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

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
They had the guy and his son on FOX this morning, very interesting and one more reason for me to move out of state...
 
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.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Spats McGee said:
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).
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmm...I think I'm going to delete that picture that I posted on Facebook of my daughter shooting a pistol at the range.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:(
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?

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.

I think you are missing the point entirely.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Look at his trigger finger

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!
 
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/20...k-picture-showing-toy-weapon-background.shtml

But his is where we're headed too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top