Which is exactly my point.
Those too stupid or meek to have guns to protect their families shouldn't have kids to begin with. In any capacity.
No one would get adopted then........
Which is exactly my point.
Those too stupid or meek to have guns to protect their families shouldn't have kids to begin with. In any capacity.
A state run agency should not be making rules like that. While maximum freedom may not be their goal, restricting rights should not be allowed.It makes perfect sense from the perspective of a risk averse policy maker. Accidental shootings of self or others are significantly more common than shootings of bad guys. While any given person may be well trained and disciplined, thus at lower risk, the policy is to address the masses. So, you weigh the odds and the consequences. A kid who doesn't get foster care doesn't make the news, is still available for foster care, nobody is fired. A foster kid who finds a gun and shoots himself is bad for everyone involved.
Agree or disagree, it's not hard to see the perspective that leads to such a policy. Their goal isn't maximum freedom.
State sets the guidelines, regulations, and does enforcement and oversight of private agencies.Is becoming a foster parent run by local or statewide rules?
The reason I ask is that if it is run locally, then wouldn't it follow that local govt cannot add additional limitations to our carry rights? This is how we defeated local libraries, zoos, etc from making "firearms not allowed" removed from their ability to do so.
Just a thought.
Regards,
Doug
PS - I see KLBs post, but just want to make certain that this restriction is coming from the State and not local.
To be fair, I don't believe they do. Family is often exempt from large swathes of requirements- UNLESS you want the state per diem to assist with the costs of a surprise addition. Then you go through the full processNothing guarantees the right to foster a child, so they can require that one gives up other rights in order to take part in it for reasons previously mentioned. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.
That said, I think it is absolute BS (vs. simply BS) when they try to apply this to family members who are willing/trying to take in a child that they are related to.
It makes perfect sense from the perspective of a risk averse policy maker. Accidental shootings of self or others are significantly more common than shootings of bad guys. While any given person may be well trained and disciplined, thus at lower risk, the policy is to address the masses. So, you weigh the odds and the consequences. A kid who doesn't get foster care doesn't make the news, is still available for foster care, nobody is fired. A foster kid who finds a gun and shoots himself is bad for everyone involved.
Agree or disagree, it's not hard to see the perspective that leads to such a policy. Their goal isn't maximum freedom.
Firearms safety agreement:
Foster children will not be given access to firearms or other weapons unless approved in writing by the department.
Firearms, including BB guns and air guns, not in use will be unloaded and locked up in the foster family home to prevent unauthorized use.
Firearms in use (to include defensive purposes) may be loaded but will be secured from unauthorized use on the person or locked up.
There is no requirement to be licensed to carry a firearm.
This is exactly what I wrote on the back of my form and signed at the bottom:
Firearms safety agreement:
Foster children will not be given access to firearms or other weapons unless approved in writing by the department.
Firearms, including BB guns and air guns,*not in use*will be unloaded and locked up in the foster family home to prevent unauthorized use.
Firearms in use (to include defensive purposes) may be loaded but will be secured from unauthorized use on the person or locked up but will always be treated as though it is loaded regardless.
There is no requirement to be licensed to carry a firearm.
I left the front of the form blank. Nobody was willing to argue any further and they dropped the matter.
Are we banning foster parents from having cars? swimming pools? medical care?
Good God man! What do you think we are? A nanny state?
Sheesh.
Are we banning foster parents from having cars? swimming pools? medical care?
Are we banning foster parents from having cars? swimming pools? medical care?
Swimming pools are regulated for potential foster parents. Cars, you're required to have child seats as age appropriate and to have a valid license, etc. Not sure what you mean my medical care.
https://www.in.gov/dcs/files/12.32 Physical Environment.pdf
Are you required to lock the keys up when the car is not in use?Swimming pools are regulated for potential foster parents. Cars, you're required to have child seats as age appropriate and to have a valid license, etc. Not sure what you mean my medical care.
https://www.in.gov/dcs/files/12.32 Physical Environment.pdf
Car must be in a locked garage, with the gasoline stored separately. Keys to both the garage and fuel storage must not be kept with the house keys. You need permission from your "advocate" each time your foster child needs to be in the car.Are you required to lock the keys up when the car is not in use?