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.
The big question is... how in the world did the child's worker become privy to this couple NOT locking up their guns?
How they became privy to knowing the couple had Concealed carry permits? Easy, they're Department of Child and Family services, they can put in a background request from State and Local police, that's going to turn up a CWP, and I'd be shocked if they didn't put in a background check on all potential foster families.
Not locking up their guns is not the point of contention, the point of contention is that people with concealed weapons permits are currently in violation of the regulations for fostering/adoption, since the regulations state that at all times firearms and ammunition must be stored in separate locked containers. Clearly this is an impossible regulation to comply with if at any time you wish to carry a concealed firearm since you have no separate locked containers on your person, and having an unloaded firearm defeats the purpose of carrying one. Having a concealed weapons permit is kind of a strong indication that you might want to carry a concealed firearm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsApt
I cannot imagine what that 12 year old child thought upon learning his foster PARENTS found their right to hold onto their guns freely... as more important than holding onto him. IF that is the case.
The case is should foster PARENTS cede civil and constitutional rights for the right to foster. That's it in a nutshell.
Perhaps instead of learning that his potential foster parents chose guns over him, he should learn that his foster parents were prohibited from fostering by the state because they chose to pursue a 100% totally legal activity. The blame isn't that the prospective parents should give up guns, the blame is that the state is prohibiting them adopting, because they have concealed carry permits.
Current rules require guns and ammunition to be stored separately in secure containers in homes with foster children.
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.
So in testimony in front of Nevada's judiciary committee, it was said that Nevadans with concealed weapons permits and law enforcement officers are not eligible to be foster parents, who knew, cops can't foster in Nevada.
Don't agree with this particular set of rules but it's a privilege to be a foster parent. As such can be strictly controlled by the state.
Hell even our constitutional gun rights here in Kommiefornia are being restricted. Slowly but surely thru the courts we are prying them free from the jaws of modern day communists err I mean progressives. It's a damn battle we shouldn't have to have but that's the price of living in a civilized society. Courts vs taking your rights into your own hands.
How they became privy to knowing the couple had Concealed carry permits? Easy, they're Department of Child and Family services, they can put in a background request from State and Local police, that's going to turn up a CWP, and I'd be shocked if they didn't put in a background check on all potential foster families.
Not locking up their guns is not the point of contention, the point of contention is that people with concealed weapons permits are currently in violation of the regulations for fostering/adoption, since the regulations state that at all times firearms and ammunition must be stored in separate locked containers. Clearly this is an impossible regulation to comply with if at any time you wish to carry a concealed firearm since you have no separate locked containers on your person, and having an unloaded firearm defeats the purpose of carrying one. Having a concealed weapons permit is kind of a strong indication that you might want to carry a concealed firearm.
Oh ok thanks for clarifying that. A whole nother ball of wax! I agree that these people SHOULD NOT be discriminated against because that is what it is. Everyone should have a gun in their home imho to protect themselves unless there are extenuating circumstances not to have one. A brother in law sleep walks and acts all goofy at night so he'd probably blow someone up if they had a gun anywhere he was able to access it.
Quote:
The case is should foster PARENTS cede civil and constitutional rights for the right to foster. That's it in a nutshell.
Totally agree with you
Quote:
Perhaps instead of learning that his potential foster parents chose guns over him, he should learn that his foster parents were prohibited from fostering by the state because they chose to pursue a 100% totally legal activity. The blame isn't that the prospective parents should give up guns, the blame is that the state is prohibiting them adopting, because they have concealed carry permits.
But this is a different story. His foster parents didn't choose guns over him, they probably didn't get the information until he was already in the home. Or they obtained it and it got lost, or they were just overburdened and didn't get to it.
Quote:
So in testimony in front of Nevada's judiciary committee, it was said that Nevadans with concealed weapons permits and law enforcement officers are not eligible to be foster parents, who knew, cops can't foster in Nevada.
This is a very sad story. I am glad Cops cannot foster, most I know are pretty messed up. And they are half the reason you need guns in the home anyhow, but that is just MHO. Around here, they'll break in your home anytime for almost no reason at all. Cheech or Chong, I've forgotten went thru HELL with a swat team who came barging in and throwing them all to the ground over his company selling a pipe. Good grief.
This sounds like the Workers didn't do their jobs, or the system somehow let these Foster Parents down. Cause if that's the case, they never should've been licensed in the first place.
How they became privy to knowing the couple had Concealed carry permits? Easy, they're Department of Child and Family services, they can put in a background request from State and Local police, that's going to turn up a CWP, and I'd be shocked if they didn't put in a background check on all potential foster families.
Not locking up their guns is not the point of contention, the point of contention is that people with concealed weapons permits are currently in violation of the regulations for fostering/adoption, since the regulations state that at all times firearms and ammunition must be stored in separate locked containers. Clearly this is an impossible regulation to comply with if at any time you wish to carry a concealed firearm since you have no separate locked containers on your person, and having an unloaded firearm defeats the purpose of carrying one. Having a concealed weapons permit is kind of a strong indication that you might want to carry a concealed firearm.
The case is should foster PARENTS cede civil and constitutional rights for the right to foster. That's it in a nutshell.
Perhaps instead of learning that his potential foster parents chose guns over him, he should learn that his foster parents were prohibited from fostering by the state because they chose to pursue a 100% totally legal activity. The blame isn't that the prospective parents should give up guns, the blame is that the state is prohibiting them adopting, because they have concealed carry permits.
So in testimony in front of Nevada's judiciary committee, it was said that Nevadans with concealed weapons permits and law enforcement officers are not eligible to be foster parents, who knew, cops can't foster in Nevada.
You make some very good points on the issue but I don't think the right to be a foster parent is a constitutional right. It is a privilege granted by the state.
Whereas having a weapon for self defense is a constitutional right as long as one abides by the reasonable restrictions(or unreasonable, in some cases) imposed by local, state and federal law.
And remember, I said WHEN we fostered i didn't think they allowed us to have a pool. My husband also says the same thing. County DHS have their own set of rules also
It's been years since then
NOTE ADDED: this is a private foster care agency, not County. The kids are taken away and placed into COUNTY care then after assesment, are given over to private foster care agencies. So they know something about them PRIOR to granting the child to the agency and its rules. We considered using a private agency which pays more...but never went that route.
In PA and Ohio, we were allowed swimming pools, along as they had fences. When we discussed it with the agency, their response was thats no different than taking kids to a beach, or YMCA etc.
How they became privy to knowing the couple had Concealed carry permits? Easy, they're Department of Child and Family services, they can put in a background request from State and Local police, that's going to turn up a CWP, and I'd be shocked if they didn't put in a background check on all potential foster families.
The article indicates that their LOCAL Dept of Family Services denied them due to their Concealed Weapons permits.
I am wondering if they went to a private foster/adoption agency if that would be the case?
Years back, they did not do a check like that on us. BUT my father in law worked in Adult Protective Services and they were and still are, major over burdened. So it was limited to a State Background check because computers were not updated to that newer Statewide system.
Also it seems odd they do not want to foster first, and just mention adopting but the story is short. So maybe they were already foster parents ...but then again, it's the same thing. Pretty much the same rules because they are using the same County. It's really smooth to adopt a child youve been fostering already via the County, at least here in Calif
If they moved across county lines, then they may be able to foster/adopt
In PA and Ohio, we were allowed swimming pools, along as they had fences. When we discussed it with the agency, their response was thats no different than taking kids to a beach, or YMCA etc.
I have never had a kid with PTSD because of a swimming pool lol. So I am glad to hear this. Most kids love swimming
You make some very good points on the issue but I don't think the right to be a foster parent is a constitutional right. It is a privilege granted by the state.
Never said it was.
They need to cede the civil right to a concealed carry permit (a CWP/CCP/CPL is not a natural right), and their second amendment constitutional rights (a fundamental right to self defense) for the civil right to adopt (adoption is not a natural right either).
I'm using an overloaded term. Fostering/Adoption are not RIGHTS (fundamental, natural, god given whatever you want to call them), but rights (things we can presume are permitted to normal law abiding citizens).
The article indicates that their LOCAL Dept of Family Services denied them due to their Concealed Weapons permits.
I am wondering if they went to a private adoption agency if that would be the case?
Years back, they did not do a check like that on us. BUT my father in law worked there and they were and still are, major over burdened. So it was limited to a State Background check.
If they moved across county lines, then they may be able to foster/adopt
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.
They need to cede the civil right to a concealed carry permit (a CWP/CCP/CPL is not a natural right), and their second amendment constitutional rights (a fundamental right to self defense) for the civil right to adopt (adoption is not a natural right either).
I'm using an overloaded term. Fostering/Adoption are not RIGHTS (fundamental, natural, god given whatever you want to call them), but rights (things we can presume are permitted to normal law abiding citizens).
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.
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.
