I saw this in yesterday's paper and have been thinking about it since. We are foster parents so these things get our attention.

Anyone that has gone through the process to become a foster parent knows how intrusive it is. Being a foster parent means you accept limitations on your freedoms and that you will have to account for everything. Nobody who has not gone through it can really understand it. I thought I did but I didn't. With our first child (adopted without us fostering) we thought nothing of keeping baby Tylenol on a shelf that we could barely reach but was convenient. Now that with all other meds must be locked at all times - this includes my asthma meds. Since I have the kids with me much of the time, I cannot travel to Vancouver with them without written permission. Five hours to Medford is OK but ten minutes over the Interstate Bridge could cause trouble. I don't know what I would do if I missed the Jantzen Beach exit.

When you decide to foster you accept these things. Most do it because we love the kids and want to help them and their families. Is it hard sometimes living with rules and limitations - heck yes. It is just part of the program and you live with it.

While sometimes the rules might seem silly they have their reason. These kids have been through a lot. Some are really depressed. Access to my meds or somebody's gun might end their life. Our first certifier insisted on seeing our basement which was a mess and we never went down there. Once down there he told me he has to see every basement. One time he didn't and the kid was found in the basement dead hanging from a rope. Could the certifier have stopped that by seeing the basement - I seriously doubt it. It does let us know how desperate some of the kids are.

I have inhalers in locked cabinets all over the house and one locked in the glove box. I do it because it does not endanger my health (it is a little inconvenient) and it could prevent a kid from getting hurt. I value the kids more than I value my convenience.

My brother is a gun owner and member of the NRA. He often says that "people hurt people not guns" or something like that. In this situation, I would agree that people have hurt these kids and they might hurt themselves. I just don't see the need to provide the tools to do so.

Maybe if people spent more time focusing on keeping kids out of foster care we wouldn't be so desperate for more people to care for them.

after reading that story in the big O yesterday I discussed with some people and thought about. Its one of those laws that dont get a lot of attentino until some makes a fuss about it. I have to agree with Sarah that the rule makes sense. I dont have any first hand experiance with the foster system but its pretty obvious that the kids who go into foster care are not your regular kids. They go a lot of times go through hell before entering the system and when designing a system that kind of thing must be factored in for everyones safety.

As far as I know, neither the National Guard nor any other well-regulated militia houses foster children, so I don't see where the Second Amendment comes into play.

This reminds me of a bumper sticker: "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws' children will experience gun tragedies." (A response to the more common, "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.") Not that any legislation should be premised on a slogan on one's bumper.

The things that bother me about this:

1. the news story is crap. It didn't say what the regulation did. At least not clearly enough for stupid people like me. After reading it over three times, I was unclear what the now recinded restriction was.

2. I am sure that those have been through hell, but I haven't heard of a foster kid getting a foster parent's loaded gun and shooting anyone or anything. I actually think the rules surrounding firearms they had makes a LOT of sense: keeping the ammo and the firearms locked up separately. Heck, thats what we do unless we are using them.

This seems like just another "We know what is best" kinda rule from DHS....Hohum...nannystate...blah, blah, blah...

we've all heard it before.

With the rate that Hardy has to pull the leather strop out of his desk drawer for state agencies, I am starting to wonder if those state agencies have ever actually READ the OR Statutes and the State Constitution. Seems to happen an awful lot.

One of the reasons why you have not heard of a foster child using a foster parent's gun and shooting themselves or anyone else is in part because of the rules. There is a case in Portland (it happened about 18 months ago) of a teenager who entered foster care as a infant. He was returned to his father as a teenager and shortly thereafter shot himself.

I disagree that this is DHS creating a nanny state. As foster parents we have choosen this. DHS is not telling non-foster parents what to do with their guns or if they can have them. The children are wards of the state which means that ultimately the state gets to make decisions on their behalf. The state decides where they live and with whom, where they go to school, what type of medical care they receive, etc. If the thought of having the state that involved in your life bothers you then don't foster children.

One of the reasons why you have not heard of a foster child using a foster parent's gun and shooting themselves or anyone else is in part because of the rules.

This was a NEW rule that put restrictions on foster parents who have Concealed Handgun Licenses. Where is the compelling need for such an (illegal) rule? Your anecdote concerned what sounds like a former foster kid who was living with their father. This new rule (or any other DHS rules for that matter) would have done nothing to stop what happened.

I think most foster parents are saints, particularly since they have to put up with so much garbage from the state already. Should their homes be as safe as possible? Sure. But does the Nanny State always know best? Hardly. What is the point in making useless, illegal rules whose only result is a smaller pool of potential foster parents? To make a political statement about the evils of guns and gunowners? Is that DHS's job?

James X, it was the person who posted this story who referred to the 2nd Amendment, not the gunowners. I won't bother to set you straight about the 2nd Amendment, as I can't stand arguing with ideologues who lack even the most basic grasp of the facts, but it might interest BO'ers to know that the Oregon Constitution also protects the rights of citizens to be armed for self defense.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State....

Pretty clear to me. But I'm sure the James X's of the world can find a way to stand the clear intent of this clause on its head so that it means the exact opposite of what it says.

I shared the story of the boy who shot themselves to show what can happen without the rules. If the rules applied to parents recently reunited with their children, then this boy might still be alive.

We can argue until the end of time how far we believe a person's "right to bear arms" really extends. I do know one fact to be true - the constitution never address a person's right to be a foster parent. Again, if you do not like DHS and the state of Oregon telling you what to do and butting into your afairs, then do not foster children. Regardless of your stance on gun ownership, if you like your privacy you will hate being a foster parent.

The garbage we put up with that we get from the state - I could write a novel on that. The root of a lot of it goes right back to funding. Give DHS enough money to really staff itself properly and a lot of my headaches would go away.

As I stated at the end of my first post - if people would put as much energy into keeping kids out of foster care as they do into keeping their guns we would not need nearly as many foster homes.

I've been shooting guns since I was nine, still do, and was taught gun safety before I even picked up my father's revolver. Heck, the folks at Place to Shoot couldn't believe a lib like me outshot a Vancouver sheriff's deputy.

Anyways, anyone stupid enough to not secure their firearm in the presence of children does not deserve the child or the gun.

The NRA agrees. This is from their web site.

Gun Owners' Responsibilities

Most states impose some form of legal duty on adults to take reasonable steps to deny access by children to dangerous substances or instruments. It is the individual gun owner's responsibility to understand and follow all laws regarding gun purchase, ownership, storage, transport, etc. Contact your state police and/or local police for information regarding such laws. If you own a gun and do not know how to operate it, do not experiment with it. Point it in a safe direction, keep your finger off the trigger, and store it securely. Seek competent assistance and instruction at once. An untrained adult can be as dangerous as a curious child.

Governments have recently started following a fad called "fact based decision making" and "fact based rule making" - where they actually come up with real world FACTS and then make decisions, rules, and policies that are based on them.

DHS hasn't gotten that memo. Instead, an agency full of squishy liberal Democrats decides to take their personal preferences and enshrine them in rules - rules that will either make foster kids more vulnerable (because their foster parents can no longer protect them with firearms) or reduce the number of foster families (because some of them won't bow to an arbitrary rule that makes them and their families less safe and so drop out of the foster system).

But hey, so what? It's not like they care about the kids nearly as much as they care about making themselves feel good at the expense of others - spending taxpayer dollars to glorify their fact-challenged personal biases, harming kids, etc. All in a day's work.

Oh, and if that means the foster care situation gets worse - presto, it's "proof" that we need more money! More unionized employees! A bigger bureaucratic empire! For the pinheads at DHS it's a win-win. Only the taxpayers, the kids and the families who care about them lose.

Twisted Framing

Notwithstanding the confusion over whether foster parenting is a right or not there is a difference between an agency interpreting a general provision to protect children and the legislature setting a specific policy as to the particular issue of guns and foster parents.

The AG cannot set policy, as for example with a duty to enforce some land use initiative he may find distasteful. A quick repeal of an anti-gun agency rule would be consistent with his defined role. An agency could still insist on enforcing a ban if they wanted but would have to rely on outside council, but this involves some political calculus and political risk.

friends don't let friends post when they are sleepy.

The following phrase was intended to DRIP sarcasm, but I must have a dull sense of sarcasm at 2am:

"This seems like just another "We know what is best" kinda rule from DHS....Hohum...nannystate...blah, blah, blah..."

I saw Kari's point last night...nannystate was intended to be used in a humorous context, but obviously it didn't work.

Oh, well...back to the drawing board.

Sorry folks!

And don't forget, this story is NOT about forcibly taking away anyone's rights (such as they may be). Being a foster parent is a voluntary thing.

Kari, set aside ideology for once. Just for a second, please. Think about it pragmatically. Ya know, William James. Good old fashioned American pragmatism.

What is the best way to increase the pool of law-abiding foster parents? Good folks who will do these children right, regardless of which party they happen to be registered with. Is saddling CHL-holders with additional arbitrary regulations a good way to achieve this goal? And I'll remind you that CHL-holders are probably the most law-abiding folk you could dream of. I'm talking don't even jaywalk kind of law abiding, the kind of responsible people who know damn well they need to secure their weapons around children. You think this rule actually helped children? Yes or no? That's all it comes down to. Helpful or not? I think Anonymous 1:31 answers this question pretty well.

As for Jeff's response, yes, this was an illegal rule. We have something called preemption here in Oregon, a LAW which prohibits bureaucrats and local governments from arbitrarily limiting constitutionally-protected individual liberties. It's designed to prevent exactly this kind of thing. The good folks at DHS may be unaware of this law's existence, but they clearly violated it.

And please don't blow sunshine up my colon and claim that social workers do not trend liberal. Come on. May the gods, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas bless them for the good works they do (and they do good works, please don't get me wrong), but when I think "social worker," conservative pro-gun rights Republican is not the first thing that jumps to mind.

It is clearly just not arguable that the entire Second Amendment is not clearly prefaced on well-regulated militias as a source of state security. It is simply not about individuals just having armaments for the heck of it. I suggest you read The Second Amendment in Law and History to understand what was intended by the Second Amendment and how this reinterpretation of it as some sort of individualist entitlement to artillery just has no basis in history.

JamesX: "It is simply not about individuals just having armaments for the heck of it."

Send the book to the AG. He needs to arrest those 100,000 Oregonians who have applied for and received Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL, CWP, whatever).

Individualist entitlement to artillery?

James is not an idiot, but his postings make it hard to defend his intellect.

Coyote,

There is a whole course on federal jurisdiction. It is what I associate most with preemption, as distinguished from the supremacy clause. I would recommend the course, AND the professor that still teaches it (or just pick up a book for the course, I still have mine). See It's Federally Preempted—Let's Remove It! for a mere taste of some issues.

Where words fail it is true that a gun might determine an immediate winner. I won't quarrel with that conclusion and it's finality.

Abigail, you seem to imply I believe that the Second Amendment makes it illegal for individuals to carry small arms. That isn't what I believe. I do believe individual rights to small arms do not come from the Second Amendment, which is not specific at all to small arms, and is clearly about well-regulated militias, also known as our state National Guard forces.

There are a few issues that can torpedo the chances of just about any western US dem or progressive candidate. Gun control is probably #1. Why muddy the waters by bringing up this subject again and again? Let's talk about issues that the majority of voters support and agree with, like health care, integrity in government, and protecting the environment. Winning elections is what counts. Meaningless grandstanding gestures by DHS (and the resulting chatter by Dems on forums such as this) DO NOT help win elections here in the wild wild west.

. . . and the state is answerable to whom and by what standard?

For years, the state Department of Human Services has required foster parents to store firearms unloaded and ammunition locked away in a separate place. It also prohibited having a loaded gun while transporting a foster child in a car. This year, the agency decided to do away with an exception for people with concealed-weapons permits.

I'm confused about this new rule -- were CWP holders previously exempt from all of the firearm restrictions, or just the one about having a loaded gun while transporting a foster child in a car?

If it's just the bit about having a loaded gun in the car, then as a practical matter the gun in question would presumably be under the control (or at least the direct supervision) of the adult. That's quite different from concerns over a foster child finding a loaded gun in the house.

However, all that aside -- and speaking as one who believes that ultimately the 2nd Amendment is what guarantees all of the rest of the Constitution, and who finds the broad notion of the "nanny state" to be distasteful in the extreme -- Kari, TJ and others have nailed the issue exactly. In this specific context, the state is literally the nanny for these children.

DHS should be able to place pretty much any restriction it wants on the behavior of those who volunteer to participate in a foster care program. If the AG based his decision solely on the idea that DHS was "regulating gun laws", then I'm afraid he was simply mistaken. DHS clearly was not regulating gun laws (which remained unchanged), it was regulating participation in foster care, which is exactly what it is supposed to do.

The effect may be to reduce the pool of otherwise-qualified and willing foster parent candidates. One might argue that DHS shouldn't make such rules. But arguing that DHS couldn't make such rules seems just plain wrong.

Interesting debate-

As a gun toting lefty myself, I find this new restriction rather odd- I do think that someone who merely owns guns may need some type of checking on to insure that they are stored safely. Maybe some type of class and a set of DHS guidelines on gun storage and safety.

When I took the classes for my CCW, they did a background check on me like you would not believe. I had to prove that I was an upstanding citizen to have that priveledge, and I was tasked to take a set of gun safety courses at my own expense. Does this not prove me to be responsible?

Someone with a CCW has been put through the ringer- they should be shown as the law abiding citizens they are. I support DHS checking to make sure that weapons are properly stored. Hunters and the like that own guns could go through this process through DHS as well. Maybe the entire family as well as the foster child should attend gun safety courses.

The fear of a gun as an object is out of context. Following this line of reasoning, would a foster family have to remove all knives from the silverware drawer?

The more I read the post on this subject the more I believe that I am the only one posting that really understands foster care - the rules and regs, the parents, the foster parents, the kids and DHS.

To quickly address some issues in Raul's post first. Yes, getting a CWW does make you somewhat more responsible than others. I think the question is will you enter your home and immediately lock up your gun - no stopping to use the restroom, no stopping to check messages, no stopping to put melting ice cream in the freezer, etc. Because it is not you that the state does not trust with a gun - it is the kid.

"The fear of a gun as an object is out of context. Following this line of reasoning, would a foster family have to remove all knives from the silverware drawer?"

I know foster families that have had to lock up all the silverware. The kids were that dangerous. They ate with spoons for as long as the child was living in their home.

It is my knowledge about how messed up some of the kids are that makes me more of an expert than some of you on this issue. This is not about gun rights. It is an issue of keeping kids safe. There are kids as young as three in foster care that have tried to hurt themselves. Sucidial three year olds. I know it is hard to imagine but it is true.

"Maybe the entire family as well as the foster child should attend gun safety courses."

Great theory but would not work. Kids do not enter care between the hours of 9 to 5 on workdays. Nor do they typically enter care with much notice. Often there would be no time to train a child before placing them. We got less than 9 hours to prepare for a three week old. That was a lot of time. Often it can be less than an hour.

Foster parents choose to be foster parents. With that we choose the restrictions. For most of us it is because we put the needs of these children first.

Kari, I have no problem with the fact that some foster kids are in homes with guns, as long as those guns are owned by responsible adults. As I said, CHL-holders know damn well they need to secure their weapons around these children. They live with them and know them better than you or I. Why put up unnecessary roadblocks that will only deter these folks from taking in foster kids?

David Wright wrote: DHS should be able to place pretty much any restriction it wants on the behavior of those who volunteer to participate in a foster care program.

Technically true. The State is their guardian, and like any guardians, they make the rules. But think about it pragmatically. Just because they can make any arbitrary rule that pops into their heads doesn't mean they should. We need foster parents, and CHL-holders happen to be among the most responsible citizens we have here in Oregon. I think Zak hit it right on the head. I agree with him completely, and he expressed it much more effectively than I did.

And Jeff, nobody said anything about a vast left-wing conspiracy where Chuck Schumer is sitting with Diane Feinstein and the Brady Bunch in a smoke-free room, scheming about how they can take Oregon foster parents' gun rights away. So you can burn that straw man. It's simply state workers---workers who happen to trend heavily Left---making decisions that are inevitably colored by their own beliefs, education, and experience. Lots of times those decisions are spot on. Other times, not so much.

The government cannot act arbitrarily, ever. If someone can characterize some legislation or government conduct as arbitrary and capricious then they have made an argument to declare some act or conduct void. Look up "legitimate state interest." It is perhaps the most common phrase that embodies a challenge to arbitrary acts. Don't forget to note the word "legitimate" in the phrase, as it is a key word. Some government act, or threat to act, must exist before someone can obtain standing in court to challenge it. Ergo, enacting a rule is like the first act in a legal drama. Then folks get to battle about what standard to apply for review of the validity -- legitimacy -- of some act or conduct. This is not to say that an agency cannot put words to paper and call it law. Even an individual employee/agent of state government can be personally dragged into federal court under Ex Parte Young for conduct that they think is lawful but that a challenger believes is not.

The next time I hear "voluntary" tossed out as some answer-all explanation I'll have to roll out some railroad employee cases. Can an employee of a railroad (a private railroad) voluntarily contract away the right to sue for injuries related to willful gross negligence? It is a central sort of issue in any "liberty to contract" discussion. I would sure hope that no one here would dare to believe that any governmental entity has a superior right to any private person or entity to insist that someone "voluntarily" contract away a right to object to arbitrary (government) action, least of all some right that might be characterized as "inalienable;" as in something that government cannot take away under any asserted reasoning.

On this I should hope that all anti-totalitarians might agree.

Justice O'Connor restates what is the lowest standard of review in her concurrence in the Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003):

"Under our rational basis standard of review, 'legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute [or rule] is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.'"

When the good professor Mr. Green asserts that there is no right to be a foster parent he has made a rather stark and unacceptable misconception about the legality of government conduct.

The focus is on the classification. Among all foster parents can the government make a classification between those who (can) lawfully carry concealed weapons and those that do not (or cannot)? Perhaps Mr. Green might look again at the "classification drawn" and offer a clarification.

If that classification involves guns it would be complete folly to believe that it does not raise a federal issue, whether the legal process begins in state court or federal court at the choosing of the plaintiff.

Sarah, your presumption might be anecdotally incorrect. I would prefer to keep some things confidential, particularly in this venue. Note that the statute of limitations on some actions can be extended for kids that are in foster care, and it has not yet tolled for some kids of interest to me. (Not related to guns in any way.) While the system might be a mess some individual caseworkers efforts are best described as extraordinary, to say the least. But because of confidentiality concerns they will likely never be publicly praised. Only the bad ones make the news, which is not to say that all bad ones make the news.

Could someone validly argue that someone that is jailed for committing some crime has "voluntarily" waived all rights protected under the constitution? This has been tried and it is preposterous nonetheless. Sadly, the warnings of the dissent in State v. West, 74 Or 112 (1914), apply in many current contexts. Which is to say that what is the correct position to take may nevertheless fail even after review by a court. ("To admit a contrary principle would open the doors to unlimited extravagance in the administration of public affairs." Or, shall I say . . . arbitrary?)

Pat,

Suppose the rules/contract that someone voluntarily signs to participate as a foster parent included a prohibition on the placement of a child with a family of a different race or religion . . . or sexual orientation?

Jeff,

The definition of "state action" that can trigger review includes legislation and rules and even an undocumented practice for which someone insists must be reduced to a rule or even a response to a simple letter inquiry about official practice. I would not construe a demand for some minimum level of factual support as absolutist. See for example Overton Park. A decision that achieves some sort of finality and conclusiveness to some issue is necessarily absolute, if it is made by "the court of last resort."

torridjoe,

My prism, as a process freak, is devoid of pre-judgment on substance. I am not the one that will be judgmental. The hunt for common ground -- mutually self-interested common ground -- does not afford the opportunity to yield to your attack on the character or bias of the proponent of an opposing position on substance.

On substance, one might note the interaction between a foster parent and the relatives of a child in their care. Some fears can be real and others paranoid, and the dissatisfied person(s) from whom a child has been taken can view a foster family not as a non-self-interested volunteer but instead as a creature of the state itself and a soft target for venting. See where that leads you in your analysis.

I would favor mandating a class on mediation and negotiations so as to reduce the need to resort to assertions of -- sometimes wild -- power and authority to resolve disagreements.

I don't necessarily see this as a case of gun rights, and I gladly defer to the opinions of those who have been foster parents- I am speaking on a topic that I have no first hand knowledge( foster parenting ) of so I don't claim to be an expert.

The rationale of " someone think of the children " has become a tired cliche, whether it deserves to be or not. Child safety is definitely important- regardless of whether the child is in state custody or not. I guess my question is whether foster children who have been matched with gun owning foster parents have really been proven to be in greater danger. Have there been past incidents that warrant this reaction?

Many times there is a fear of guns that can be taken to an irrational level. Some folks that I know would not visit a house or ride in a vehicle where a firearm was present-period. I need to know that this isn't the rationale for this decision- I need evidence to back this up.

Will we be removing from the list people who are responsible and truly concerned for the welfare of foster children merely because they own or choose to legally carry a firearm?

"'No Problem!' Simply point out the compelling state interest and we'll listen to your plan."

The usefulness of a standard is that it applies regardless of one's attitude toward some particular facts. It is the very thing the lends legitimacy to some decision or action.

The point of using a case where the court protected gays from attack of their personal liberty was to show that even the most ardent pro-gun anti-gay person could find something useful from it for their particular concern. If someone is anti-gun pro-gay the standard is still there.

I can lead you to the cases or reasoning but it is entirely up to you to invest the time to examine its merit. If you do not want to avoid conflict but to exaggerate it then I can be of no help to you. I am not in the game of categorizing people into evil other and good me.

The old tired notion of "the ends justify the means" does come to mind. It too can be applied, as a rule or standard, to a wide range of particular facts or issues.

If I could point a pro-gun anti-gay person to a case with a pro-gay-protection outcome that they detest but that supports their own desired pro-gun-protection outcome would they then have to accept the correctness of pro-gay-protection? I trust that you have the ability to swap the order of priorities, or insert your own, and remix using the analytical formula.

If it sounds like I am being too much like a mother hen then so be it. Better that than I try to force you at the point of a gun to believe as I do, with or without the sanction of state power.

Your proved my point, but you might not even get it, not even now? Or you do but don't care? Is there any other possible conclusion that I could draw?

How am I supposed to teach the foster kids that I take care how to shoot if I can't have a gun?

The Lawrence case is not a hypothetical.

You again position me as the advocate of gun rights, in particular, as if there is some whole new set of standards to apply. I'll again say that Lawrence is right in that it protects private liberty interests protected by the federal constitution.

Some folks here had assumed that voluntariness answered all, thus there was no need to even consider even a rational basis test. My initial opposition was to total arbitrariness.

In Oregon, as I noted in the initial link, a government lawyer can offer some ad hoc rationale in the first instance in court. That is, it is total fluff to think that this might be different if the state action originated from the legislature rather than by an agency that had been delegated authority to enact rules related to foster care.

I think the issue is the sufficiency of a background check, regardless of whether it is used to approve a foster parent or to approve a concealed weapon. Yet there is one further consideration for the gun permit, some specific substantiated fear that necessitates carrying rather than just the need to carry like a Peanuts-character security blanket. If it is the latter it could be just like burning a flag in protest just to confirm that it is not a crime. Even then the focus is not whether the flag burning alone is sufficient to overcome all real risks, burning one within 5 feet of the bushes next to some building would certainly convert a harmless protest into a real danger. And we all know how flag burning has been a symbolic sort of issue to rally some troops, quite apart from real risks.

"What makes you feel that you must carry a weapon?"

Follow-up questions should easily flow . . .

Silly man, you have already adjusted your position. But don't admit it. I won't mind.

I keep getting stuck on the question of how one safely carries a loaded weapon in a car ...

You're merging in traffic at 50 mph when you feel the strong hands of a desperate child reaching from the back seat and unsnapping your holster. What are your options? Which do you pick?

And what are the situations in which you're driving in a car and really, really regret that your weapon is unloaded? (Because, as far as I understand that rule, you're still allowed to carry an unloaded weapon in a car even with a foster child.)

I admit, I never took a gun safety course. And, having been severely depressed since 1974, I'm not a good candidate for gun ownership. But I'm glad to be enlightened by people with real experience.

Does this mean that police officers, federal officers, people in private security, or the military can't be foster parents if they're used to dropping the kids at school or picking them up going back and forth to work?

This is a solution in search of a problem.

Today in Oregon there are six children for every foster family. If a parent abandons a teen, there's no place for them to go. When I called DHS about a 15-year-old abandoned by her mother, they told me that unless she was in immediate danger, there was nothing they could do. They said they were having problems finding homes for infants in Washington county. Myself and others took care of her. Her mother moved to Canada and told the girl to go around the neighborhood and ask people to take her in. Imagine if she'd found a pimp or worse. I called all the girl's relatives and nobody wanted her. They threw her out like garbage and there wasn't a damn thing the state did for her.

That's our "caring" society today. It's BS.

The problem isn't a danger from weapons in the homes. The problem is that our system is collapsing.

These new regulations do nothing but distract attention from the real problems. It's pathetic political posturing that solves nothing and divides people.

"You're merging in traffic at 50 mph when you feel the strong hands of a desperate child reaching from the back seat and unsnapping your holster. What are your options? Which do you pick?"

This doesn't even make sense, and you seem open to that, so:

I carry a gun every day. And I spend a lot of time in cars. I carry self loading types of pistols (commonly called semi-automatic, although that's a little bit of a misnomer). If I was sitting in a car seat, especially with the seatbelt on, it takes some real effort for ME to get to my sidearm. I've got to get the seatbelt off, roll over to my left a little, get any clothes out of the way, and tug pretty damn hard (I use a leather holster, not like a uniformed cop's high level retention holster).

Assuming any of that still wasn't the case, all I'd have to do is put my right hand on my hip and push DOWN, and the gun isn't going anywhere.

<h2>So this theory really doesn't hold water.</h2>