BILL PREVENTS GUN QUESTIONS FOR PARENTS SEEKING TO ADOPT

[oneshooter]

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, Jan. 21, 2010.....Adoption agencies would be barred from making prospective parents reveal whether they have guns or ammunition at home under a measure that sailed through a House panel Thursday with the backing of the National Rifle Association.

Rep. Mike Horner, R-Kissimmee, said he and his wife are dealing with a "mountain" of paperwork as they attempt to adopt a child through the Children's Home Society of Florida, which assists with adoptions in the Orlando area.

But the couple were offended when asked about their weapons cache.

"I would hate to think that the fact that I'm a law-abiding gun owner would work against me in the adoption process," Horner said. "I'm not saying that that has happened. But the intent of this bill is that it never does."

Horner's legislation (CS/HB 315) would bar forms demanding weapons information, but would require those seeking to adopt to acknowledge they have received a copy of the state law requiring that anyone owing a loaded firearm keep it safely stored away from minors.

http://www.newsserviceflorida.com/cgi/as_web.exe?rev2010+D+495940


This was discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270325

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[yodoobo]

1. The state has a responsibility to protect adoptive children

Putting them in a home with guns, where they are statistically far much higher to get shot than a home without guns in contrary to those goals.

This should be an easy decision for this couple. If that want to adopt children, then get rid of their weapon stockpile.

gheesh

[tburnsten]

4. Actually, the state/agency has a responsibility to do its job

and screen people who are not up to the task of being a parent. Whether or not the couple owns firearms is not an indicator of their parenting skills, and actually firearms owners tend towards being family/community oriented, successful people (check ammunition prices lately? If you don't have a career, good luck affording range trips), so if anything I would think that would be a positive indicator. Either way it is a lawful state to be in, and a Constitutionally protected right, and so it is absolutely not within an agencys' rights to ask in the first place.


And if the 'statistics' you are referring to are from the old NE Journal of Medicine, they are very much false and have been de-bunked a thousand times over.

[doc03]

5. What about the children that were born in such homes?

I think we should go knock their doors down and get the guns out of their house too. Those guns might just take it on themselves to shoot the kids, you just can't trust guns. From my experience kids that are into outdoor sports aren't out getting into trouble.

[Euromutt]

8. Statistics present a general picture, not an individual one

It's fair enough for an adoption agency to look into whether candidates for adoption own firearms, but the judgment has to be made on an individual basis. Are the guns and ammunition stored securely? Have the prospective parents taken firearm safety classes? If the prospective parents don't act responsibly with firearms, then you have good grounds to reject them.

Otherwise, by the same logic, you'd have to refuse adoptions to families that own motor vehicles, because the kids would be statistically much more likely to die in a motor vehicle collision (which kill half again as many people as firearms, it might be noted).

[yodoobo]

19. transportation is fact of life.

We have to get from point A to point B.

Unless of course one never leaves the hospital they were born in. i.e. strawman

Weapon caches however are not. At least not in the civilized world.

[virginia mountainman]

20. Congratulations..

You just said that more than half of all Americans are "not civilized" INCLUDING MANY DU members...

Nice broad brush their...

[yodoobo]

22. Sometimes a broad brush is what the doctor calls for.

Civilized countries have already solved this gun problem.

We have not.

As a result, thousands die every year because one half clings to their guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Thousands die because criminals don't obey laws. Accidental deaths have been dropping steadily.

[virginia mountainman]

27. Yea, some of us cling to our civil rights...

I refuse to give any of them up, even if you want me too.......

[Euromutt]

31. Really? Which "civilized" countries have no gun crime?

The UK? Higher violent crime rate than the US, and nonfatal shootings almost tripled from 2000 to 2008.

The Netherlands? Robberies with firearms have increased steadily over the past fifteen years, and mob hits have been carried out using automatic weapons and rocket launchers.

Germany? One word: Winnenden. The German response: outlawing paintball.

Russia? The homicide rate is three times the US's, and cars fitted with armored glass and body panels sell remarkably well among "businessmen." Why would you need an armored limo, unless you expected to get shot at? Also, the anti-terrorist forces are incapable of resolving a hostage-taking without a few hundred hostages getting killed.

Japan? True, Japan has very little gun crime. Still, there have been several massacres with knives, and familicides occur almost daily, especially with the economic downturn. Moreover, the Japanese courts convict people solely on the basis of confessions, which are routinely beaten out of suspects. Suspects can be held for up to 13 days without seeing a lawyer, and can be interrogated without a lawyer or recording equipment present; very civilized.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

33. I call BS

The UK's crime rate has actually fallen. I have the most recent statistics here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8472007.stm. That said, I feel much safer walking in the streets of London compared to walking the streets in NYC.

The UK has a lower crime rate overall than the US.

[Euromutt]

40. You call BS based on... what, exactly?

It's generally considered good form, when accusing someone of peddling falsehoods, to provide evidence that this is the case. It helps especially when this evidence bears some relevance to the claim one is supposedly debunking.

A minor drop in violent crime from one quarter of 2008 to the same quarter of 2009 does not disprove a claim that nonfatal violence increased from 2000 to 2008. But for the hell of it, let me quote an article from The Economist ("Island Savages" http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TTSDSGPG) from 2008:

When it comes to non-deadly violence Britain soars alarmingly ahead of the rest. Cross-country crime comparisons are tricky, but the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) is the best of the non-homicide bunch. In it people from 28 rich countries are asked if they have been attacked or threatened in the past five years. Britain comes second (after tiny Iceland), ahead of countries with much higher murder rates.

It is tempting to say it was ever thus, summoning Caesar or Chaucer to prove it. But in 1988 the ICVS placed Britain only eighth in Europe for the incidence of threats and assaults, well behind America, Canada and the Antipodes. The subsequent catch-up is not due just to a fit of the jitters: Britain maintains its lead when assaults only, minus threats, are examined. A New Yorker visiting London is less likely to be murdered than he would be at home. But he is more likely to be beaten up.

The evolution of Britain as a low-murder, high-violence society is in evidence every Saturday night, when many, stoked by alcohol, prefer an after-dinner fight to mints. Much of this goes unrecorded, as the British Crime Survey ignores victims under 16; yet even so, against a backdrop of generally falling crime, the figures for attacks by strangers remain stubbornly high. Doctors say that their wards see more stabbing victims, and injuries from guns have almost trebled since 2000. At the same time, however, homicide has been falling since 2003. Those guns that are injuring more people are killing fewer, and the number of those stabbed to death is stable.

So murder is not the problem. But it might suggest what is. Take London, where murder is at a nine-year low. A recent study by King’s College London shows that the over-35s are being murdered less frequently but those under 17 are being murdered more often. From 2000 to 2006, between 15 and 19 teenagers were killed in the capital each year. Last year the figure hit 26; this year, only half-complete, 19 have died.

This changing profile might explain why, overall, injuries are up and murder is down: serious violence is becoming an amateur pursuit.

Emphases in bold mine.

That said, I feel much safer walking in the streets of London compared to walking the streets in NYC.

Well, let me refer you to a passage from the excerpt above:

A New Yorker visiting London is less likely to be murdered than he would be at home. But he is more likely to be beaten up.

Given that for every homicide in the US, there are about 400 assaults (300 "simple" and 100 aggravated), the fact that you're more likely to be assaulted in the UK than in the US has some serious implications.

The UK has a lower crime rate overall than the US.

That's nice (though I'd like to see some cites to that effect before I believe it), but I wasn't talking about overall crime, but rather, about violent crime. If the US happens to have more internet frauds and identity thefts, that doesn't affect your chances of being physically injured.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

86. Hey Euromutt

I have the recent crime statistics for the UK, from the past year, as reported by the BBC. I was trying to find comparable data to the US. Of course we are geographically different but the consensus of the population is fairly representative (farmers, villagers, townies, live in the cities etc). There are multiple efforts to reduce the number of crimes occurring, such as lectures showing graphic wounds of stab victims and trying to reduce the chances of crime occurring by offering youth more choices.

All I hear from the US is whenever something bad happens, ie the recent killings in VA, the answer is more guns. It seems like it's the solution to everything but it only breeds distrust.

[Euromutt]

89. Hey, I'm all for being "tough on the causes of crime"

You'll find quite a few of the pro-RKBA bunch here are, favoring ending the "War on Drugs" and legalizing and regulating drugs to get them out of the shadows, putting more funding into education and social programs, what have you. But while we're trying to get those initiatives off the ground and tweak them until they work, violent crime will continue to exist.

And as you learn in PolSci 101, authority is the legitimate exercise of power, and that legitimacy is derived from responsibility. Governments generally do not accept responsibility for protecting individual citizens, and a government that refuses to be held responsible for protecting the individual citizen has no legitimacy to deprive that citizen of the means to protect himself.

More firearms in private hands isn't the answer to crime at a societal level Privately owned firearms do, however, provide the individual citizen with more effective options to protect himself in the event he is selected as a target by someone whom the crime-stopper programs have not yet reached.

[Callisto32]

88. You said, "I feel....."

which is anecdotal, so I will respond with an anecdote. We have a couple at my church from London. They both have a number of horror stories about attempted muggings at knifepoint. I don't know why you would feel safer being accosted at knifepoint.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

43. "Civilized countries have already solved this gun problem."

Not really. Every country that has "solved" this problem has a growing crime rate... and a growing gun crime rate.

[SteveM]

44. "Broad brushes" are the core of prejudiced-fueled prohibitionism...

You are, of course, completely wrong when you say "...thousands die every year because one half clings to their guns." That has not been proved, nor can it be. But that is not necessary for a prohibitionist. A prohibitionist MUST demonize however many people it takes in order to restrict and punish their "actions." Ganja, guns, gay rights, alcohol, reproductive rights, tobacco; it's all the same: demonize, then pass laws to punish; in this instance, you desire to punish tens of millions of Americans.

I pose 2 questions for you:

(1) What are the real reason(s) for which you hate so many Americans;

(2) Are you a "shill" who "supports" 2A rights secretly, but post such material as you have in order to make the "gun-control side"
look worse than it is? (This was speculated on by gun-control advocates who were embarrassed by the postings of some of their
"own" folks.)

[yodoobo]

49. broad brushes are the core of most of our laws

So I reject the premise of your subject line

I also reject the premise of your questions.

GUn control is *NOT* about punishing anyone. Its about saving lives.

[eqfan592]

51. "Saving lives" is how gun control is sold.

But it almost always has little to nothing to do with actually solving the problems of crime and actually saving lives. That's because guns aren't the root cause of violence, and gun control legislation fails to address those root causes, while often making it more difficult for honest people to arm and defend themselves.

Your assertions fail the logic test in a major fashion.

[rd_kent]

54. How come you are ignoring the fact that you cannot support your ignorant claim?

a home with guns, where they are statistically far much higher to get shot than a home without guns


Whats the matter? Facts got your tongue?

[yodoobo]

56. google is your friend.

Its well documented.

[rd_kent]

57. No, its not. Provide the link please?

Its actually well documented that you are wrong.

But I am willing to look at your evidence.

[yodoobo]

60. here ya go

www.google.com

[rd_kent]

61. Just as I thought. You have nothing to support your false ignorant claim.

[yodoobo]

64. Its all out there, but I'm not interested in debating

studies that have already been debated to death.

I've seen all the lies from the gun lovers and I'm not really interested in hearing them repeated.

[rd_kent]

66. You mean you are only interested in repeating your own false claims?

I see.....

[yodoobo]

68. NO, I mean I'm not interested in hearing you repeat false claims

That particular debate has been held a 10,000 times on the Internet.

It always ends the same way and is a waste of time for everyone involved.

[rd_kent]

70. The DOJ provides stats to back up the assertion that you are wrong. What backs up your claim that

you are right? Kellerman? If that is the ONLY evidence you have, then why do YOU bother to repeat it?

[eqfan592]

69. Maybe you should take your own advice...

...and instead of just stopping on one site that happens to support your claims, actually read the counter claims a little.

This site goes into it somewhat: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

You'll find that many studies that parrot your claim failed to account for MANY factors before coming to their conclusions, thus leading to their conclusions being relatively unsupported.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Really? Try posting the documentation.

I guarantee that we will be happy and able to point out the errors in fact and in logic of any such documentation. We love to engage Gun Control Advocates in real debate.

[rd_kent]

59. AND you are ignoring the fact that your claim that Transportation is a right is ALSO wrong.

I love how you make these claims and then fail to support them with anything even remotely factual.

But again, I am willing to look at what you have to support the claims that having a gun in one's home makes them more likely to be shot and that transportation is a right.

Otherwise, you are just spewing shit from your ass.....

[yodoobo]

62. Calm down and re-read some posts

I'm not really interested in debating the finer points of transportation - but I didn't made the claim that you seem to think I did.

[rd_kent]

63. Oh, I see, you edited out that part. How nice. ANy chance of you providing evidence of your other

claim about guns in the home?

[yodoobo]

65. The period for editing has LONG past

thanks for playing.

[rd_kent]

67. When I responded to that post yesterday, it DID NOT say what it says now.

It said "transportation is a right", not "transportation is a fact of life"

Hence all the responses to that false claim.

[yodoobo]

71. ahem I kindly suggest you check the time stamps

Your response is dated Mon Jan-25-10 10:22 AM

My post is dated Sun Jan-24-10 10:15 PM


The times are relative to EST, but the delta between them will be the same.


FWIW, we agree on the issue of transporation in regards to rights. I think you simply misread my post.

[rd_kent]

72. My bad. I can admit when I am wrong. Can you?

provide the evidence to back up your claim, please, or stop posting falsehoods.

[rd_kent]

73. I guess not, but then again, I never really expected you to admit you are wrong.

You make a claim, a false one at that, then dance around trying to avoid providing evidence to support your claim because you don't really have any.

[yodoobo]

80. oh save the high and mighty stuff

I'm not wrong about the gun issue.

In fact I think that you are.

But you'll never admit it.

[rd_kent]

84. Until you provide proof of your claim, you are just spewing shit.

And I, and many others have provided, on several occasions, the facts, from the DOJ, that show your assertion to be totally false.
I have asked you several times to provide evidence of your claim, and all you can do is throw sophomoric insults. You have nothing, nada, zip.


EPIC FAIL!

[SteveM]

82. More corrections...

You admitted to a "broad brush" approach to characterizing gun-owners. That is pure prejudice on a mass scale. Laws should NOT be based on the passions of prejudiced people; we have a constitution which prevents just that.

Gun control IS about punishing people and not saving lives. There is little credible evidence to show how gun control saves lives. The number of firearms in civilian hands has gone up nearly 150,000,000 in the last 15 years; yet violent crime rates have fallen steadily. It should be clear to anyone that gun-control is about prohibition, and prohibition requires the demonization of the thing/action which is loathed, accompanied by demonization of those people who possess the thing or engage in the action. Prohibition is pursued relentlessly even when it is shown there is no benefit to "prohibition," and even when those Americans who support such a "policy" have shrunk back to smaller and smaller number.

Again, you "broad brushed" tens of millions of Americans, admitted to it, and now claim not to want to punish gun-owners with prohibitionist measures when all prohibition entails state-sponsored punishment through criminalization.

Please search for moral validation with another institution other than government.

[eqfan592]

50. Clarification please.

Exactly what "gun problem" did other nations figure out? Are you attempting to say other nations passed heavy restrictions on firearm ownership and suddenly experienced a sharp decrease in crime as a result? If that IS your claim, would you be so kind as to provide supporting evidence of your claim?

[gorfle]

52. You're barking up the wrong tree, friend.

The simple fact is that most of the people who commit murder with firearms have extensive criminal records. Please read the following article:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

The vast majority of firearm owners, over 96%, do not commit violent crimes with their firearms every year. We know this for a fact based on the number of firearm owners (between 40 and 80 million) and the number of violent crimes committed each year, from FBI statistics. Even if you attributed every single violent crime to firearm owners (whether committed with a firearm or not), that would only amount to, at most, 4% of all firearm owners.

And that about 75%-90% of those people have an extensive prior criminal background that will almost certainly prevent them from becoming adoptive parents.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Private ownership of firearms is Constitutionally protected, that's a fact of life in the US.

[Euromutt]

32. So what?

How does that alter the fact that, statistically, the single most likely cause of death for a resident of the United States under 18 is as the occupant of a motor vehicle that is involved in a collision.
Statistically, a resident of the United States aged 1-15 is almost six times as likely to die as a result of a motor vehicle collision than of a gunshot wound. According to the CDC's WISQARS http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html in the period 1999-2006, in the age group 0-15, there were 3,309 deaths from GSWs, against 19,172 deaths from MV collisions. Note that that's before the kids can drive themselves: they all died with someone else driving.

You can't invoke statistics when it's convenient, and then discard them when it becomes inconvenient; that's just trying to have it both ways. You also need to look up what a straw man actually is. This is a good link: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Anyway, what's wrong with the idea that the risk of firearms in the candidate household should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that if the firearms are securely stored and the prospective parents demonstrate a good understanding of firearms safety, the presence of firearms should in and of itself not form an impediment?

[GreenStormCloud]

34. But it would be reasonable to look at their driving records.

Euromutt suggests that the agency would want to look at how firearms safety is handled in the home. That is reasonable.

So it would also be reasonable to look at how they drive.

[rd_kent]

36. Transprtation is not a RIGHT, guns ARE.

You have the right to TRAVEL freely, but NOT the right to own or drive a car.

Weapon caches however are not.

Uh, have you ever heard of this document called the CONSTITUTION? Perhaps you should read it.

Who is propping up the strawman now?

[Callisto32]

87. You attack something and then respond with a false dichotomy?

Weak.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Wasn't an issue for us.

They asked, we answered, they never even asked to see the safe. I now have a healthy 9 month old boy that no one else wanted.

AND my weapon stockpile, as you put it.


So where does THAT leave your comment?

[tburnsten]

13. Babies rock

Congratulations on your little boy, my daughter turned one yesterday. I'm in the middle of open warfare with her mother for divorce right now though, so I wasn't able to be with her. It's the worst thing I've ever had to endure, but our court system is fatally flawed.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. That sucks man.

Kids are worth every bit of energy you can scrounge up and put in. Hope the custody battle works out in the child's best interest.

Horrible thing to go through, even at that age, the kid knows someone is missing.

[tburnsten]

48. yeah I was a fulltime dad before that

she was my little sidekick everywhere. She actually had our daughter diagnosed with PTSD in November, which is just absurd. Apparently that doctor lapped her bullshit up like a starving dog and had also never heard of separation anxiety.

[yodoobo]

17. Same place it was before

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. That you hope for something that doesn't happen in reality?

First of all, accidental shootings have been trending downward steadily since about the 70's.

Second, even though we were asked, and answered in the affirmitive, the state made no effort to disqualify us, ask us to dispose of the weapons, or even ask to see how they were secured.

You seemed to really hope that this would lead to people disarming, but I'm afraid the real world just doesn't work that way.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Well then why not ask the same question of biological parents before they bring the baby home? eom

[sharesunited]

16. Now we're getting somewhere! And prohibiting procreation without a license!

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Are you serious about "prohibiting procreation without a license"?

That is rather anti-freedom.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. At least you're consistent.

I will totally grant you that.

[yodoobo]

18. Perhaps we should

They already ask if you have a baby seat.

I know of one hospital that will not let a child leave the hospital until they confirm that a baby seat is installed in the car.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Okay. Good luck with that in places like Arizona. eom

[proteus_lives]

26. You're completely wrong.

Millions of kids grew up in houses with guns.

Myself included.

If I ever have kids, they'll grow up in a house with guns.

[rd_kent]

35. Care to PROVE that false claim? Come on, were waiting!

in a home with guns, where they are statistically far much higher to get shot than a home without guns

This line of bullshit has been debunked over and over. But since you seem to want to repeat it, how about you provide some evidence to back up your claim. And please, for the love of dog, do NOT use the Kellerman study, as THAT POS has been thoroughly dissected and found to be lacking in nearly every way.


This should be an easy decision for this couple. If that want to adopt children, then get rid of their weapon stockpile.

Are you fucking kidding me? Perhaps we should also look to see what books they have inn their house. Maybe, we should keep adults that believe in a religion from adopting, since that is brainwashing children before they are old enough to make a decision for themselves.
Jesus fucking christ, you want people to give up a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT in order to adopt a child? Wow, just wow.

Ok, so what have you got?

[PavePusher]

42. They should probably give up their other Civil Rights too...

Can't be too careful, that freedom and liberty stuff is pretty risky and dangerous.

Edit: And those pesky household cleaners, bicycles, swing sets, etc. Oh heck, let's just bubble wrap'em.

[sailor65]

2. Good

As long as it's a Constitutionally protected right, no on should be discriminated against for exercising that right.

[tburnsten]

3. Good, this bill reeks of sobriety and good sense

I like the fact that it will make everyone pay attention to safe storage practices, regardless of whether or not they are a current firearms owner. And I like the fact that it will prevent some agency worker from acting on a personal and unfounded bias against prospective adoptive parents. After all, if they are fit to be adoptive parents, they are fit to own firearms, so it is really none of an agency's business if they own firearms or not.

[burrfoot]

6. I'm a gun owner/CCW holder, but don't like this.

We all hashed this out on the other thread(s) about it, so I'll keep this short and calm :)

I wouldn't want anyone cataloging what I own, certainly, but I don't have any problem with an adoptions worker asking if I have them, or asking to see that they are stored safely.

FWIW, I'm a social worker, and I've approved foster homes / relatives where the family has firearms.

[Euromutt]

9. "Asking to see that any guns are stored safely" is reasonable

Of course, by that same token, I'd like to see agency inspecting the prospective parents' driving records, whether they keep the liquor and medicine cabinets securely locked, etc. as well.

[Democrat_in_Houston]

10. Our homestudy included an inspection of our closets!

I can assure you that many social workers do investigate all of the things you mention.

[burrfoot]

75. I can only speak for

the agency I work for, and let me qualify this by saying that I personally I only do Home Studies for foster care/relative care placements.

That being said, we do ask for and record DL#'s, and anything significant would come up through the background check.

And we actually do ask about and ask to see where meds and booze are stored.

If we're doing our jobs right we even walk around the house and test the fire alarms. It's kind of annoying but it's actually kind of fun too :)


(and, of course, the right thing to do)

[AtheistCrusader]

12. They're going to see that whether they ask or not when they do the Home Inspection.

So the question seems moot to me.

[jefflrrp]

7. good n/t

[lynne]

15. Do they pull the parents driving record to look for Speedings, Reckless Driving, DWI ?

- More children die from auto accidents than gun accidents so I would think it would be logical to check their driving records, too.

[yodoobo]

21. Criminal records of adoptee parents are certainly examined

Therefore all of those things are checked.

Certainly a single speeding tickets would not be a problem, but I cannot imagine an applicant would be approved if they had a string of DUI's.

Somewhere between those two extremes, I imagine that one would be disqualified because of their (criminal) driving record.

[rd_kent]

39. So, a minor infraction of the law is ok with you, but exercising a RIGHT is not?

[rd_kent]

74. I guess you are ok with that, by your lack of a response.

[yodoobo]

81. my lack of response indicates that I don't live at my keyboard

In any event, I don't view owning a cache of guns to be a civil right.

The supreme court however does believe that gun ownership with certain restrictions is protected by the constitution.

They have not ruled however, that adopting children into a gun house is a civil right however.

Maybe they'll take the case on someday. maybe not.

[rd_kent]

85. No, it shows you relly have nothing to support your ignorant claims.

In any event, I don't view owning a cache of guns to be a civil right.

Well, that is your right, but fortunately your is the minority view.

The supreme court however does believe that gun ownership with certain restrictions is protected by the constitution.

Yup, and reaffirmed. That right is not going anywhere anytime soon.

They have not ruled however, that adopting children into a gun house is a civil right however.

Correct, adoption is not a right, however, preventing an otherwise eligible person(s) from adopting because they exercise a Constitutionally protected right is discriminatory, and therefore, Unconstitutional.

[krispos42]

28. "weapons cache".

Interesting turn of phrase there in the article.

The law is probably a bad idea. You don't have a right to adopt kids, so for the privilege of adopting you have to reveal a bunch of information that is constitutionally protected. Criminal history, medical records, etc. Things the government or private adoption agency couldn't legally get without a waiver or a warrant.



My only concern is that the kinds of guns might turn some gun-ignorant adoption worker's opinion, based on what that person has learned through the general media.

"Oh, he has TWO M-16s and FIVE AK-47s??? And HOW MUCH ammunition? Oh dear!"

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Good bill. N/T

[aikoaiko]

41. Its a bullshit question inspired by fear mongers.

Giving people information on safe storage is a much better way to go.

[burrfoot]

76. I'm not really convinced there....

we give people info on abstinence, why to stay off drugs, why to wear seatbelts and why not to speed....some people get it, some people don't- I'm not sure how effective the passing out literature actually is.

Personally, I don't think that it's not that people don't understand safe storage, it's that they don't practice it.

Thankfully, I don't think there's likely a high incidence of crossover between gun owners who want to adopt and gun owners who store their guns unsafely.


Just my .02

[aikoaiko]

77. Well, info on safe storage is better than simply asking the question of gun ownership

and possibly using it to deny an adoption.

If the question were "if you own firearms, how do you store them" then I would be more sympathetic.

[burrfoot]

78. I completely agree with you that

the question of ownership, in and of itself, is completely irrelevant to the adoption process. For my agency, it's phrased like this (verbatim from a home study I have in my hands): has gun(s)and ammunition in locked cabinet yes no NA

If the answer is yes, we ask to see it to verify. If the answer is no, we'd make it clear what is expected of them before a kid comes into their home (this is where I think that literature would be useful). If there's no guns, it's obviously not applicable.

No recording of number of guns, type of guns, type of ammunition, anything like that.


Granted, the Home Studies I do are for foster and relative care placements, not adoptions. I do know that our adoptions unit doesn't get any more in depth than this either; however I can't speak for private adoptions agencies.


Edit: FWIW, I understand the issues surrounding the de facto registration concern. The entire HS, including the guns question, is protected by HIPPA- it's not available to anyone (except, I'd presume, LE; if the subject of a HS was also the subject of a criminal investigation. Even then, though, I'm not sure).

[aikoaiko]

79. I'm glad to hear your agency is reasonable about the issue

[SteveM]

45. A better approach:

Using a pamphlet showing clear, illustrated instructions, explain how to safely lock and store guns, liquor, chemicals, keys, etc., and inspect the home and point out the need for improvement, if necessary.

This is far better than passing yet another ineffective and intrusive law.

[Tim01]

53. No parents who smoke, no parents who drink. nt

[SteveM]

83. My prediction on the looming tobacco prohibition...

(1) tobacco will be forced into the same prohibitionist drug law regime of criminalization;

(2) parents who smoke will face punishment from the various state "child protective services" bureaus.