Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Couple Heartbroken Over Adoption Denial For CCW

  1. #1
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881

    Couple Heartbroken Over Adoption Denial For CCW

    A Nevada couple has been told that they canít adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits.

    http://gunsnfreedom.com/nv-couple-he...l-for-ccw/4697
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Vegas couple want right to carry guns while fostering kids. LV Review-Journal

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    First,the article is misleading. Purposely misleading. They are nowhere near the point of being able to file a petition to adopt. If they wwere, the denial based on mere "possession" of a CCW would be a slam-dunk to overcome.

    Social Services can impose rules while kids are in foster care. The couple are going about things properly by seeking to a) have a law passsed saying the regulation is BS and getting it changed or b) getting a "private bill" allowing them - but nobody else - to adopt kids currently in foster care. I can't figure out from the article which way they are trying to go.

    It is irritating but given the great liability social services operates under until residual parental rights are terminated they must be as risk-aversive as possible. That does not mean I agree with their regulations or support their position - it just means I understand the system and both how and why it works the way it does.

    Once they have had the kids in foster care for 6 months there are end runs that can be put into play. It does not sound like they are at that point yet.

    Learn how and why the system operates, then decide how much of a battle you want to fight over something you want. Adopting older kids is commendable but there is no "right" to do so. Nor is there a "right" to have kids under the jurisdiction of both the executive and judicial branches of the government in your house without allowing those branches to set terms and conditions that can easily pass strict scrutiny.

    (Full disclosure: I spent about 14 years employed in the system putting kids into and taking them out of foster care as well as arranging for them to be adopted. I was always transparent about showing where the loopholes were and how to get through them. I gave personal but not professional support to those trying to have the regulations changed. But possibly the last thing you want top do to a kid is have their adoption pulled back because of fraud if not criminal activity on the part of those trying to adopt them.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    (Full disclosure: I spent about 14 years employed in the system putting kids into and taking them out of foster care as well as arranging for them to be adopted. I was always transparent about showing where the loopholes were and how to get through them. I gave personal but not professional support to those trying to have the regulations changed. But possibly the last thing you want top do to a kid is have their adoption pulled back because of fraud if not criminal activity on the part of those trying to adopt them.)

    stay safe.
    Hat's off to you, Skidmark.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    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/
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-08-2015 at 02:04 PM. Reason: Rule #19

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Well, that may or may not help.

    First, it still maintains that firearms remain locked up in the home. With the other sections of cvarrying outside the home this may not pass strict scrutiny re: Heller and Macdonald.

    Next, Section 2.5 looks like it pretty much sinks this couple's plans regarding adoption.

    Were I to challenge the bill, I'd first go after the "locked container" portion using Heller/Macdonald. Then I'd go after the carve-out for those planning to/in the process of adopting as an unsupportable singling out of those planning to/adopting.

    To my jaundiced eye this smells too much like it was authored by scoial services rather than advocartes for foster parents/adopters.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Skid, I don't claim to be an expert on the issue of foster homes. Far from it.

    I do think the bill's intent is good.

    And at least one member of this forum has stated the issue is close to him.

    Even though you're about 3000 miles away (and maybe/maybe not familiar with Nevada law on this subject), perhaps you could contact the bill's sponsor and proffer your experience/knowledge.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    SNIP Adopting older kids is commendable but there is no "right" to do so. Nor is there a "right" to have kids under the jurisdiction of both the executive and judicial branches of the government in your house without allowing those branches to set terms and conditions that can easily pass strict scrutiny.
    Not commenting on all aspects of Skidmark's post; just the premises quoted above.

    How can there be no right to adopt? Like marriage, adoption must pre-date government. It is not at all implausible to imagine an orphan taken in and raised by other parents in prehistoric times; even beasts do it--the internet has numerous videos of a mother animal letting a baby of a different species nurse from her; and more videos of things like the "cat that 'adopted' the duckling." Every human being must necessarily have the right to adopt--it would devolve from the right to take responsibility for his fellow human beings and help them. Alternatively, to deny a right to adopt necessarily cuts off an aspect of the right to take responsibility for a fellow human being and help him. Might as well also deny a right to help evacuate a child from a burning car after a crash, give alms to a homeless mother, and so forth.

    Regarding kids under government jurisdiction and those branches setting terms and conditions, this is a rat's nest of complicated confusion arising from government itself. Lets look at a couple angles.

    First, there is the absurdity of government actually being interested in the welfare of children. This doesn't even pass the smell test. Oh, they might claim to care about kids to pluck at the heart-strings of the tyrannized. But, that same institution--government--has a very long history of getting its citizens killed in foreign wars about which it lied, suffocating them with taxes and regulations, etc., etc., etc. Every one of those victims were children once. To think that government is actually interested in the welfare of children is to draw an artificial line and pretend the government is saying, "Kids wonderful! Must be protected! But, when they turn 18, heh, heh, heh, now we can turn them into cannon-fodder, or suck the life out of them with taxes and regulations, and..." Nevermind that the government that claims to be interested in children, is willing to reduce the quality of the life of those children by sending their parents off to unnecessary foreign wars, or taxing and regulating their parents to death, etc. Don't even get me started about stultifying those same kids by afflicting them with a government education, or luring them into years of student loan debt and reduced quality of life paying it off, by inculcating in them and their parents a need for a college degree (student loan debt is now huge--over a trillion dollars).

    Our own 2A community has some experience with government's actual level of concern for kids--no guns in schools. Teachers disarmed and unable to defend kids against psychopaths. No, no. Government would rather sacrifice kid's lives for votes.

    The Second Law of Bureaucracy is to do nothing that will reflect badly on the bureaucrat. The Third Law of Bureaucracy is to take no chances about the Second Law. Thus, the government that cannot possibly be genuinely concerned about kids does not make rules to protect kids; it makes rules to protect itself from public rebuke. The risk aversion is much less for the kids' sake, than to avoid the public outrage should something go wrong. A problem government brought on itself when it decided to occupy the territory in the interest of votes and political capital--hey! everybody is sympathetic toward kids!
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-08-2015 at 07:43 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    How can there be no right to adopt?
    -snip-
    You only have the rights you've specifically been told you have.

    I have, on occasion, pondered the absurd draconian regulations regarding adoption. Considering the amount of children in foster care and the average time it takes for a child to be adopted it's a little baffling. I fear if the truth were made clear it would mostly center on the people making the rules justifying their jobs and the goal of ever increasing budgets.
    This is easy for me to say since I am not desperate to adopt but I would not participate in such a terrible program.

    A similar, I'm not saying equal, situation is animal rescues. The rules at my local humane society are ridiculous including you must agree to allow the humane society access to your home for "wellness checks" of the animal if they so desire. I just won't participate in this ridiculous invasive BS. When I want an animal I make a private transaction with another individual via the paper or craig's list, or whatever.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    SNIP I fear if the truth were made clear it would mostly center on the people making the rules justifying their jobs and the goal of ever increasing budgets.
    To go off on a very momentary tanget, I think you've come very, very close.

    In the post above, I mentioned the second and third law of bureaucracy. (I made up the numbers and names.) I omitted the First Law of Bureaucracy--perpetuate the bureaucracy. Your post is basically saying that same thing.

    There is an angle on this First Law as applied to an individual bureaucrat: there is no benefit to taking a chance. You see, a bureaucracy has no customers it has to satisfy; its customers are all compulsory tax victims. As a bureaucrat, your boss won't come to you and say, "Well, yes, I know that was the rule, but you should have exercised better judgment and made the customer happy." Because that can never happen to a bureaucrat, the calculation the bureaucrat makes is: "Well, this request by Joe Publicperson is kind of a judgement call. Its not clearly covered by a rule. But, why take the chance? I'll just deny the request saying it was covered by the spirit of such-and-such rule, and I'm safe. No black marks in my record."

    For a bureaucrat who would take a risk, the best he can hope for is his boss saying, "Well, I'm glad that worked out, but we should really default to the rules," while privately saying to himself, "Jeezus! That could have blown up in my face. Endless legislative hearings. A black mark on my record; reduced promotion prospects for me. I'll put him at the bottom of list for promotion." (Never under-estimate the lure of a cushy pension fifteen years into a 20-30 year career sponging easily off of tax-payers rather than having to face customer demand and competition in the private sector.)

    Thus, for the individual bureaucrat there is no upside to taking a risk by bending or violating a rule, or making a judgment call in a case not explicitly covered by a rule. There is only the possibility of a lose. Why bother to take the risk? There can be no possible benefit if everything works out; there is only a lose if it happens to not work out.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-08-2015 at 08:18 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Skid, I don't claim to be an expert on the issue of foster homes. Far from it.

    I do think the bill's intent is good.

    And at least one member of this forum has stated the issue is close to him.

    Even though you're about 3000 miles away (and maybe/maybe not familiar with Nevada law on this subject), perhaps you could contact the bill's sponsor and proffer your experience/knowledge.
    Not without pay do I setp in somebody else's hoo-hah. My rates are pretty high. That's because I get really bent out of shape telling people how to fix things and then watch them screw it up anyway.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    [QUOTE=Citizen;2131463]Not commenting on all aspects of Skidmark's post; just the premises quoted above.

    How can there be no right to adopt? ..../QUOTE]

    I'm going to stop right there.

    Kids eligible to be adopted by and large are wards of the state (stepparent adoptions being the big exception). The State has staked out - and had accepted and agreed with - some pretty cogent reasons for imposing regulations designed (at least in their view) to protect the physical well-being and legal rights of kids the courts have entrusted (not in the legal custody sense of that word) into the care of social services.

    There is no right to adopt. There is also no right to be adopted, as not all of the parties entering into the process are lawfully adults who can consent to the process/procedure/outcome. The short explanation is about 300 pages of poicy and procedure manual with references to case citations going back to Common law. The detailed explanation is two Masters-level courses in public welfare. I'll be glad to lead classes on either option for expenses and a $100 honorarium - but I get to call folks in the class nasty names and make them stand in the corner when they (in my sole and indisputable opinion) deserve it.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    The First Law of Bureauacracy is not to perpetuate the organism but to protect one's position within the organism.

    Once more, I'll go over the ground quickly and briefly. The individual employees and the agencies that place children in foster care or prepare them for adoption are very risk-aversive in an extrememly risky environment.

    But all thi is only moving us away from the OP and the issue identified there - "A Nevada couple has been told that they canít adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits" and the fear-mongering hyperbole that is being foist on the public.

    Once they get to the point of adoption proceedings they cannot and will not be denied permission to or court approval of a petition to adopt for the sole reason that they have CCWs. Agree with or disagree with the regulations as they currently exist or as they will exist if that bill gets passed into law, the couple is going to have to go through hoops. But they'd rather go screaming "My rights are being violated". Why are they also not protesting the regulation against firearms in court buildings, seeing as how they will be spending a goodly amount of time in one while the foster care place matures into an adoptive placement that wends its way through the legal process until the decree is issued and then finalized somewhere between 6 and 12 months later?

    Would that 2A absolutists who insist on no infringement of any stripe would actually act on their position.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    ... the issue identified there - "A Nevada couple has been told that they can’t adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits" and the fear-mongering hyperbole that is being foist on the public.
    Again, I do NOT claim to be an expert on this issue.

    But it sure seems that the bill's sponsor and the couple in question have a good point to make.

    Have you listened to the hearing proceedings?

    Do you think the couple's denial was entirely legitimate? (Did you read the denial letter?)

    Do you think there is no need to go forward with this bill?
    Last edited by varminter22; 03-08-2015 at 11:14 PM.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    SNIP There is no right to adopt. There is also no right to be adopted, as not all of the parties entering into the process are lawfully adults who can consent to the process/procedure/outcome.
    This is more for other readers than Skid.

    Saying so doesn't make it true even if one says it twice in successive posts. Notice he does not address my rationale. Rather he makes another unsupported declaration: "...cogent reasons...", And, resorts to an appeal to authority (himself).

    Oh, well. Apparently he does not have an actual argument or refutation. So, be it. You all are supposed to take his word for it because he says so.

    At least I laid out some arguments so readers could evaluate for themselves. Time to move on, I suppose.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-08-2015 at 11:54 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This is more for other readers than Skid.

    Saying so doesn't make it true even if one says it twice in successive posts. Notice he does not address my rationale. Rather he makes another unsupported declaration: "...cogent reasons...", And, resorts to an appeal to authority (himself).

    Oh, well. Apparently he does not have an actual argument or refutation. So, be it. You all are supposed to take his word for it because he says so.

    At least I laid out some arguments so readers could evaluate for themselves. Time to move on, I suppose.
    In this case I am purposely violating the OCDO rule on citing to authority. I know this and have pretty much stated my reasons, but will reiterate:

    Whether we agree with them or not, "reasonable restrictions" exist and exist with the support of case law. The case law (go look it up yourself - we pretty much all know the standard ones - uses the phrase "cogent reasons" in spite of your dislike of the term, the "reasons", or the restrictions they impose.

    This discussion is not about adoption but about how "gun rights" intersect with bureaucratic regulations that are not designed and intended to deny/remove "gun rights". You are the one who wants to turn it into a disection of adoption regulations.

    Yes, very often the BISS Doctrine is the short answer. When you go to an attorney for the free 15-minute consultation do you then make him provide case citations and detailed expanations of how he arrived at the conclusion that you do or do not have a case and even if you do have a case that it is or is not worth pursuing? Or do you presume that he not only is admitted to the bar but has a business license and "take his word for it"? Like that attorney I'm offering a considered opinion, and have displayed some (not all) of my education, training and experience to indicate that my considered opinion comes from somewhere besides my 4th point of contact. I've offered to provide a detailed explanation of how that considered opinion was arrived at - for a more-than-reasonable price. You are always free to ignore that offer and find - for yourself or from someone else - the information and reasoning that would lead one to any conclusion. Just do not attempt to steal from me at the point of a disparagingly wagging finger.

    The last issue I will address is your "rationale" that a "right to adopt" must exist. You have thrown out some thoughts and tried to make comparisons between First Amendment rights of association and the legal act of adoption. IIRC the First Amendment right of free association by marriage is still in a state of flux as it relates to, among other matters, sex of the parties involved, degree of cosanguity of the parties involved, mental capacity of the parties involved, and age of the parties involved. All agreed to by the courts as "cogent reasons" to control that right of association. Goose; gander; sauce? Your appeal to authority ("there must be") appers to be trumped by the appeal to authority of the courts (we agree that these advance a viable government need to control this aspect of the right).

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    ... (Did you read the denial letter?)

    ....
    No.

    Where is it hidden?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Where is it hidden?
    https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELI.../1517/Exhibits
    Last edited by varminter22; 03-09-2015 at 09:56 AM.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Thank you for posting the link.

    Again, it seems to be a matter of choosing your battles based on the outcome you want to achieve.

    The proposed law will allow them to utilize their CCW outside the licensed foster home, which to my mind is pretty much where you want to go armed.

    As for the locked unloaded and ammo stored separately locked - I've already suggested that the requirement violates Heller/Macdonald. Nobody seems to want to explore that either in regards to the existing regulations or to the proposed law.

    But then over time I have come to believe that I am, in fact, chopped liver and must wait for someone else to reach the same conclusion or propose the same course of action before it will be accepted. If it were not for the fact that when that happens I get to say to myself "Didn't I say that way back on _/_/_" I might be dismayed.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •