Couple try to adopt, they are denied because....

[LIPTON BASH]

How can any reasonable person defend this regulation. It's unconstitutional.

[Bluegrasscard]

I bet a judge (may have to be an appellate panel) would rule that any guidelines which prohibit adoptions to otherwisee qualified parents based solely on the fact that the parents have such permits is arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional. I don't see how any court could rule otherwise.

 

It depends on what the NSA has collected on the judge.

[LIPTON BASH]

How can any reasonable person defend this regulation. It's unconstitutional.

 

Adopting isn't a right but discriminating against people is not constitutional .

 

What if they decide people who have liquor in the house are unfit parents ? How can an agency discriminate against law abiding citizens.

 

Are those of you agreeing saying they will be bad parents because they own guns ?

 

I'm guessing most of you agreeing also are against drug testing people for welfare because being denied benefits would hurt the kids. But yet your fine with denying people the ability to adopt or foster children even if it may hurt the children because you may not agree with gun ownership. Kind of ironic.

[SportsGuy41017]

^ first, the article said foster parents then it said adoption, which is it? I can see, to a point, that a number of foster kids have issues due to their situations in their home life's, and may need to be kept away from certain things.

 

Do I agree that you cannot have a loaded gun in your home to adopt? No! But again is this an adoption or fostering a child? It was the loaded guns and not having the guns and ammo separated that was he issue, not the CCW.

 

Again, if it's to adopt a child I don't agree with it. But there was at least one way around it. I may end up adopting, many people at church say that I should. If this was me I would tell them "ok", and as soon as the adoption was final I would load up again.

 

I can't imagine that they did not get an attourney, I'm sure there is a good chance this could get overturned for adopting, not so much to be a foster parent.

[LIPTON BASH]

^ first, the article said foster parents then it said adoption, which is it? I can see, to a point, that a number of foster kids have issues due to their situations in their home life's, and may need to be kept away from certain things.

 

Do I agree that you cannot have a loaded gun in your home to adopt? No! But again is this an adoption or fostering a child? It was the loaded guns and not having the guns and ammo separated that was he issue, not the CCW.

 

Again, if it's to adopt a child I don't agree with it. But there was at least one way around it. I may end up adopting, many people at church say that I should. If this was me I would tell them "ok", and as soon as the adoption was final I would load up again.

 

I can't imagine that they did not get an attourney, I'm sure there is a good chance this could get overturned for adopting, not so much to be a foster parent.

 

I don't disagree with your solution. But I would also appeal to a guns right group to fight it in court.

 

Regulation doesn't sit well with me whether its foster kids or adoptions.

[PurpleHaze]

When I saw this on tv earlier today, PH and I were enraged! Then, me being me, started to try to understand both sides. We have raised thirteen foster daughters. At that time we chose not to have guns in the home. Our youngest saw her father shot....would have been an issue for her...she had many nightmares. Then, we had three that were violent. I would not have felt safe with a gun in the home at that time. These girls I am talking about would have gotten the gun and ammo anyway they could have.....ok, that was a choice of ours for that time in our lives.....I don't think it should be an all or nothing thing. I think each case should be looked at. Our other daughters there was no problem with guns....Now, that being said, PH brought up a GREAT point....if you get rid of guns for those reasons then you need to get rid of kitchen knives (which we did have locked up with three of our foster daughters), can't have anything glass because that can cut etc....We now have riffles and a pistol....when our foster daughters bring their children over, it is not an issue because those children have much different backgrounds....Now, all of this being said....It is HORRIBLE that these people can't foster or adopt due to the whole gun issue...it is just another way for our government to control what we do in our own home....adopting is so much different than fostering as far as how far the state can control what you do in your home. I tend to believe that people are smart enough to look at the kids in their care and be able to decide on what is best for the new members of their family and make good decisions based on the past of the children they want to adopt or foster....Just like PH and I did. Bottom line....it is a right to have a gun if you want and it is just another way to force views of some people on other individuals...this world would be so much better if the government would keep their nose out of our lives.....

[AverageJoesGym]

Sorry, had to cook dinner for my two adopted kids. Had my gun on the counter the whole time and nothing bad happened.

 

So you just chose to avoid my question, huh? My wife and I each keep a loaded gun by our bed. We both have our CCDW. We both always keep a gun in our car when we are out and regularly keep one on our person. I'm not anti-gun. I do not, however, see anywhere in the article that it said that they were the most qualified couple to get a child. I asked if you could show me where it said that. Obviously you cannot.

 

Funny how if someone were claiming police brutality most on this board would implore us to wait for the facts. Let it be anything to do with the Second Amendment and those same people immediately yell "They're tryin' to take our guns!" Nowhere in there does it say that they were the most qualified people to keep the children. That is being inferred by the people reading it.

[SportsGuy41017]

Sorry I'm on the mobile and can't quote. I agree with your last post Lipton.

 

I think instead of "they are trying to take our guns" it's "they are trying to protect the kids", but with a blanket policy. Reading Mrs Ph is a great example, as I mentioned earlier some foster kids have issues and they shouldn't have easy access to a loaded gun, Or knives in some cases.

 

But how much more screening of the kids will be needed? And how much will that cost?

 

I think it's maybe trying to do good and be concerned, but for some reason made it a blanket policy.

[Dlbdonn]

Until they comply with the Nevada law that was stated they should be denied the adoption . The law is blind , as long as it on the books,they have comply with it .

[capt278]

Sorry, had to cook dinner for my two adopted kids. Had my gun on the counter the whole time and nothing bad happened.

 

Ram, the last time I went to the local gun shop, I had my two adopted children with me. Nothing happened while we were in there or when we got home, where I have more weapons. Top that with I have a CCDW.

 

The really sad part is that, two loving parents are being discriminated against because they have firearms.

[All Tell]

Please quote me the law that gives ANYONE the right to adopt a child.

 

So you would have no issues if same sex couples or inter-racial couples were denied adoptions because living in that home MAY be harmful to the child?

[Twotoplace]

So you would have no issues if same sex couples or inter-racial couples were denied adoptions because living in that home MAY be harmful to the child?

I'm still scratching my head on what this gun-toting, foster-parent debate has to do with adoption.

[All Tell]

The very first line of the article I linked:

 

A Nevada couple has been told that they can't adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits.

 

Seems fairly self explanatory to me

[75center]

.....especially with older kids.

 

True, it's very possible the child will never be adopted and will be moving from home to home for the next several years.

[Twotoplace]

The very first line of the article I linked:

 

 

 

Seems fairly self explanatory to me

I'm simply not seeing the adoption angle in coverage from other sources -- right or left of center. The couple in question is seeking a legislative solution to ease state of Nevada gun restrictions that pertain to foster parents -- not parents who wish to adopt. Maybe I'm missing something here. Even the ultra-right Breitbart reported this simply in the context if foster parenting, not adoption. I think the Fox reporter may have gotten confused over the fact that the couple stated they hope to adopt down the road.