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.

 

So then states have a right to regulate who can and can't vote? Would that include literacy tests and poll taxes? Here's a question how many of the people on here who see no problem with this would also have no problem if states mandated picture IDs to vote. I sure seem to remember a bunch of the people that were the harshest critics of those proposed limitations on a constitutional right being the ones that are OK with this one.

Once again, the state laws require that the ammo and weapons be stored and separated. The family failed to meet this and got denied.

So then states have a right to regulate who can and can't vote? Would that include literacy tests and poll taxes? Here's a question how many of the people on here who see no problem with this would also have no problem if states mandated picture IDs to vote. I sure seem to remember a bunch of the people that were the harshest critics of those proposed limitations on a constitutional right being the ones that are OK with this one.

 

Wouldn't mind at all.

 

Also wouldn't mind if everyone had to take a test to vote.

 

Regardless, no one is infringing on their right to bear arms.

So then states have a right to regulate who can and can't vote? Would that include literacy tests and poll taxes? Here's a question how many of the people on here who see no problem with this would also have no problem if states mandated picture IDs to vote. I sure seem to remember a bunch of the people that were the harshest critics of those proposed limitations on a constitutional right being the ones that are OK with this one.

 

The existence of the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments, which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender and age, implies there is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution. Nothing is said about mandated ID.

So then states have a right to regulate who can and can't vote? Would that include literacy tests and poll taxes? Here's a question how many of the people on here who see no problem with this would also have no problem if states mandated picture IDs to vote. I sure seem to remember a bunch of the people that were the harshest critics of those proposed limitations on a constitutional right being the ones that are OK with this one.

 

No problem from me with literacy tests, poll taxes or mandated picture IDs to vote. I say do all three.

No problem from me with literacy tests, poll taxes or mandated picture IDs to vote. I say do all three.

 

Poll tax definition

A tax required as a qualification for voting. After the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution extended the vote to blacks in 1870, many southern states instituted poll taxes to prevent blacks from voting. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1964, prohibits poll taxes for federal elections.

Poll tax definition

A tax required as a qualification for voting. After the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution extended the vote to blacks in 1870, many southern states instituted poll taxes to prevent blacks from voting. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1964, prohibits poll taxes for federal elections.

 

State law. I'd move to the north where they let my kind vote.

And no one is taking away that right.

 

The government should not be able to restrict a right based solely on participation in an act that you 1uailfy for in every other aspect.

 

How can you not see forcing people who want to help children to give up a right to do , is infringing on said right. It's so clear.

The government should not be able to restrict a right based solely on participation in an act that you 1uailfy for in every other aspect.

 

How can you not see forcing people who want to help children to give up a right to do , is infringing on said right. It's so clear.

 

What right are they giving up?

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.

 

Ding ding we have a winner.

The government should not be able to restrict a right based solely on participation in an act that you 1uailfy for in every other aspect.

 

How can you not see forcing people who want to help children to give up a right to do , is infringing on said right. It's so clear.

 

Can they own guns and be foster parents? Yes or no.

What right are they giving up?

 

The ability to keep a loaded gun in their home. Which courts have ruled multiple times in the last few years to be a constitutional right.

The ability to keep a loaded gun in their home. Which courts have ruled multiple times in the last few years to be a constitutional right.

 

Not in the case of foster care. They fail to meet the requirement.

Can they own guns and be foster parents? Yes or no.

 

Again it's like saying you can own a car but you can't keep gas in it. This argument that it isn't infringing on a right is just wrong.

 

I can respect if some of you just come out and say you are fine with with the infringement on this issue. But outright try and tell me this isn't an infringement is just silly it's obvious.

Not in the case of foster care. They fail to meet the requirement.

 

And I'm saying the requirement infringes on their rights ? Where did I dispute that this regulation is on the books ? Just because it is regulation it doesn't make it right.