We brought this action on behalf of the plaintiffs to establish that the state’s restrictions on the possession and carrying of firearms by foster parents is unconstitutional under both the Second and Fourteenth amendments. We’re delighted that the judge will allow our action to go forward because it is important to establish that people do not surrender their Second Amendment rights in order to become foster parents. We’re in court to make sure that the state cannot discriminate against foster parents who merely wish to exercise the rights we’ve restored in Illinois.
Alan M. Gottlieb
SAF founder and Executive Vice President
January 10, 2016
FED. COURT ALLOWS CHALLENGE TO PROCEED AGAINST ILLINOIS FOSTER PARENT RULES
[Illinois prohibits foster parents from possessing firearm. The lawsuit alleges the state is denying the foster parents their civil rights under color of law. I’m almost certain this will mean that if SAF and the parents win then the state will be required to pay SAF and the parents for their legal expenses. I just wish it would also mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt that state officials had violated 18 USC 242.
If you squint at the situation just right you can make the case we should be thanking Illinois for offering us this, almost free, low hanging fruit. It should be a relatively easy case to win and every win we get creates more case law which can then be used as leverage in more difficult to win cases.—Joe]
The state is endangering the foster children, by offering them up as unarmed potential victims. I think more and more people are begining to understand this.
When our kids were very small, we were lucky enough to have some wonderful friends who offered day care services. They told me one of their customers had asked them if there were any guns in the house (they were huge gun nuts – the place was a major arsenal – the husband was a vet, and shooting and reloading were among his favorite past times). I told them they should have replied; “Oh, not to worry on that score– We’re very well armed.”
I like it.
It’s unconstitutional for a state to disallow its workers or foster parents from owning, possessing, or carrying firearms.
Oregon gets around this by strongly discouraging foster parents from owning firearms, but it’s not a disqualifying factor as long as they are “safely stored”.
Personally, having been a foster parent and dealt in passing with irate bio-parents (many of whom are on drugs and/or have criminal records) — which isn’t supposed to happen (there’s supposed to be a separation; different building entrances/exits, case-workers as intermediaries, etc.) but occasionally does anyway — fostering isn’t something I’d approach lightly or without a back-up plan. Better yet, a few.
Does “safely stored” mean “stored in such a way that they are not useable for self defense”? In anti-gun jurisdictions, that’s the usual meaning. It was for example in D.C.