of evidence of passive prevention, and "non-crimes" prevented).
In this case the prospective parents do not meet that criteria, however the criteria are strongly stacked to prevent those who are engaging in a lawful pursuit from meeting those criteria.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
