« Maryland court refuses to incorporate the 2nd Amendment | Main | Ft. Hood: "wishing he too had a gun" »
FLA: adoption agency questions prospective parents about gun ownership
Story here.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
A friend of mine and his wife just adopted a baby, prior to the adoption I offered to sell him a pistol of mine he was interested in, but he backed out because his wife was nervous that having guns would block the adoption.
Since your emphasis is on protecting RIGHTS, such as the right to bear arms, the fact is that no one has a "right" to adopt!
Children have a right to care in a safe home environment and mothers who voluntarily chose adoption have the right to decide what questions are asked of those they may entrust their children with.
Agencies representing the best interest of children likewise have very right to screen as they see in the best interest of the children they are responsible for.
Guns may be every man's right but adoption is NOT right of anyone - gun owner or not.
Hi Mirah!
Where in the Constitution is the State granted the power to regulate adoptions?
-Thanks!
Jim D: The powers not granted to the federal government in the constitution, or powers not prohibited to the states in the constitution are relegated to the states in the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore the states have legitimate authority to regulate adoption.
I have another question. Would you be for a law banning states from asking about sexual orientation?
Most conservatives I know are against laws granting a certain class special rights. As someone that runs an adoption agency, I'd absolutely ask a potential adopter if they had guns, and planned on keeping the adopted child safe and educated about them, just as I would about swimming pools, prescription drugs, hot stoves, and the like.
I'm always amused by those who invoke the 10th for the purpose of providing evidence for the validity of any arbitrary power, so long as it is wielded by one of These States United. The validity of one of These States wielding any given power cannot be justified or determined by the 10th alone.
That is a complex question, and off topic here.
Moving along, without getting wrapped around that axle:
--==|==--
FWIW, I have first hand knowledge of this matter, when we adopted our daughters some years ago.
The questions were actually asked in the context of general home safety. It was obvious that the social(ist) worker who was doing the home screening disapproved, but as long as we had them locked up, she had no basis for complaint.
While we were subjected to short, mildly offensive and largely incoherent lecture on the topic of gun safety from someone who obviously didn't know the first thing about it, it amounted to little more than wind & fury signifying nothing.
Interesting point: no *written* record of the fact that we are an armed family was ever made or mentioned, and the issue was never raised again, even in the 3 years of annual followup visits. The closest they came was some mention that in reviewing our home for safety, all dangerous articles were appropriately stored in locked containers.
It was also pretty clear that since they were not going to block the adoption, they did not want to provide that as a basis for anyone else to do so either.
While a lawsuit about merely asking questions would be a tough row to hoe, if you could show that an adoption proceeding had somehow failed or been blocked because the prospective parents safely exercised a fundamental right could possibly provide an entirely different basis for suit.
I wonder if they also ask about home swimming pools, which constitute a much larger risk to children than firearms in the home do.
Elgee said:
"Therefore the states have legitimate authority to regulate adoption."
So, the power to do so is revokable by the people, right? My point really is that a private system CAN ask those questions, and a State system cannot.
Take money away from the government and most of these issues become moot.
And, I'm not a conservative. I'm more of a libertarian. That was a bad assumption on your part.
An interesting story in several respects. First, how would the question of "gun ownership" be at all pertinent to the process of child adoption?
Of course it isn't, but you might want to find out who does think it is.
I ran into the same question on a new patient medical history form once. Fortunately, the doc was an old friend and all 'round good guy. He said he wasn't even aware the question was there, his office just ordered standardized forms from an outside supplier. Moral of the story? When seeking to subvert a society, wrest control of the source of "standard" forms. You will find a fountain of intelligence, voluntarily surrendered, because people don't read what they're writing down.
With regard to Sen.[Nan] Rich: Doesn't she comprender the difference between a private party asking this question out of sheer ignorance and a/the government requesting you write the information down so it can be kept as a record? Guess not, or maybe to her there is "no nerry mind."
But, in the spirit of not always ascribing malice to that which otherwise be sufficiently explained by stupidity: possibly the agency was merely trying to find out if the prospective "adoptors" were prepared to adequately defend the "adopptee." Ya think?
"Some longtime NRA opponents, like Democratic Sen. Nan Rich, said she did not like the idea of banning an agency from simply asking about gun ownership. `Parents frequently ask if other parents have guns in the home before their kids play there, so why can't an adoption agency just ask?' Rich said."
THAT'S their defense!? They're advocating fear-mongering pure and simple and now they want to use it to defend the state's violation of the constitution. Appalling judgment used to rationalize State intrusion.