Couple Denied Foster Parent Status Due to CCW

[Ben]

This Nevada couple were denied foster parent status because they both hold CCW permits. Seems like it will make an interesting case. The reason they got their permits is a previous home invasion attempt. One could argue that they would make better foster parents, since they stepped up and took responsibility for the protection of their home and loved ones. Though my pessimistic prediction is that they will lose based on some stupid "guns in the home with children" argument.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/08/couple-denied-role-as-foster-parents-over-permits-to-carry-guns/

[MechAg94]

“It just doesn’t make sense,” Brian Wilson added. “We’re talking about law-abiding people, people who have had background checks.

It makes perfect sense if you realize how hateful some liberals can be when they have a little power.

[vaskidmark]

This Nevada couple were denied foster parent status because they both hold CCW permits.

No they effing were not!  They were told that if they became foster parents there are regulations to be adhered to.  They did not like those regulations.*

There's a bill moving forward that that is supposed to correct some of the "problems" they have with the regulations.

Before judging, perhaps best to read AB-167 and view/listen to the testimony in the Asm Jud Cmte hearing (link below).

AB-167 history page: www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Reports/history.cfm?ID=368

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 167 – ASSEMBLYMEN FIORE, SHELTON,
SEAMAN, ELLISON, HANSEN; ARMSTRONG, DICKMAN,
DOOLING, GARDNER, HAMBRICK, JONES, KIRNER, MOORE,
O’NEILL, OSCARSON, SILBERKRAUS, STEWART, TITUS,
TROWBRIDGE, WHEELER AND WOODBURY

FEBRUARY 17, 2015
____________
JOINT SPONSORS: SENATORS GUSTAVSON,
ATKINSON; AND GOICOECHEA
____________
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

SUMMARY—Authorizes the storage and carrying of firearms and
ammunition on the premises of a family foster home
or by certain persons who reside in a family foster
home under certain circumstances. (BDR 38-234)

FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No.
Effect on the State: No.
~

AN ACT relating to foster care; authorizing the storage of a firearm
and ammunition on the premises of a family foster home
in certain circumstances; authorizing certain persons to
carry a firearm on their person while off of the premises
of a family foster home in certain circumstances; and
providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
1 Existing law requires the Division of Child and Family Services of the
2 Department of Health and Human Services to adopt regulations to establish
3 requirements for the licensure of family foster homes, specialized foster homes,
4 independent living foster homes and group foster homes. (NRS 424.020) Existing
5 regulations require all weapons on the premises of a foster home to be unstrung and
6 unloaded at all times when children are in the home and stored in locked containers
7 or rooms out of the reach of children or made inoperable. Ammunition is required
8 to be kept in a separate locked container and weapons may not be transported in a
9 vehicle in which children are riding unless the weapons are made inoperable and
10 inaccessible. (NAC 424.600) This bill authorizes a person lawfully in possession of
11 a firearm or ammunition to store the firearm or ammunition on the premises of a
family foster home in a 12 locked secure storage container. This bill also authorizes a
13 provider of family foster care or other person who resides in a family foster home
14 to carry a firearm on his or her person while off of the premises of a family foster
15 home but in the presence of a foster child in a manner which ensures that the
16 firearm is inaccessible to the foster child if the provider or other person is a law
17 enforcement officer or has a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Full text of AB-167:

www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Bills/AB/AB167.pdf

And, you can view and listen to the AB-167 hearing that was held in the Asm Jud Cmte, March 4, 20015:

http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlaye...4&clip_id=3484

AB-167 hearing begins at the 1 hour 20 second mark in the video.

AB-167 is currently in the Assembly Judiciary Committee:
Ira Hansen, Chair
Erven Nelson, Vice Chair

For your convenience, copy/paste the following into your email message:

Ira.Hansen@asm.state.nv.us; Erven.Nelson@asm.state.nv.us; Michele.Fiore@asm.state.nv.us; David.Gardner@asm.state.nv.us; Brent.Jones@asm.state.nv.us; PK.Oneill@asm.state.nv.us; Victoria.Seaman@asm.state.nv.us; Jim.Wheeler@asm.state.nv.us; Elliot.Anderson@asm.state.nv.us; Nelson.Araujo@asm.state.nv.us; Olivia.Diaz@asm.state.nv.us; James.Ohrenschall@asm.state.nv.us; Tyrone.Thompson@asm.state.nv.us

And please cast your "vote" (and type an optional opinion) at:

www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/78th2015/A/

It aint perfect but then it does not appear they had much of a hand in  the drafting of the bill.

I've left some cogent and not-so-cogent comments at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?129267-Couple-Heartbroken-Over-Adoption-Denial-For-CCW where others have fallen for the "they're being denied, their rights arte being trampled" hysteria.  I'll probably post at least one more response there.  (If you don't like open carry just hold your nose while you read.)

stay safe.

* - those regulations come, pretty much word for word, from the national association that accredits foster care and adoption placing agencies (two separate entities).  The fact that somebody in Nevada is willing to risk cutting off having kids from out of state adopted by Nevada citizens is pretty bold -  IF they are aware of that repercussion.  I doubt they are and I doubt the state social services folks are going to tell them until just before the final vote comes up that they are risking several pots of federal funds.

[Hawkmoon]

Four-plus years ago my wife and I adopted her granddaughter, because the birth mother wasn't stable enough to deal with a teenaged daughter. The fact that I have a CCW and keep guns in the house was a problem, initially. As the adoption social worker got to know us, though, she realized that (a) I'm a veteran (which we all know doesn't mean anything in the context, but it impressed her), and (b) I clean up well and do a credible imitation of a solid citizen. Of course, I didn't tell her how MANY guns I have.

She wanted all the guns to be locked up, however. No problem there, they already were. Then she wanted all the ammunition locked up. I scored a standard, counter-height steel office storage cabinet that already had a padlock hasp on it, threw several boxes of ammo in it that, and told her I "took care of it." If she had ever found out how many thousands of rounds I actually have in the basement she would have had a cow.

But -- in general, child social workers are very anti-gun.

[Jamisjockey]

When the wife and I went through adoptive/foster care courses in Utah, there was no issue with my CFP.  It was expected and expressed explicitly that firearms would be locked up and not made accessible to children.  There were some questions in the case of adopting older children/teenagers, where the court might step in and ask that firearms be removed or access limited to accommodate the placement of troubled youth, but they said that was a case by case issue.

[freakazoid]

No they effing were not!  They were told that if they became foster parents there are regulations to be adhered to.  They did not like those regulations.*

There's a bill moving forward that that is supposed to correct some of the "problems" they have with the regulations.

It aint perfect but then it does not appear they had much of a hand in  the drafting of the bill.

I've left some cogent and not-so-cogent comments at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?129267-Couple-Heartbroken-Over-Adoption-Denial-For-CCW where others have fallen for the "they're being denied, their rights arte being trampled" hysteria.  I'll probably post at least one more response there.  (If you don't like open carry just hold your nose while you read.)

stay safe.

* - those regulations come, pretty much word for word, from the national association that accredits foster care and adoption placing agencies (two separate entities).  The fact that somebody in Nevada is willing to risk cutting off having kids from out of state adopted by Nevada citizens is pretty bold -  IF they are aware of that repercussion.  I doubt they are and I doubt the state social services folks are going to tell them until just before the final vote comes up that they are risking several pots of federal funds.

What are the regulations that they refused to submit to?

[vaskidmark]

What are the regulations that they refused to submit to?

That guns be locked up in an unloaded state, and that ammo be stored in a separate locked container, and that they cannot wear or transport their guns around foster children.

See the proposed changes here http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Bills/AB/AB167.pdf for more specifics on the regs.

stay safe.

[MechAg94]

That guns be locked up in an unloaded state, and that ammo be stored in a separate locked container, and that they cannot wear or transport their guns around foster children.

See the proposed changes here http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Bills/AB/AB167.pdf for more specifics on the regs.

stay safe.

So, effectively, the original post is correct.  To follow that regulation, the CCW might as well be taken away.  Not to mention having a firearm ready for home defense even in a quick opening safe or lock box.

[vaskidmark]

So, effectively, the original post is correct.  To follow that regulation, the CCW might as well be taken away.  Not to mention having a firearm ready for home defense even in a quick opening safe or lock box.

First, the denial letter:  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument/10698/fioreexhibit.pdf

Second:  It is obviously a denial of a license to operate a foster home, not a denial of a petition to adopt ot a requrest to adopt a child placed in foster care in their home.  Therefore the original post is incorrect - or at the very least purposely misleading.

Third:  I've already suggested that the requirement for firearms to be stored locked and unloaded and ammunition to be stored locked separately mat well violate Heller/Macdonald as it relates to the issue of home defense.

Fourth:  The proposed law continues the prohibition of loaded firearms in the home.  Does that impinge on the CCW?  If so, how?

Fifth:  The proposed law would allow them to be armed in the presence of a foster child outside the foster home.  How does that take away the CCW?

Surely I am not the only one who can parse regulation and statute to see where they interface with the permission of the state to carry a concealed weapon.  Sadly, too many people scream "Shall not be infringed!" except when discussing other, relatively settled, infringements such as courtrooms/courthouses.  To my way of thinking if you are going to be an absolutist zealot you need to be absolute about your zealotry - no exceptions, no prisoners!

stay safe.

[freakazoid]

Fourth:  The proposed law continues the prohibition of loaded firearms in the home.  Does that impinge on the CCW?  If so, how?

Fifth:  The proposed law would allow them to be armed in the presence of a foster child outside the foster home.  How does that take away the CCW?

How does the proposed law have any bearing on the current law? They aren't being denied because of a proposed law, they are being denied because the of the currently active law.

Third:  I've already suggested that the requirement for firearms to be stored locked and unloaded and ammunition to be stored locked separately mat well violate Heller/Macdonald as it relates to the issue of home defense.

So whats the problem with being outraged about this again?

and that they cannot wear or transport their guns around foster children.

Sounds like it doesn't matter if it's to operate a foster home or adopt children.

[MechAg94]

Fourth:  The proposed law continues the prohibition of loaded firearms in the home.  Does that impinge on the CCW?  If so, how?

Fifth:  The proposed law would allow them to be armed in the presence of a foster child outside the foster home.  How does that take away the CCW?

First, they are proposed.  Until they pass, it is just discussion.  

Second, how would you handle CCW if you can't have a loaded gun in the home?  Do you store loaded magazines in the car?  Do you keep spare mags in a pocket to load a pistol when you need it?  To me, concealed carry in the home is identical to concealed carry in public except I am not worried about printing or exposing the gun at home.  CCW is a good way to have a gun around the kids while keeping it out of their control.  I think you are broad brushing that part a bit.  

I agree with you that the original point is not quite correct.  The CCW issues are valid I think.

[vaskidmark]

....

Second, how would you handle CCW if you can't have a loaded gun in the home?  Do you store loaded magazines in the car?  Do you keep spare mags in a pocket to load a pistol when you need it?  To me, concealed carry in the home is identical to concealed carry in public except I am not worried about printing or exposing the gun at home.  CCW is a good way to have a gun around the kids while keeping it out of their control.  I think you are broad brushing that part a bit.  

....

I know - let's ask Jamis how it was handled!

When the wife and I went through adoptive/foster care courses in Utah, there was no issue with my CFP.  It was expected and expressed explicitly that firearms would be locked up and not made accessible to children.  There were some questions in the case of adopting older children/teenagers, where the court might step in and ask that firearms be removed or access limited to accommodate the placement of troubled youth, but they said that was a case by case issue.

As for your conclusion (supposition?) that firearms would need to be unloaded and placed in locked containers before being brought inside the house - that seems to me to more broadbrushing things than you accuse me of doing/

stay safe.

[vaskidmark]

How does the proposed law have any bearing on the current law? They aren't being denied because of a proposed law, they are being denied because the of the currently active law.

So whats the problem with being outraged about this again?

Sounds like it doesn't matter if it's to operate a foster home or adopt children.

To borrow from another site where this is under discussion -

They want to foster kids (apparently with the ultimate goal of adopting a foster child).  Where is there a "right" to foster, let alone to adopt?

Strange, I thought we were discussing both how the current regulations impact on their desire to foster and how the proposed law might alter that impact.

Outraged?  Over something that effects a desire as opposed to a right?

And yes, it does matter whether it is about operating a foster home or adopting a child.  I will agree that you need to do the former in order to get to the latter (with a few exceptions) but the difference between administrative and legal procedure does exist.  Conflating the two is a cheap shot.

And one more time, just to see if it sinks in this time: I've suggestedd ways that the current regulations can be challenged as they do seem to violate an established right.  But is anybody picking that up on that?  I feel like I'm playing a game of catch with myself.

stay safe.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't understand.  It seems plain to me that the current system discriminates against people who exercise their right to keep firearms for self-defense.  Outrage is a perfectly reasonable reaction.

What am I missing?

Yeah, sure, you don't have a "right" to foster children, but that still doesn't make the policy ok.

[Ben]

As the original poster, to be clear, I'm not "outraged". I posted a story that I read, as I interpreted it. I'm only seeing outrage regarding my interpretation.

I also still see it as being denied. Something doesn't have to be a right for you to be denied. They don't have a "right" to be foster parents, but because they choose to CCW, they currently are denied from participating. If I CCW to the front entrance of the Post Office, I am denied entry unless I put my gun in my car. If I walk around with no shirt and no shoes, I am denied service in many restaurants. "Denied" does not have to correlate to "rights".

[freakazoid]

To borrow from another site where this is under discussion -

They want to foster kids (apparently with the ultimate goal of adopting a foster child).  Where is there a "right" to foster, let alone to adopt?

Where does the government have the right to deny someone the ability to adopt based on a second amendment right?

Strange, I thought we were discussing both how the current regulations impact on their desire to foster and how the proposed law might alter that impact.

The OP wasn't, not that what the OP is talking about has any bearing on what comes after.
You talk of the propoosed law as if it is the law. They are not being denied based on a proposed law, they are being denied based on the currently active law.

Outraged?  Over something that effects a desire as opposed to a right?

Outraged over the fact that a constitutionaly protected right is being used as a means to deny them this.

And yes, it does matter whether it is about operating a foster home or adopting a child.  I will agree that you need to do the former in order to get to the latter (with a few exceptions) but the difference between administrative and legal procedure does exist.  Conflating the two is a cheap shot.

What I meant by "it doesn't matter" is that they would of been denied for either occasion.

And one more time, just to see if it sinks in this time: I've suggestedd ways that the current regulations can be challenged as they do seem to violate an established right.  But is anybody picking that up on that?  I feel like I'm playing a game of catch with myself.

stay safe.

Again, so whats the problem with being outraged about this? 

[MechAg94]

So some of us are supposedly outraged about losing rights with an issue that isn't a right and others are outraged over the outrage.  ....I am getting confused. 

I was actually more concerned about the issue of keeping guns and ammo locked and separate inside the house.  I don't have kids, but I have heard the safest way to have a gun around kids is to wear it.  That would seem to be against the rules also. Either way, it is about what I would expect from liberal child protective services people.

[T.O.M.]

To throw my two cents in...

I'm seeing a lot of regulation regarding substitute care providers, be they licensed foster parents or approved relative placements.  And it seems readily apparent to me that it is all being adopted to avoid litigation.  Here in Ohio, a foster parent cannot permit the child to participate in sports, to participate in an activity like Scouting, etc.  And, more often than not, the placing agency will not authorize such activities either.  Why?  Fear that the biological parents will sue.  Timmy gets a couple of stitches because of a sports injury, and the parents will sue everyone from the foster mom who drove the boy to the game to the director of the placing agency for millions of dollars.  Instead of having a spine and fighting lawsuits like this, the bureaucrats in charge simply deny the kid the opportunity to play.  And, I bet that same fear is at the heart of this regulation.  Afraid that Sue will tell mommy that foster mommy packs, and mommy and her tile crawler will sue everyone for infliction of emotional distress, negligence, etc.  It's crap.

I know a cop who adopted his nephew.  He had the same firearm requirements while the kid was in placement with him and his wife.  His opinion?  Concealed means concealed.  Once the ink dried on the adoption paperwork, he could do whatever he legally wanted.  So, for six months, he "used" a lock box for his piece.  Interesting box.  Had two sections...one held the gun and one held a loaded magazine.  So they were separately secured.  he showed it to the social worker when she asked.  And she only asked the first time.

It's too bad when good people get abused by the system because of fear of litigation, and end up having to choose between honesty and safety to please some paper pusher.

[Firethorn]

I know a cop who adopted his nephew.  He had the same firearm requirements while the kid was in placement with him and his wife.  His opinion?  Concealed means concealed.  Once the ink dried on the adoption paperwork, he could do whatever he legally wanted.  So, for six months, he "used" a lock box for his piece.  Interesting box.  Had two sections...one held the gun and one held a loaded magazine.  So they were separately secured.  he showed it to the social worker when she asked.  And she only asked the first time.

Police officer probably helped.  Him showing her the box probably absolved them, in their minds at least, of any liability if the nephew managed to get himself shot by the piece in the next 6 months that the agency was responsible.

[vaskidmark]

To throw my two cents in...

I'm seeing a lot of regulation regarding substitute care providers, be they licensed foster parents or approved relative placements.  And it seems readily apparent to me that it is all being adopted to avoid litigation.  Here in Ohio, a foster parent cannot permit the child to participate in sports, to participate in an activity like Scouting, etc.  And, more often than not, the placing agency will not authorize such activities either.  Why?  Fear that the biological parents will sue.  Timmy gets a couple of stitches because of a sports injury, and the parents will sue everyone from the foster mom who drove the boy to the game to the director of the placing agency for millions of dollars.  Instead of having a spine and fighting lawsuits like this, the bureaucrats in charge simply deny the kid the opportunity to play.  And, I bet that same fear is at the heart of this regulation.  Afraid that Sue will tell mommy that foster mommy packs, and mommy and her tile crawler will sue everyone for infliction of emotional distress, negligence, etc.  It's crap.

This ^.

Until residual parental rights are terminated, the most abusive or neglectful parent has the expectation that the system that took their child away from them will do no harm to the child.  Or so the ambulance-chasing tile crawlers tell them.  And these suits are usually not settled but go to a jury which cannot consider the abuse/neglect of the parent.  Being a state/local government agency the social services/child welfare service is most likely self insured - meaning infinitely deep pockets.  OTOH, the individual foster care workers are not entitled to qualified immunity and almost never have private tort insurance, let alone ever consider they might need that insurance.

Fighting a lawsuit would entail admitting that the system exposed the child to harm - whether neglectfully or due to gross neglect.  And "the people" - the ones that have no solution to the situation - are going to continue demanding 100% avoidance of injury.

The only possible "cure" is something open to kids 17 - 19 years old - independant foster care.  It's the fiction of emancipation while extending the support of the state's resources (money and medical care coverage mostly) to the kid as they set out in real life.

stay safe.

[DustinD]

What happens if the prospective foster parent says "your liability is your problem, not mine"?

[vaskidmark]

What happens if the prospective foster parent says "your liability is your problem, not mine"?

That is the status quo, which is why I brought up tort insurance.

stay safe.

[Hawkmoon]

To my way of thinking if you are going to be an absolutist zealot you need to be absolute about your zealotry - no exceptions, no prisoners!

Works for me!

[T.O.M.]

What happens if the prospective foster parent says "your liability is your problem, not mine"?

Say that, and either (1) the initial license application will be denied (as was done here) or (2) placement will be denied, and the license may be revoked for failure to follow regs.

[vaskidmark]

Say that, and either (1) the initial license application will be denied (as was done here) or (2) placement will be denied, and the license may be revoked for failure to follow regs.

But ....

But that puts us back to square one annd whining some more.

One of these days, just to give me apoplexy, someone is going to use the right of self defense in the home to crush the restrictions, and then use the right to use deadly force in self defense outside the home to sweep away what remains of the regulations, instead of  throwing out buzzphrases.

stay safe.