The Fight Has Officially Been Brought to a NJ Gunowner's Front Door

[AH.74]

What do you mean these kinds of attitudes are the problem? We're talking about being careful what you post on the internet, not don't teach your kids safety. Not seeing where you got that from.

I think what might be meant is the attitude of fear, that what you are doing is going to be used against you and therefore you should not do it.

I do not believe that is a good attitude to have. I don't disagree withe being careful and guarding your privacy, but damned if I will be made to be fearful for doing something which is not wrong.

[globemaster3]

It's not surprising that this happened. I am surprised it took this long.

As a homeschooling Dad, this type of behavior on the part of the various "child protective services" (different names depending on state, county, etc) is pretty common. With their anonymous tip system, anyone with a beef can sick these people on you at the drop of a dime with absolutely zero repercussions for false statements. They perfected their verbal delivery in order to challenge you on a moral basis to prove your innocence and invoke you to violate your own rights without thinking about it. For most honest, law abiding people, who are not aware of these tactics, they openly allow them in the door because they have nothing to hide. Their very confrontational delivery methods make you doubt your legal ground all the while making very threatening statements if you do not comply. It's pressure sales at its worst! I am glad the individual in the story had a lawyer readily available who could advise him and his method of mounting such a defense. Huge kudos!

The doorway is the front line. It's hard to get them out once they are in. Without a warrant, you would think they have no legal jurisdiction to get in. I recall at least 1 case where law enforcement, accompanied by a CPS social worker, barged their way into a home against the protestations of the homeowner as the LEO barked he didn't need a warrant if there was a reported crime in progress (a family feud over how Grandpa was being treated in the home of a sibling, who also homeschooled, which resulted in another sibling calling to report abuse). In that case, the "tip" was completely false, the homeowners rights violated, and I need to check on the follow up as I think I remember a lawsuit stemming from it.

The soundbite they operate with is they are "protecting the children." Who wouldn't want to go along with that? The "urgency" and "moral imperative" of their cause coupled with little/no operational oversight makes them ripe for abuse. I believe the LEOs in these scenarios are unwitting participants in the play, as the CPS is the one pulling the strings and the soundbite is so urgent.

Don't get me wrong, child abusers deserve punishment. But trampling the rights of innocent gun owners or homeschoolers because of an anonymous, unsubstantiated tip is absurd!

In the HS world, an organization called Homeschool Legal Defense provides lawyers to battle these offenses the same way as this played out, providing services via phone and interposing themselves between you and CPS/LEOs. I wonder if this behavior continues against gun owners, if there won't be a need for a Gun Owner Legal Defense.

I hope it doesn't get to that.

[orangello]

This is sad; parents considering censorship of family memories for the sake of avoiding government investigation/persecution. That reminds me of tales from a former Iranian citizen I worked with; she indicated that, after the fall of their Shah and the takeover by the current government, families were going through photo albums and burning any pictures involving bathing suits or comingling of the sexes at recreational areas (the beach, skiing, etc.).

That is a sad and frightening point we have come to; I do hope legislation or administrative common sense can reverse this trend.

[zincwarrior]

When a picture like the one of the boy safely holding an AR disturbs a person enough to call DYFS, the problem should be obvious to you. A picture of a boy holding a rifle in the early 1900's would not have raised an eyebrow back then. Now it does. My father was part of his high school's shooting team back in the 40's.

When a youth of today is photographed holding a rifle, the police and child protective services now show up at your door demanding to see the contents of your gun safe. American gun owners of today are seemingly viewed as either maniacs, extremists...or both. Members here are now afraid to post a picture of their kid holding a gun in a public forum like FB out of fear of being investigated by local authorities.

That needs to change.

Whats being glossed over is that one of their "friends" on FB thought this was an issue enough to sic child protective services on them. As the immortal bard once said: with friends like these who needs enemies?

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
What do you mean these kinds of attitudes are the problem? We're talking about being careful what you post on the internet, not don't teach your kids safety. Not seeing where you got that from.

I think what might be meant is the attitude of fear, that what you are doing is going to be used against you and therefore you should not do it.

I do not believe that is a good attitude to have. I don't disagree withe being careful and guarding your privacy, but damned if I will be made to be fearful for doing something which is not wrong.

No, its not fear of having a picture like that (the wife had a similar thing as her cell phone screen saver for years). Its putting it on FB, or more precisely putting anything on FB.

[Skadoosh]

Whats being glossed over is that one of their "friends" on FB thought this was an issue enough to sic child protective services on them.

Okay, enlighten us. What is your point?

No, its not fear of having a picture like that (the wife had a similar thing as her cell phone screen saver for years). Its putting it on FB, or more precisely putting anything on FB.

I think you are missing the point entirely.

[WillyKern69]

What we are seeing is a common legal precedent. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. There was a reason our Founders wanted it the other way. There is no way to trump up charges then.

[Mezzanine]

For all the state new this picture was taken to commemorate a father son hunt. After all the kid did have his hunters safety, and even by how he is gripping the rifle you can tell he has been properly instructed well beyond what is covered in hunters safety.

[Daugherty16]

This young man was holding the rifle properly, trigger finger extended outside the trigger guard. A lot of LEOs could take a lesson from that - no offense intended to those on THIS site. I've personally witnessed NYPD cops in riot gear, down in the subway with AR-15s (for all i know, M-16s) with fingers on the trigger, sweeping the crowd with the muzzles. i had hot words with another cop after putting a stairwell between me and the morons.

Point is, anyone looking at that picture should immediately tell he has been properly trained, and if any further interest was justified, the only question should have been to confirm that the rifle was unloaded at the time, an assumption i'd have made from my initial observation.

Move out of NJ!

[mrbatchelor]

Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck

I hope this incident gets the media attention it deserves.

SC

The media attention is just as likely to be that "monstrous parents endanger kids lives with *GUNS! EEK!*" then refuse entry to Saint Officer Friendly trying to insure the children are safe.

Flash! Waco, NJ narrowly averted by cool-headed officers behaving professionally in tense situation with Norman Bates crazier cousin.


EDIT: Here's a link I had to go find from the UK, which we already know is over the top about weapons.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ckground.shtml

But his is where we're headed too.

[2ndsojourn]

This episode was all over the local news last night.

One thing that stands out to me is the DYFS caseworker refused to show any ID. Anyone who comes to my house on official business gets carded. The township bldg inspector had his ID plainly visible when he inspected my swimming pool. When my FOID application was being processed a plainclothes cop came to verify my address and showed his ID. The county health inspector had his ID plainly visible when he inspected my son's pizza shop. Hell, the meter reading guy who regularly trudges through yards checking meters has ID plainly visible.

No ID, sorry....

And on last night's news, they had a short interview with the father and his son. One of the things the father said was the cops wanted to see the guns and record their serial numbers. I remember a poster here a couple months ago telling about while shooting outdoors on open property, the police and a ADA? came and searched them and recorded serial numbers. It really makes me wonder if there is an unwritten policy of LE to have as much registration as possible, even if obtained dubiously.

[Jayster]

Wonder how recording serial numbers makes any kind of case for the social worker's supposed idea that the boy was endangered by being around guns?

That's just it. It doesn't. So why the push for recording serial numbers?
I think we know why.

I really wonder what back room deals concerning gun control are being talked about in certain states that we know nothing about....

[2ndsojourn]

Jayster, the father said the police wanted to record the serial numbers. The DYFS caseworker was just doing her share to stir the pot.

[Spats McGee]

As it turns out, no charges will be filed against the father: http://news.yahoo.com/no-charges-cas...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

[MLeake]

It would have been shocking if any charges had been filed.

What is more shocking, though, is that the DYFS worker has still not been identified.

[Spats McGee]

One can only hope that she's identified during the course of depositions.

[MLeake]

I won't blame her for responding to a complaint; it seems her agency has suffered from scandals regarding not responding to other complaints, and having children come to harm.

I will hold against her that she refused to identify herself, while trying to intimidate a family under color of authority. That is very bad, in my book.

[Merad]

I'm really not seeing the outrage here. IMO, the main bad guy in the story is the "friend" who called and made the report. It sounds likely that the police never even saw the picture in question. Like it or not, they have no choice but to take these things seriously. We can't say for sure whether or not they overreacted unless the transcript of the call is released, but considering that this "friend" was upset enough by the picture to make this call is it really that hard to believe that they'd throw a good bit of embellishment into their report?

The only real fault I see in the police conduct is the child services person refusing to identify themselves. Get as angry all you want about the request for serial numbers and so on, but there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that prevents LEOs from asking about every detail of your life or ripping your house apart if you consent to a search - it only prevents them from taking that information by force unless they have a warrant.

[BarryLee]

Governor Christie is asking the NJ Attorney General to look into this incident.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...e-in-boy-with/

[Aguila Blanca]

Good for Christie, but it's still New Jersey. Ten to one the AG's report will be a whitewash that finds no fault with the actions of the caseworker, the department, or the police.

[Pond, James Pond]

I hope that they do take legal action against the State.

If I sold a car knowing that it was not road-safe, but didn't disclose that I'd essentially be defrauding the potential buyer.

This is no different IMO: the authorities came to the house, no doubt knowing they effectively needed a warrant, no doubt knowing they could not take the children away, but making threats and demands all the same.

It seems to me they were relying on the the home owner giving them what they wanted despite not having to even though they (the DYFS/Police) were not fulfilling their side of the legal obligations in the process.
Something for nothing, if you will: defrauding the citizen of his rights, rather than his money.

That is unethical and surely against the State's obligations to uphold the constitutional rights of its citizens, as servants of its citizens...

It also seems to me that there are some little tin-gods in that outfit. Threatening to take someone's kids away just because they put you in your place, on the legal front, smacks of being a sore loser.

If you use your authority to get even, you shouldn't be in that job....

In the linked report the State Spokesperson said something like any allegation needs to be investigated, even if ultimately false.

Investigating can be done in any number of ways. They could just have asked the guy about the photo. They could have looked up the credentials of the family and they would have seen the hunting licence and an AR in the boy's name... It's not rocket science.

Instead they opt for the "kick door down" approach. Interestingly, those were the same tactics used by the secret police of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak etc... Nice.

[I'vebeenduped]

^^^ What James said!!! ^^^