Law-Abiding Foster Parents Lose Kids Because They Own A Firearm

[babe]

So again, Dutch is mad that an issue came up, the law was applied, it was seen for the bad law it is and changed?

Would you still like it on the books?

A law that made no reference to actual use of a weapon in a lawful way, even inside the home if necessary to protect one's self or family. . . . that was cited as a reason to terminate foster care. . . . it's not the law, it's the FPS that's the problem. Because the FPS has demonstrated an intent to abuse the law and discriminate against gunowners, the legislature had to go back and specifically state that gunowners, ccw permit holders, or persons acting in self-defense or protecting their children can not be denied the ability to provide foster care by the FPS. . . .

Even the news media coverage, and even the legislature, apparently are able to get it. The FPS was the problem. They interpreted the existing law wrongly, and had to be specifically told not to interpret it that way.

By the FPS interpretation, even police officers could not transport a foster child while having a holstered sidearm, and could not take it out to confront any threat in protection of a foster child.

So I see Dutch has got his retinue of angry annoyed irrational folks on his doorstep. But his title is not "angry" or inaccurate in this case, it's the plain fact.

Probably a fact that this site is a safe niche for folks who are just happy about the world, and even about the Jazz basketball prospects.

 

[moevillini]

Life is about choices. If you want to be a foster parent, and the regulations in your state or locality put restrictions on the use of firearms, then either you follow the restrictions or take your chances if you don't and something happens. Or you chose not to be a foster parent.

This is just a different twist on the story of that county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses. What is it with some people that they think they can just tailor the law to suit their beliefs?

 

[babe]

Life is about choices. If you want to be a foster parent, and the regulations in your state or locality put restrictions on the use of firearms, then either you follow the restrictions or take your chances if you don't and something happens. Or you chose not to be a foster parent.

This is just a different twist on the story of that county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses. What is it with some people that they think they can just tailor the law to suit their beliefs?

Oh, you mean like the Supreme Court did in 1856 in the Dred Scott decision? Or in the 1896 "Separate but Equal" ruling? Or in the case of a political activist Supreme Court in general making rulings not on the law but on a personal agenda?

I get you that you have no problems with all that. You just don't see it when you're having it all your way.

A mere human with actual rights. Insane.

tell you what, until you get it that even government employees, law enforcement, courts, legislatures have laws they need to follow, I'll keep on keeping on.

 

[Stoked]

And until you get it that they agreed and it was changed then you'll continue to be wrong.

Have fun waxing on about some grand conspiracy.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Life is about choices. If you want to be a foster parent, and the regulations in your state or locality put restrictions on the use of firearms, then either you follow the restrictions or take your chances if you don't and something happens. Or you chose not to be a foster parent.

This is just a different twist on the story of that county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses. What is it with some people that they think they can just tailor the law to suit their beliefs?

FIXED like a boss

 

[VINYLONE]

I think there might be more to this than Dutch is leading on...

Yup. I looked into the scenario and, of course, Butchy and I guess babe in this case, did their best to manufacture outrage. I think this case is cut and dry.

What I do have an issue with is this part of the article which may or may not be accurate:

The agency told the Bebers in documents that "the incident did not describe an adult exercising sound judgment."

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yup. I looked into the scenario and, of course, Butchy and I guess babe in this case, did their best to manufacture outrage. I think this case is cut and dry.

What I do have an issue with is this part of the article which may or may not be accurate:

the problem i see with this. is it is stigmatising gun ownership. witch will lead to guns being a tabooo.
its good if your anti gun, but not good if your pro gun

 

[VINYLONE]

the problem i see with this. is it is stigmatising gun ownership. witch will lead to guns being a tabooo.
its good if your anti gun, but not good if your pro gun

First of all, let me say, what stigmatizes the 2A movement or firearm advocates, whatever you want to call them, is people like yourself. Folks who like to yell smoke, when there isn't even a smoldering. There are laws on the books for a reason and as a gun owner you have to be aware of those laws, regardless of whether you agree with them. If you want to be a conscientious objector, so to speak, then don't cry outrage when you have legal recourse taken against you.

Second, if you're going to be a gun owner AND a foster parent, I think it would behoove you to do your due diligence in regards to whatever restrictions there are in owning a gun with foster kids in the house. Thankfully, the law referenced in the story was changed and I'm sure these parents will get their day in court and hopefully things will work out in their favor.

Please, Butchy, do us firearm advocates a favor and please shut it. Please.

 

[Gameface]

First of all, let me say, what stigmatizes the 2A movement or firearm advocates, whatever you want to call them, is people like yourself. Folks who like to yell smoke, when there isn't even a smoldering. There are laws on the books for a reason and as a gun owner you have to be aware of those laws, regardless of whether you agree with them. If you want to be a conscientious objector, so to speak, then don't cry outrage when you have legal recourse taken against you.

Second, if you're going to be a gun owner AND a foster parent, I think it would behoove you to do your due diligence in regards to whatever restrictions there are in owning a gun with foster kids in the house. Thankfully, the law referenced in the story was changed and I'm sure these parents will get their day in court and hopefully things will work out in their favor.

Please, Butchy, do us firearm advocates a favor and please shut it. Please.

Completely agree.

Nothing has turned me off of the pro-gun movement more than pro-gun idiots who want to be the biggest ignorant loudmouths anytime a fellow gun owner is held accountable for their actions. I'm very pro gun rights, but want to have nothing to do with the pro-gun community at this point.

 

[moevillini]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion with many of you, but given the behavioral and other issues that can be typical in children in the foster care system, I don't think it's that outrageous to restrict them from placement in a home where firearms are present.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion with many of you, but given the behavioral and other issues that can be typical in children in the foster care system, I don't think it's that outrageous to restrict them from placement in a home where firearms are present.

Think about the children!

 

[babe]

Think about the children!

There's an ad being played a lot nowadays about the need for foster parents.

"Kids don't need perfection. . . . they need you."

it cites parents who throw their daughters' diary into the bin for donation to the library, dads who drive into the garage with a kid's bike mounted on top of the car, and other lapses of good judgment. . . . and claims the kids need parents so much that even moderate or marginal failing humans should consider fostering. . . .