March 7, 201511 yr The way I read it, it would be ok if they have their guns locked separately Fromm their ammo. However this couple want to adopt and carry their guns. I guess they need to pick what they think is more important.
March 7, 201511 yr I guess they need to pick what they think is more important. Why would they have to do that? They are apparently law abiding citizens with legal CCDW's why do they have to sacrifice their rights? I have kids, I have no less then three loaded guns in my house at all times, and normally have one on me. Do I have more rights in the United States then they do?
March 7, 201511 yr The way I read it, it would be ok if they have their guns locked separately Fromm their ammo. However this couple want to adopt and carry their guns. I guess they need to pick what they think is more important. Simple solution. Agree to those terms, and after the adoption disregard the agreement.
March 7, 201511 yr The article is confusing. Are they being denied because they have concealed carry permits or that they don't agree to not keep loaded weapons in the house? The couple’s attempts at adopting have been stopped by regulations requiring that guns and ammunition be stored in separate, secure containers in any home where foster children reside
March 7, 201511 yr Why would they have to do that? They are apparently law abiding citizens with legal CCDW's why do they have to sacrifice their rights? I have kids, I have no less then three loaded guns in my house at all times, and normally have one on me. Do I have more rights in the United States then they do? Nope, but adopting is not a right.
March 7, 201511 yr Nope, but adopting is not a right. A child having a stable home with good parents should be considered a "right". So, a law abiding family can't adopt a child in need of a stable home, but a less worthy couple that don't have loaded guns in their home can adopt? Who's interest is being considered here?
March 7, 201511 yr A child having a stable home with good parents should be considered a "right". So, a law abiding family can't adopt a child in need of a stable home, but a less worthy couple that don't have loaded guns in their home can adopt? Who's interest is being considered here? Are you sure that is the only criteria for not being allowed to adopt a child. This is really simple. Follow their guidelines to adopt. I don't see the issue here.
March 7, 201511 yr Are you sure that is the only criteria for not being allowed to adopt a child. This is really simple. Follow their guidelines to adopt. I don't see the issue here. I agree. As I said, follow the guidelines, then after the adoption is final load the guns back up.
March 7, 201511 yr A child having a stable home with good parents should be considered a "right". So, a law abiding family can't adopt a child in need of a stable home, but a less worthy couple that don't have loaded guns in their home can adopt? Who's interest is being considered here? How do you know the non-gun owners were less qualified? Did it say that they were less qualified? I'll give you a hint: It did not.
March 7, 201511 yr Are you sure that is the only criteria for not being allowed to adopt a child. This is really simple. Follow their guidelines to adopt. I don't see the issue here. The issue is, citizens are being asked, or forced, to give up rights that have been granted them by the United States. It's not a right if you have to give it up for something as basic as being a parent, or caring for a child in need. Do you have to give up your right to vote to adopt? Do you have to give up you right of free speech to adopt? This is nothing more then a liberal attempt to control the citizen's right to own and carry firearms.
March 7, 201511 yr The issue is, citizens are being asked, or forced, to give up rights that have been granted them by the United States. It's not a right if you have to give it up for something as basic as being a parent, or caring for a child in need. Do you have to give up your right to vote to adopt? Do you have to give up you right of free speech to adopt? This is nothing more then a liberal attempt to control the citizen's right to own and carry firearms. They are not being asked to give up their rights, they just can't adopt from them. you are reading way too much into this IMO
March 7, 201511 yr How do you know the non-gun owners were less qualified? I don't, but these parents have apparently, or let's pretend they have, passed all other requirements to adopt and the only hold up is they have loaded guns in their possession. What criteria are they sacrificing to find parents that don't have loaded guns. It only stands to reason that if one is turned down, they have to go on down the list to find someone they find expectable.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.