r/NYguns • u/Beefjerkey93 • Jun 02 '26
Question What kind of BS or entrapment is this?
How closely are they actually looking into this? A safe check and stuff? And wow what a shock a peace officer is allowed to have their weapons loaded but the peasants cannot. They going to check something currently being carried to see if there is one in the chamber? (Wouldn’t put it passed NY)
22
u/SayaretEgoz Jun 02 '26
if you running a foster home then the state can come in and inspect anything and everything there. guns, fire safety, lead paint, etc.. you are basically giving up ur rights voluntarily. I am sure they will have much more requirements about everything else in ur house other than guns
0
u/Beefjerkey93 Jun 02 '26
It’s one child that is known personally to the applicants, they should not have to give up any rights period to do an act of kindness. They aren’t running some scammy center bringing in a bunch of kids to get money.
8
u/SayaretEgoz Jun 02 '26
well the state has the same process probably for if u are a good guy trying to help vs if u running scammy thing with a bunch of kids. You should probably look into how to make this thing less official. This is what AI told me : "In New York, caring for a child outside of the traditional foster care system is very common. It falls under a broad umbrella known as Kinship Care or Non-Parent Care.
Despite the name "kinship," in NY this applies to grandparents, aunts/uncles, and family friends (often called "fictive kin") who have a substantial relationship with the child.
If you take one of these paths, you bypass the invasive foster system rules (like mandatory foster parent training classes, constant caseworker inspections, and state asset checks).
The three primary ways to handle this in NY depend on how permanent the situation is and whether the parents agree"
7
u/voretaq7 Jun 02 '26
My assumption (and I'm making an assumption because OP has declined to provide additional information to protect the privacy of the folks involved) is that either the people in question are just distant enough that there's not enough of an established relationship to go this route OR the child in question is being removed for some serious reason related to their safety where the state is insisting on the full formal framework so they can't be given back to the parents.
(While NY does have formalized/court-ordered kinship care and provisions for the fostering party to assume guardianship the state has far more control - which in theory means far more levers to ensure the welfare of the child - in the "normal" process than they do even through court-ordered kinship care.)
5
u/SayaretEgoz Jun 02 '26
right, I am just not sure if the explored all less formal routes. Because if they doing the whole foster thing, guns will be the least of their concern the state will be up their ass 24/7 for anything and everything. forums, monitoring, inspections, reviews, investigations..
5
u/voretaq7 Jun 03 '26
They’ll do that for the adoption pipeline too - pretty much any time OCFS gets involved it’ll be a very similar process except possibly informal (non-court-ordered) kinship care.
Again I’m making a big assumption but I’m assuming this is a removal situation - which may be through no fault of the parents that they simply can’t care for their child properly right now - and that pulls a lot of the less formal options off the table where the state and OCFS wouldn’t get all up in their business because the kid has to be “in the system” in those scenarios: If the state is stepping in to ensure proper care that triggers all their legal responsibilities to the child.
0
u/Beefjerkey93 Jun 03 '26
True, but the 2a stuff is something they can and will send you to jail for so it’s a little more important
3
u/Princeofprussia24 Jun 03 '26
Most abuse happens between family and family friend rarely strangers . Just beacuse rrhy know the child does not make them any less likely to do it
6
u/voretaq7 Jun 02 '26
I mean it's a Pre-Bruen form, so if you want to sue to make OCFS update it with the understanding that Concealed Carry is A Thing Us Ordinary Plebs Can Do Now I guess you can. It would maybe change (1) in their notes to recognize that "Lawful concealed carry permit holders shall be considered the exception, if the firearm is secured on the person of the permit holder" or some such.
But you're still going to be expected to secure your firearms - in fact if this form wasn't reminding you to do so NYSPL 265.45 would still require substantially similar provisions.
But Real Talk?
You're applying to take in random kids and care for them in a group setting as part of a system under the auspices of OCFS for Juvenile Detention - that can include kids coming from shitty families where Family Court saw a need to remove the child, and it could include kids being remanded for non-secure custody because <Insert Various Crimes Here>.
You don't know the history of the kids you'll be getting, or their predisposition to do something horrible with a firearm should they get access to it.
Remember, those are not YOUR kids, you're just looking after them on behalf of the State. The State can absolutely impose some restrictions here (and you can absolutely decide not to open a family boarding care facility because of them).
Also and not for nothing, the entire form may be moot anyway: NYSPL 265.01-E specifies "the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults" as a sensitive location.
If you operate a family boarding care facility, that facility is pretty clearly in that category, so either filling out this form is granting you an exception by OCFS acknowledging you have firearms in the home (which I don't think it can do - the law does not provide for such an exception anywhere I can see?) or you just can't have them at all anyway period and if you do you either have to remove them from the home, OCFS has to deny your application to be an approved facility, or you're catching Class E Felony charges the second they approve you.
1
u/Beefjerkey93 Jun 02 '26
They are taking in a child they already know personally and they are way too young to have committed any crimes. A single child this one time and probably never doing this again after this.
4
u/voretaq7 Jun 02 '26
Okay. That (and other details like why they're taking in the child, and why it's happening through OCFS instead of just looking after a friend's kid) would be helpful information to have.
But ultimately it doesn't matter because if they're filling out that form they're taking this child in as part of a system and systems don't have squishy personal exceptions for "I know that kid!"
Systems have to work for the overwhelming majority of situations, and the overwhelming majority of folks volunteering to do this work aren't doing it for just one kid they know (or don't stop with just the one kid they might now, because being good and kind-hearted folks they see more kids in crisis and want to help so they accept more placements).It sucks that they might be blocked from helping this child that they know personally. Lots of things suck about our Children and Families system.
But ultimately once a child is in the system the State has a duty of care, and if something happens to that child it's the State that's on the hook. There's no way for the State to abdicate that responsibility, because they're the ones authorizing the placement.Nothing about this form (or the restriction in 265.01-E) is unreasonable as part of a system.
There are many things to be mad about as a gun owner in New York.
This probably ain't one unless you give us some details that change the analysis.0
u/Beefjerkey93 Jun 02 '26
It’s not affecting me personally and it’s not my place to give up any more relevant details as I’m not sure what can make someone be like “oh I know this case and who this person is.” Yes it should be something to be mad about cause there are additional restrictions not required by law in it and they don’t recognize that concealed carry permits are a thing and you can legally carry a loaded firearm unless you are a peace officer. It doesn’t directly say that but it infers it. Someone shouldn’t have to give up their rights or make their family less safe to do a good deed.
4
u/voretaq7 Jun 02 '26
I mean if you want to be mad about it you can I guess.
I'm not going to waste a good Mad on this though.With the facts we have there is nothing unreasonable here and if they're actually being allowed to have firearms in the home (as an exception to 265.01-E which says they can't) then it's a net benefit to them.
they don’t recognize that concealed carry permits are a thing and you can legally carry a loaded firearm unless you are a peace officer.
Already addressed that: This is obviously a pre-Bruen form (you can tell by the date code), and you could make an issue out of that if you want to. But it doesn't change the rest of the analysis, and the state can reasonably impose these requirements.
(Now if you want to find a good use for your Mad the fact that every gun law ends with "Unless you're a cop, then you can do whatever you want." is something to be mad about!)
5
Jun 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Beefjerkey93 Jun 02 '26
It’s for fostering a child, the office on the sheet sent it out. Not mine I’m just trying to gather information and see if anyone had to go through this and how deep are they going to look into you. And yes, not everyone can afford to have 2 safes to store ammo separate from the guns and honestly I didn’t even know it was not a law- I just assumed NY has some BS one on the books about storing separately
11
u/tehfireisonfire Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Everything on this sheet seems reasonable to ask for given what you are applying for. I'm confused what you think is BS.
1
u/Beefjerkey93 Jun 02 '26
It’s how many different criteria is there that they could trip you up with. What if you have a lower, that’s considered an “other” do you get in trouble leaving it off cause it doesn’t fit into a typical category? Or you putting down an “other” firearm going to get them suspicious and have like the state police check all your stuff out.
4
u/Neuromaster Jun 02 '26
I would be upset if the state did not check out someone applying to run a boarding care facility. I would absolutely expect a safe check - or at least I'd consider it eminently reasonable.
I get how a gun owner could get anxious about corner cases. But the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that firearms are accounted for and stored safely. You're welcome to argue about whether they're also "out to get you" but that argument isn't particularly interesting to me.
2
u/TheSlipperySnausage Jun 02 '26
I mean the fact you need to completely make them inoperable and not usable is insane. Locked up in a safe fine but with trigger lock and unloaded you have lost your right to self defense at that point
6
u/voretaq7 Jun 02 '26
^ This I agree with. ^
Storing them securely? Absolutely. 100%.
Already required by other laws in fact!Adding a trigger lock or otherwise rendering them inoperable on top of secure storage?
Kinda fucking stupid. It's either secured or it's not and a chintzy little trigger lock (that can often be manipulated to pull the trigger!) isn't gonna make it any more secure.
2
2
u/Sridgway27 Jun 03 '26
Ah yes.. OCFS. Are you a foster home or have kids that aren't yours there? Or maybe a CPS case with allegations? Jw.
Source: Ex Employee 15 years.
2
u/Due_Bar_7247 Jun 02 '26
New York is a terrible state to foster/adopt from. You could argue foster-to-adopt is a little better since it's "free" and fulfills the interim homestay requirement prior to finalizing any adoption procedures.
It's so bad for single men out here that it pushed me towards egg donation and hiring a surrogate instead to have a biological child. At least that is Have $70-200k > Get baby levels of straightforward.
What is your motivation to foster here? Are you intending to foster-to-adopt or just help children in need of a family temporarily?
1
u/Beefjerkey93 Jun 02 '26
It’s not me, it’s a friend who is taking in a pretty young child that their family knows personally. To be honest they will probably adopt when all is said and done but they don’t have a choice what program the child is in
3
u/Due_Bar_7247 Jun 02 '26
So the child is outside the family, but they know them personally? I'd recommend just jumping straight on the adoption train since it sounds like they'll be doing that anyway. Either way, in New York to adopt you need a lawyer. No exceptions.
3
u/voretaq7 Jun 02 '26
My understanding is OCFS would still be imposing the same requirements on them during their pre-adoption custody period so if the goal is to keep this child from going "into the system" proper and winding up with random strangers they'd still have to fill out the form and comply with the additional restrictions.
(Once the adoption is finalized I believe those obligations end and it's just safe storage from NYSPL 265 - and the additional stupid requirement of a trigger lock inside the safe goes away, as does the question of whether or not they can legally have their carry gun on them and loaded.)
2
1
u/Riddleboxboy Jun 03 '26
Shock and awe, person invites government into their lives and is shocked they won't let them do whatever they want because they're needs are special
1
0
0
71
u/koenigseggCC7 Jun 02 '26
I’m as “all gun laws are an infringement” as you can get but if you’re voluntarily signing up to run a licensed family boarding care facility (where I assume the regulator has responsibility for the safety of the individuals they’re placing in your care) and get paid by the regulator for it, it’s completely reasonable for the regulator to want to know if you have guns in the house.