Any other instances where having a CWP/CCP creates a legal disability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arizona_Mike

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
3,452
It's recently been in the news that having a concealed carry permit makes you ineligible to be a foster parent in NV.

Does anyone know of any other legal disabilities?

Mike
 
My state...

I'm not a NV resident but in my current state, they passed new statues that prevented gun ownership, CCW, use, hunting licenses, etc from being issues re: foster parents, legal adoption, wards/legal guardians etc. :D

Concealed carry or firearms shouldn't be a significant issue unless the applicant or foster parent has gun related convictions or was adjudicated unbalanced/gun license revoked, PFA issued, active trespass notices, etc.
 
I seem to recall something on the news at least 6 months ago about “No guns in the house” for foster parenting. I want to say in Maricopa County, but that’s as much guess as recall (One of those senior moments.) I mainly remember thinking at the time that it was ridiculous.
 
There is one other specific situation where a legally owned, legally carried sidearm is a very real liability to the individual exercising his/her rights... and that is in any potential trespass situation (some so-called "trespass" situations aren't that obvious, read on...). Most would clearly understand that "trespass while armed" creates a clear legal problem. Many would not realize that being engaged in any kind of dispute on someone else's private property can put you in the same very difficult position... A dispute of any kind in a store, a restaurant, or any other premises that rises to the level of "trespass after
warning" if the police are summoned puts you in a very bad position if you're armed no matter how lawful that carrying is otherwise.

In my state "trespass while armed" is a felony so any licensed individual might want to look into their state's laws regarding that type of situation.... If it were me and I knew that I might be going into a situation where trespass might be claimed or alleged, I'd make certain to be un-armed since then I'd only be facing a misdemeanor - if it came to that....

I'll be very interested to see what our professional legal types have to say about this... I know that in a few circumstances when I was in law enforcement we upgraded a simple trespass arrest to a felony solely due to the individual having a weapon -even though the firearm was never displayed or used in any manner whatsoever... This was some years ago so the statutes may have changed but it's always something to consider if you're going to be an armed citizen operating within the law.
 
I am not sure how I feel about this case. Often foster parents have to take care of problem children with troubled pasts. The easy solution to preventing trouble kids from getting a hold of firearms is either pass some sort of safe storage law for foster parents, or homes with firearms are ineligible to be foster homes. Many of us with our own children teach firearm responsibility, starting at various ages. Getting in a 12 year old with a troubled, possibly violent past would put the foster parent at a disadvantage.
 
Post 08, trespass warnings .....

I want to address the point(s) in post #8.
I think the forum member makes some valid and good points but I want to clear up the part of my statements about trespass warnings.
I'm a licensed security officer(in my current state about 15 years continuously).
I've trespassed many, many people over the years for numerous reasons.
In most cases, the trespass notice/warning was the result of someone being aggressive, menacing, threatening("I'm going to kill you.", "I have a gun & Im going to shoot you." etc), intoxicated(drugs/alcohol).
Having a single incident(merchant dispute, restaurant-hotel problem, etc) that results in a trespass notice isn't a big deal but if the foster parent or adoption parent has multiple notices or a history of notices over & over that may be a sign of irrational or unstable behavior. :uhoh:
Some people have "short tempers" or get "hot headed". This aggressive attitude or violent nature may DQ them from being foster parents or having a adoption.
 
In the case of no/guns trespassing it is the physical possession of the gun at the exact time. Not what I'm referring to.

It appears that having a permit in NV whether or not you even own a gun, whether or not it is stored in the house, etc. creates a disability to be a foster parent or temporary foster in the process of adoption.

Mike
 
herrwalther said:
The easy solution to preventing trouble kids from getting a hold of firearms is either pass some sort of safe storage law for foster parents, or homes with firearms are ineligible to be foster homes.
Click to expand...

Neither of those suggestions will ever prevent irresponsible people from being bad parents, which (if 'trouble kids' are getting a hold of firearms) is what I see as the problem.

Are you willing to go as far as passing a law making it illegal for foster parents to own knives, or other sharp objects? ... drain cleaner? ... a car? What's to stop 'trouble kids' from doing harm with those perfectly legal objects?

And, what of the many, many 'trouble kids' that aren't in foster care? Will you also suggest that their parents can't possess these objects?

Further, where should the line be drawn that separates 'trouble kids' from other kids? And who exactly should draw that line?

Tell me, where does this all end?
 
Twiki, when my wife and I applied to be foster parents about 7 years ago in AZ, we were told simply owning a functional firearm was a disqualification as a foster parent. I was told by the representative that all firearms would have to be removed forever prior to the home inspection, and that my off duty sidearm would have to be secured across the street at a neighbors home. Needless to say, we did not pursue the idea.
 
ngnrd said:
Tell me, where does this all end?
Click to expand...

Slippery slope I know. Neither solution is a good idea because on one hand it is where do you draw the line for dangerous as you pointed out. On the other hand it is why must foster parents give up rights or restricted because of safe storage practices to help out an overburdened system. Neither side wins.

I did an internship in a social services office. And firearm possession was a dis-qualifier to cut down civil liability. Many of the cases I was involved in were short term foster care instead of foster care waiting for adoption. Plenty of single parents getting in legal trouble, no next of kin to take children so the parents go in a foster home for rehab or short incarceration of the parent.
 
Talk about advertising your vulnerability to criminals.
"I'm a foster parent"
Translation: "My family and home are unarmed/defenseless."
 
So then convicted felons would be the best foster parents? (Because convicted felons can't possess guns.)
.
 
Midwest said:
So then convicted felons would be the best foster parents? (Because convicted felons can't possess guns.)
Click to expand...

In some cases they are. The foster parents part not the best foster parents part. Criminal history is taken into account for foster homes and some non-violent felonies are not dis-qualifiers. A friend of my wife is trying to be a foster parent who has a non violent felony, and was not flagged.
 
TX

A CHL holder with a gun in the car must notify LE, if asked for identification. A person who does not have a CHL and is carrying a gun in the car does not have to notify LE. The idiocy of this is compounded by the fact that a recent legislative session eliminated the penalty if a CHL holder fails to notify. So it's still a legal requirement to notify but there is no penalty for failing to comply.

A person without a CHL who has a gun in the car can drive with a BAC under the legal limit and also carry in the car without fear of prosecution. A person with a CHL can legally drive with a BAC under the limit, but, while it is an offense for a CHL holder to carry while intoxicated, the law does not establish a legal BAC threshold to define intoxication in this context. Therefore it is unclear what constitutes "intoxicated" for the purpose of prosecuting a CHL holder who is carrying--and more importantly there is no simple method for a CHL holder to prove that he/she hasn't broken the threshold of intoxication.

Under some circumstances, it may be legal for a property owner to post a parking lot off-limits to CHL holders who are carrying by using the 30.06 criminal trespass statute. Such signage has no legal effect whatsoever on persons without CHLs who are carrying in their vehicles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

bikemutt
  • Locked
Oregon lawful carry without CWP
Replies
7
Views
431
bikemutt
bikemutt
H
  • Locked
Question about getting a CCP in GA or SC
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
P
  • Locked
Restrictions on Guns in Vehicles while Travelling
Replies
1
Views
294
Zach S
Z
I
  • Locked
"Moving" (on paper) to get CCP
Replies
12
Views
584
geekWithA.45
G
B
  • Locked
some ccp questions
Replies
2
Views
294
cloudedice
C
Back
Top