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

[Yankee Traveler]

Moral of the story. Don't have a FB account.

Anything you put out there can and will be used against you!!!

[TXAZ]

How about: Engaging in domestic terrorism (18 USC 2331 5 b , appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population)

Maybe Extortion?

Making a threat?

Making a terrorist threat? (if you haven't read the Pat-Riot act, almost anything can be so construed, and there are multiple definitions, take your pick.



'I ain't no lawyer', but if the shoe fits DYFS .....

[SIGSHR]

The best defense is a good offense.I recall a case from California-Half Moon Bay. Some grade school kids were told to write an essay on something they did with a family member,one boy wrote that his grandmother took him shooting, the school authorities contacted Grandma, she told them where to go and what to do when they got there and who were they to tell HER how she was going to raise her family.
I suspect we'll see more cases like this in a attempt to drive a wedge between advocates of the RKBA and LEOs.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Come and take it

On the other hand if the visit involves something administrative such as whether your house is up to some kind of safety code than you can not refuse them entry.

Of course you can still refuse them entry, unless they have a warrant. Looking for an alleged code violation is a search, and if you have a violation you are exposed to certain potential punishments -- meaning possible "incrimination." Further, social workers are not experts in building and fire codes. They have no special knowledge that allows them to check for code violations, because that's not their job,

I worked as a building inspector for a number of years. In fact, I was working as one during the time we were adopting, as I discussed a few posts above. That's why I knew that the "adoption social worker" was wrong when she told me the house had to have a carbon monoxide detector. My house was built in 1950, and the most recent alteration was the conversion of the attic to a bedroom in 1955. My state didn't even have a building code in 1955. Carbon monoxide detectors in homes didn't enter the building code until the late 1990s or early 2000s, and even today the requirement is not retroactive. They are required in new houses and substantial renovations, but they are NOT required in existing house.

But ... that didn't even slow down Ms. Adoption Social Worker. Initially, she claimed the detectors were required by "the code." When I informed her that "the code" was my work and that they are NOT required, that was when she came back with "Well, we require them."

If a social worker starts claiming expertise in building and fire codes, that's a danger signal. It's also a boundary violation -- he/she is engaging in a specialized field for which he/she is not educated or licensed to practice.

[Come and take it.]

Their inspections usually require looking at the childrens bedroom, making sure they have bed, proper sanitation conditions, clutter (one social worker may overlook something that another might have a fit over) that could cause an accident, sufficient food etc etc. They have a "rulebook" I assume they go by. Also a look at the Kitchen and Living areas.

They left my other rooms alone.

It was the second visit (the one about guns being safely stored away) that I should have been more angry about but I let it slide and went along while I showed them the room they didn't get to see the first time around.

Anything for the kids. When you are going through a divorce everything falls by the wayside especially when you know your x isn't a very good parent.

When you have kids you can kiss your 4th amendment goodbye pretty much.

Our government and courts have very little respect for the constitution except when it comes to giving them more power. That is why "shall" is a holy sacred word in their power clauses, but is just a placeholder with no value in the other parts.

Watch the movie "District 9" it pretty much sums it up when ISU tries to get "Mr. Christian" to pack up his little baby "prawn" and leave the alien ghettos. Once they see he has a little one they had him by the balls. lol

[Spats McGee]

I have located a source! http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...lds-rifle.html

[Southwest Chuck]

Another source: http://www.examiner.com/article/phot...alerts_article

[Dead]

As noted in the article shows that it is OK to make false allegations of child abuse, as that is "protected" from prosecution.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Come and take it

Their inspections usually require looking at the childrens bedroom, making sure they have bed, proper sanitation conditions, clutter (one social worker may overlook something that another might have a fit over) that could cause an accident, sufficient food etc etc. They have a "rulebook" I assume they go by. Also a look at the Kitchen and Living areas.

If they are there pursuant to an existing action, such as generating a custody report in connection with a divorce case, they have an official reason to be there. If they just show up at the door, there is no legal basis for them to claim entry. Let's not lose sight of the post that opened this particular discussion. No custody battle, just a child services worker showing up unannounced as a result of a photo on Facebook.

Even as an active building official, I was allowed (pursuant to state law) to enter only between the hours of 8:00 a.m and 5:00 p,m. IF there was an open building permit, work under which I was charged with inspecting. No building permit ==> no entry. If we thought there was a problem in an existing building that we needed to look at, we had to apply to a judge for an administrative search warrant. We had to spell out what we thought might be a problem and why we thought so, and we had to provide a supporting affidavit from another "competent authority." (Building inspectors and fire marshals help each other out in this -- I could use the FM as my second competent authority, and the FM could use members of the Building Department.)

I can't imagine that the laws are that much different for social workers. There's no exception for child social workers in the 4th Amendment.

[Spats McGee]

I also seem to recall reading in the story that he got the call when social workers & (perhaps) LEOs were already in the house. If his wife gave those folks permission to be there, . . well . . , she had authority to give them that permission. Consent to search = no warrant required.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dead

As noted in the article shows that it is OK to make false allegations of child abuse, as that is "protected" from prosecution.

I think it's easy to make a case for such protection. If you're serious about protecting children, the way to do that is to encourage reporting of possible child abuse by doctors, teachers, etc. If all suspected cases are reported in good faith, there are going to be some false positives, and it makes sense to indemnify those making the reports -- they shouldn't be afraid to speak up for a child.

I'd make a sizable bet that the number of such mistaken reports far exceeds the number of malicious "false allegations."

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Vanya

I'd make a sizable bet that the number of such mistaken reports far exceeds the number of malicious "false allegations."

Don't bet on it. Divorce law gets really ugly, really fast. And you'd be surprised at the number of folks who have no compunction about using child protective services to "get at" just about anyone they're mad at.

[Evan Thomas]

Sigh. You'd think by now I'd be over being such an optimist about human nature...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

I also seem to recall reading in the story that he got the call when social workers & (perhaps) LEOs were already in the house. If his wife gave those folks permission to be there, . . well . . , she had authority to give them that permission. Consent to search = no warrant required.

Quite true -- either spouse can grant permission to enter a private residence. Doesn't alter the fact that if the wife had NOT allowed entry the DCYS person would not have had any legal authority to demand entry.

It sounded from the quoted snippet that the wife allowed them into the house, but wasn't able to allow them access to what they wanted to see. Which was a good thing. The case might serve as an alert to all of us who are married to have a discussion with the spouse regarding such legal complexities as search warrants, and warrantless right-of-entry (only in "exigent circumstances," meaning if your house is on fire the firemen don't need a search warrant to enter and put out the fire).

[JRH6856]

Originally Posted by Come and take it.

Once again after very careful thought I decided to not answer the phone if it says Child protective services, not answer the door and play like no one is at home, or if I am asked to meet them or receive a visit to have my children secured in another location. To also play very stupid on the matter altogether as if I didn't know I was supposed to have my kids present.

And now, having posted your intent to do so on a public forum, you will have a difficult time claiming ignorance. Good luck with that.

[KyJim]

The social worker is there to determine if the child appears to be neglected, abused, or in danger. She is not there to investigate violations of criminal law. Now, if there is a loaded AR-15 propped up by the front door, this arguably could create a risk to a child but this would have to be considered with other factors such as age and experience of the child. However, the fact that guns are locked in a safe means there is no immediate harm to the child and the social worker has no business in demanding to inspect the contents of the safe.

Even if firearms were required to be registered, it makes no difference to the safety of a child if the firearm is registered or not. A registered gun poses the same risk to a child as an unregistered gun. An unregistered gun is just as safe as a registered gun.

[Come and take it.]

And now, having posted your intent to do so on a public forum, you will have a difficult time claiming ignorance. Good luck with that.

To each his own. I know what I have had to deal with back in those days. Wouldn't wish it on anyone.

No harm in improvising some type of a time speedbump so you can search out your legal options before eventually complying.

[BoogieMan]

This is a very scary story.
I am in NJ, my daughter is adopted, she shoots, I am a proud father so I have pictures of her holding a shotgun and shooting a 22/45. I dont think that any of those pics have ever gone over the web or air lines. As a precaution they are gone now. Shame because one day she may want to share that part of her life with her children.

Side note: Schools will occasionally ask (all kids) if there parents have guns in the house, and do they know where they are kept. My kids Dr. will ask. I just started to use a new Dr. On the med background questionnaire it asks if I own a firearm. It concerns me that so many people are interested in my guns.

Link to the story now on Fox-http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/familys-home-raided-over-facebook-photo-of-childs-rifle.html

[Grizz12]

They had the guy and his son on FOX this morning, very interesting and one more reason for me to move out of state...

[AH.74]

I am in NJ, my daughter is adopted, she shoots, I am a proud father so I have pictures of her holding a shotgun and shooting a 22/45. I dont think that any of those pics have ever gone over the web or air lines. As a precaution they are gone now. Shame because one day she may want to share that part of her life with her children.

I certainly hope you haven't permanently deleted or destroyed pictures of your family's history because of this. I also certainly hope you have not decided to stop recording certain parts of said history with photographs.

Because if you have, you have given in and have lost already.

There's no reason, to me, for you to let these "people", and I use that term loosely, win with their tyrannical behavior. They tried to use coercion and intimidation, and failed.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Quite true -- either spouse can grant permission to enter a private residence. Doesn't alter the fact that if the wife had NOT allowed entry the DCYS person would not have had any legal authority to demand entry.

It sounded from the quoted snippet that the wife allowed them into the house, but wasn't able to allow them access to what they wanted to see. Which was a good thing. The case might serve as an alert to all of us who are married to have a discussion with the spouse regarding such legal complexities as search warrants, and warrantless right-of-entry (only in "exigent circumstances," meaning if your house is on fire the firemen don't need a search warrant to enter and put out the fire).

AB, I've underlined a couple of parts of your post for emphasis. I did so because you are on point with this. It's not just for married folks, either. Roommates and various significant others can grant access, at least to certain parts of a residence. Got a girlfriend? Gave her a key? If she gives permission, the police or other official can take her apparent authority as a basis to go in. Got a child in their teens? Apparent authority. Once they're in, things like the plain view doctrine come into play.

In any event, all of us who own guns and/or have children need to have these discussions about the A4 and whatever state constitutional counterpart applies to our homes.

[YankeeSpirit76]

Great job of telling [those people] where to get off! Most people would have opened the safe up so fast your head would spin,, not even realizing that they had every right to say NO!

[Skadoosh]

Hmmm...I think I'm going to delete that picture that I posted on Facebook of my daughter shooting a pistol at the range.

Anything you put out there can and will be used against you!!!

These kinds of attitude are the problem. There was a time not too long ago when it was thought to be IRRESPONSIBLE of parents NOT to teach there children about firearms and how to safely handle them. More people should post pictures of responsible gun ownership to shake off the undeserved stigmatization that guns now have in the public consciousness of this country.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Hmmm...I think I'm going to delete that picture that I posted on Facebook of my daughter shooting a pistol at the range.

Quote:
Quote:
Moral of the story. Don't have a FB account.

Anything you put out there can and will be used against you!!!

These kinds of attitude are the problem. There was a time not too long ago when it was thought to be IRRESPONSIBLE of parents NOT to teach there children about firearms and how to safely handle them. More people should post pictures of responsible gun ownership to shake off the undeserved stigmatization that guns now have in the public consciousness of this country.

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.

[Skadoosh]

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.