Mountain out of a mole hill here, IMO. If they want to adopt the kids, lock up the guns. It's pretty simple.

 

I can't walk in the State Capitol with my gun, is that unconstitutional too?

Mountain out of a mole hill here, IMO. If they want to adopt the kids, lock up the guns. It's pretty simple.

 

I can't walk in the State Capitol with my gun, is that unconstitutional too?

 

The State Capitol is discriminating against you!!!!

It's a bit old but it's what I found first:

 

"Kentucky

Kentucky Administrative Regulation 1:350 and Cabinet Policy both state that firearms and ammunition are to be locked and stored in separate locations."

 

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/policy-issues/Firearms_in_Foster_Homes.pdf

Thank you for your research. Based on what you wrote, it appears that 48 of the 50 states require guns and ammo to be kept out of the reach of squirrely 13-year-olds in foster homes. Shocking.

 

Is it just me (I know, call me a fool), or am I the only one who thinks the NRA is pulling the strings in this Nevada case?

OK...first, it does not matter if you foster or adopt IMO. You do what it takes for your kids...PH and I CHOSE not to have guns with these three girls....we were not told that we could not...we Chose to lock up all knives including kitchen knives...We really watched them around forks....anyway, IMO, it does not matter if the gun is unloaded and locked separately from the ammo....if these kids really want to get to the gun, trust me, they will period.....These kids are so much more street smart then most adults....they are wise and will amaze you. All our children, as many of you know, were long term, placements with no hope of going back home, but for some strange reason the rights were not terminated so they could be adopted.... I believe that most adults will do what is best for their children and family. Therefore, I don't think it should be a blanket rule and should be looked at depending upon the child....I think it should not be up to social services, or the court, but should be a group discussion that would include the family input. Now, I also am would love to think that gun owners would store their guns at a families home if they felt it was in the best interest of the family...like we did. Again, we were not told to do this, it was what we felt was right for our situation....everyone has different situations.....

OK...first, it does not matter if you foster or adopt IMO. You do what it takes for your kids...PH and I CHOSE not to have guns with these three girls....we were not told that we could not...we Chose to lock up all knives including kitchen knives...We really watched them around forks....anyway, IMO, it does not matter if the gun is unloaded and locked separately from the ammo....if these kids really want to get to the gun, trust me, they will period.....These kids are so much more street smart then most adults....they are wise and will amaze you. All our children, as many of you know, were long term, placements with no hope of going back home, but for some strange reason the rights were not terminated so they could be adopted.... I believe that most adults will do what is best for their children and family. Therefore, I don't think it should be a blanket rule and should be looked at depending upon the child....I think it should not be up to social services, or the court, but should be a group discussion that would include the family input. Now, I also am would love to think that gun owners would store their guns at a families home if they felt it was in the best interest of the family...like we did. Again, we were not told to do this, it was what we felt was right for our situation....everyone has different situations.....

 

I feel this.

And just so we are clear, I am pro-gun, pro-second amendment and I think we all have the right bear and carry arms. I also think that common sense should be applied in some situations. I don't think that the government telling hopeful adopting parents to lock up their guns in order to be successful adopters is discrimination. It also isn't discrimination to ask a whole lot of people who plan to bring a kid into their home they know nothing about to lock up their weapons. This comes off as fear mongering and playing the victim to me.

Edited March 9, 201511 yr by PurplePride92

This comes off as fear mongering and playing the victim to me.

 

That's exactly what it is.

I understand the concept of not making firearms available for kids, foster or adopted or otherwise.

 

But on a wider view, what's the point of having a gun at home and it being unloaded and the ammo stored elsewhere? Might as well have a machete.

Mountain out of a mole hill here, IMO. If they want to adopt the kids, lock up the guns. It's pretty simple.

 

I can't walk in the State Capitol with my gun, is that unconstitutional too?

 

You can't see the difference between a public building and your own home? Very bad comparison.

And just so we are clear, I am pro-gun, pro-second amendment and I think we all have the right bear and carry arms. I also think that common sense should be applied in some situations. I don't think that the government telling hopeful adopting parents to lock up their guns in order to be successful adopters is discrimination. It also isn't discrimination to ask a whole lot of people who plan to bring a kid into their home they know nothing about to lock up their weapons. This comes off as fear mongering and playing the victim to me.

 

Locking guns up is different than locking your gun separate of ammo. Why would I own a gun without the bullets ?

 

They are telling them they can't carry a loaded gun or store a loaded gun in their own home. That is ridiculous.

I'd be willing to wager good money that most of our BGP brethren that is pro guns isn't living in situations in which they fear for their family's safety at home. I'd hope that anyone adopting kids would have homes that they feel equally safe in as well.

 

Home invasions happen in any neighborhood. From upscale down to poverty areas.

And just so we are clear, I am pro-gun, pro-second amendment and I think we all have the right bear and carry arms. I also think that common sense should be applied in some situations. I don't think that the government telling hopeful adopting parents to lock up their guns in order to be successful adopters is discrimination. It also isn't discrimination to ask a whole lot of people who plan to bring a kid into their home they know nothing about to lock up their weapons. This comes off as fear mongering and playing the victim to me.

 

Why is it not discrimination? It's the same as telling them they can't adopt a black child because they are white, can't adopt a child because they are a same sex couple. I have heard ridiculous arguments made for both of those cases.

Locking guns up is different than locking your gun separate of ammo. Why would I own a gun without the bullets ?

 

They are telling them they can't carry a loaded gun or store a loaded gun in their own home. That is ridiculous.

 

They can keep the gun loaded as long as it is locked up.

Home invasions happen in any neighborhood. From upscale down to poverty areas.

 

We had a home invasion in our neighborhood two houses down from us. A neighbor owed a drug dealer some money and they came to collect. One drug-infused home invasion in the ten years in my neighborhood isn't enough for me to walk around my house with my gun on my holster waiting for a home invasion. I'm more worried about a dog pooping in my front yard than suffering from a home invasion.

Why is it not discrimination? It's the same as telling them they can't adopt a black child because they are white, can't adopt a child because they are a same sex couple. I have heard ridiculous arguments made for both of those cases.

 

That's not the same though. Guns in the hands of an irresponsible kid isn't nearly the same thing as skin color or sexual orientation. Not even close.