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

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.
 
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....
 
Jayster, the father said the police wanted to record the serial numbers. The DYFS caseworker was just doing her share to stir the pot.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top