Well crap, I'd have failed those tests. Thank God for me being born in 1974.

So, a right is not to be infringed upon?

So, a right is not to be infringed upon?

 

That's still different than this but at the same time weren't the states allowed to do that until the federal government stepped in?

Dang, do I at least get credit for putting my name on it?

Dang, do I at least get credit for putting my name on it?

 

I heard you get 500 points for spelling your name right.

I heard you get 500 points for spelling your name right.

 

I hope so because I wouldn't have got much else right.

Here it is:

 

Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s

 

But this Louisiana “literacy” test, singular among its fellows, has nothing to do with citizenship. Designed to put the applicant through mental contortions, the test's questions are often confusingly worded. If some of them seem unanswerable, that effect was intentional. The (white) registrar would be the ultimate judge of whether an answer was correct.

 

Link

 

I don't see this being the same as what we are discussing...

I don't see this being the same as what we are discussing...

Is adoption and foster care not subsidized and controlled by the government (even if a private agency is handling the heavy lifting)? By the adoption/foster system being a government agent, are they not infringing upon a government granted right by limiting said right by having citizens give up, in whole or part, to achieve another government perk?

 

You can't discriminate on citizens for exercising their rights. Just like you can't say, "everyone has a right to vote" then say you have to take a test first.

Is adoption and foster care not subsidized and controlled by the government (even if a private agency is handling the heavy lifting)? By the adoption/foster system being a government agent, are they not infringing upon a government granted right by limiting said right by having citizens give up, in whole or part, to achieve another government perk?

 

You can't discriminate on citizens for exercising their rights. Just like you can't say, "everyone has a right to vote" then say you have to take a test first.

 

Fostering kids shouldn't be a "government perk" for the fostering parents... It's about the kids.

Fostering kids shouldn't be a "government perk" for the fostering parents... It's about the kids.

Yea, that's the point. Why are kids being turned away from a stable household because the potential parents are law abiding citizens. That's the point.

As one person already said, there are limits to our rights. In this case, the couple failed to meet the requirement mandated by the foster care about separation of ammo and guns. That is not discrimination, that is simply saying you do not meet our standards.

Yea, that's the point. Why are kids being turned away from a stable household because the potential parents are law abiding citizens. That's the point.

 

Or the point is these people aren't really as much about helping kids as they are letting on if locking up their guns is the only thing stopping it from happening...

Or the point is these people aren't really as much about helping kids as they are letting on if locking up their guns is the only thing stopping it from happening...

"Locking up their guns and ammunition separately". Again, they are limiting a Constitutional Right, similarly to the voting test.

You know what, from now on when I go out to bars I want to drive home. I think the law is discriminating against me for wanting to do that. Just because I am legally drunk doesn't mean I can't make it to my house. Discrimination!!!!!!!!!

 

When I first read this by PP92 I thought it was a bad analogy. After thinking further, I think it is a very good one.

 

Legal Right

 

You have the right to drive a car if properly licensed.

You have the right to concealed carry if properly licensed.

 

Added Risk

 

In driving, being under the influence.

In foster care, having children prone to violent acts in your home.

 

Legally Added Protection to Control Risk

 

In driving, DUI laws.

In foster care, higher level of weapons control.

 

After considering that, I agree with the laws that further restrict weapons laws for foster care. There is an added risk that requires additional laws.

 

This couple and others have a choice to make - in order to add to their family, they have to follow a higher level of weapons laws. Choose the weapons or choose the children.

"Locking up their guns and ammunition separately". Again, they are limiting a Constitutional Right, similarly to the voting test.

 

False, nothing is being limited. The 2nd amendment talks about the right to bear arms. It talks nothing about the secured separation of ammo and weapons that are mandated by the states, in this case Nevada, which is protected under the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment states that anything not delegated in the constitution or prohibited to the states is reserved to the states. I see nothing prohibiting the states from regulating fire arms and ammo by keeping them secured and separated. So in this case, the foster care program controlled by the state is not wrong.

Nevada Firearm Laws

Foster Parenting NAC 424.600

Requires that weapons are unloaded at all times when children are in the home.

Requires that weapons are stored in locked containers or rooms out of the reach of children or made inoperable.

Requires that ammunition and arrows are stored in separate locked containers.

Requires that weapons shall not be transported in the same vehicle in which children are riding unless the weapons are made inoperable and inaccessible.

None. Per NRS 424.020 all licensed foster homes must adhere to the standards adopted by the Division of Child and Family Services. (NOTE: Questionable Authority under NRS 424.020 exists for the division to make this regulation. This laws give authority to the division to "establish reasonable minimum standards for" foster homes and "prescribe rules for the regulation" of foster homes, but there is no specific statute allowing for the division to regulate firearms. )