1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

IL- Guns not an edangerment to Children....

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Autolycus, Dec 26, 2006.

  1. Autolycus

    Autolycus Well-Known Member

    I am still interested to see how this case plays out. Next time an anti from the Cook County area says it endangers the children perhaps we could point out that in the next county over the children are not endangered.
  2. iamkris

    iamkris Well-Known Member

    Frankly, it's disgusting that the subject even has to be mentioned. The article assumes that the guns are an endangerment and apparently it takes some DCFS stiff to tell us peons that they aren't.
  3. Hmmm..."(M)andated reporters"... I guess that is the same as mandating that FFLs do the job of law enforcement without the pay, without taking the oath to the Constitution, without the backing of government to pay their legal bills, without the immunity from criminal charges if they misque... Yes, unconstitutional duties(powers) forced upon someone not elected or appointed and confirmed as part of the government.

    Does anyone else not see the wrong in all of this?


    How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood
  4. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Well-Known Member

    The SWAT team raided his house because he had some weed and some guns??? ***?????

    Was he running around with a joint and pointing guns at people??
  5. highlander 5

    highlander 5 Well-Known Member

    I have little sympathy for Mr. Johnson if previous reports are true but this last one sounds like a fishing expedition to me
  6. jnojr

    jnojr Well-Known Member

    The title of this thread is extremely misleading.

    They've determined that guns owned by one of "the elite" aren't a "threat to children". If this wasn't a famous, wealthy football player (or cop or politician or campaign contributor), they'd toss every book they had at him.

    And the next time someone else is arrested for "child endangerment" for having guns around, if they point at this case, these officials will be coughing up all sorts of doublespeak about how the situation isn't the same, they've examined every facet of both cases and they aren't comparable, etc. Nearly any judge will buy off on that and go ahead and convict the average citizen while heartily approving of a small fine and meaningless "community service" for the transgressions of the elite.
  7. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Being a mandated reporter does not obligate me to do the job of law enforcement. As a mandated reporter, I have to call DCFS' abuse hotline if I have reason to believe a child is being abused--by anyone. Basically, it takes away my liability--I HAD to report that Johnny had cigarette burns on his arms, so I can't be held liable when it turns out that the parent has an innocent explanation ("He had got into them cigarettes even though I done TOLD him that he could not have no cigarettes because they bad for him but I guess he knew better and then he burned himself.")

    All I do is make a phone call. And frankly, it's a reasonable obligation given the nature of my job.
  8. Which is it, Don? First, you say you are not obligated, then you say you have to call DCFS's hot line. Sounds like being required by law to report something is an obligation by law. Am I correct that you can be punished if you don't?

    I would feel personally obligated to report such activity myself, mind you, but I object to being required to do so by the law. When you are required to report the suspect activity of someone else, that is law enforcement activity.


    As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

    "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

    We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.
  9. jnojr

    jnojr Well-Known Member

    He's obligated to report, not investigate.
  10. Doesn't matter. He is still required by law to report suspected cases of abuse and can be charged with a crime if he doesn't. He is charged with reporting cases of suspected abuse by other people. Those other people break the law with their abuse. He is charged with checking out each child who comes in with an injury and must determine if the apparent injury would come under suspicion of abuse. That IS investigation. There is no difference between this investigation by a non sworn and non compensated officer than the investigation into the background of a firearms purchaser by an FFL - who also is being required to enforce law as a non sworn and non compensated officer. They are both performing the duties of a law enforcement officer. One investigating child abuse, the other investigating the background of an individual and charged with enforcing the law prohibiting the possession of a firearm by a felon. These are undeniably law enforcement duties.


    God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood
  11. No, it is now standard operating procedure to bust down your door with a SWAT team if you've ever been known to own a firearm, regardless of the offense you are being arrested for. Could be aggravated Jay Walking, SWAT must respond. Gee, you don't keep up with the times, do you?
  12. Librarian

    Librarian Well-Known Member

    I'll deny it. Coming also from a health care background, the reporting is much the same as dialing 911. There is some likelihood that the health care worker's report might be better supported than John Q. Public's report, but not necessarily.

    Law enforcement functions would be to review the evidence, to decide if further investigation is required, to investigate, to evaluate the results and determine if a charge should be filed.

    One might classify reporting problems/crimes as our part in the social contract, but it seems to be distinct from law enforcement duties. For health care workers, legislatures seem to be imposing a duty beyond the 'social contract'. (California has reporting requirements for children and elders and spouses.)

    That being said, I see a lot of reports on the web and other places indicating that charges of abuse are sometimes extremely poorly handled by 'the authorities', primarily the aspect of 'there was a report, the person must be guilty of something'. I won't speculate on the cause of that treatment.
  13. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Wow, Woody, you caught me.
    I'm actually a state-level law enforcement officer posing as a school teacher. Our operation is known as "21 Bump Street."

    No, seriously, all this is simply part of my job description. I act in loco parentis, so I have most of the same obligations as a parent. I'm responsible for the kids in my charge, so I'm responsible for reporting it when I see evidence that someone is abusing one of them. I don't consider a phone call to DCFS an investigation. YMMV.
  14. You're Saying It Yourself!

    And just how would you classify that imposed "duty"? If it isn't to review the evidence, to investigate, to evaluate the results, and then decide whether to report on a suspected violation of laws against child abuse, what is it then? Doesn't matter how you label it, you're enforcing law. You're forced - bound by law - to report on suspected violations of child abuse laws, same as any sworn officer of the law would be. You may not be charged with the duty to restrain such criminals, but don't count your blessings yet.

    This crap isn't too far off from requiring your neighbors - maybe even your own kids - to report on any "undesirable" or maybe "subversive" activities you might be engaged in, like do you go to the gun range too often? Does the local Wal-Mart manager think you're buying too much ammo? Why do you have a Gillie suit? Many a despotic tyrannical government got its start this way....

    Open your eyes and see how your representatives have passed the buck, dodged the responsibility, and made YOU responsible for the bad behavior of the criminals in our midst. "What, you didn't turn that bad guy in? Shame on you! You're in deep doo-doo, pal! For violating Title "Whatever", Chapter "Such and Such", Article "Gotcha", you're going to stand trial!" Meanwhile, the perp gets a slap on the wrist and a secret pat on the back for bagging an otherwise law abiding citizen "Trouble Maker".

    Sound convoluted? Read a little history.


    "Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond
  15. Are you in the employ of the state?(City, Town, County, Feds...) If you are, that's a different situation all together. As for the investigation aspects of this, if you look at a kid and see a bruise that shouldn't be there, you've already begun an investigation. Calling DCFS is reporting on what you have observed - the results of your "investigation".


    How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood
  16. Librarian

    Librarian Well-Known Member

    As I said, 'social contract', what a Good Citizen does when he witnesses a crime or probable crime - he gets the Proper Authorities involved. They do the Law Enforcement thing.

    Clearly we disagree on what law enforcement does.
  17. I'm talking about when such a 'Social Contract' is not up to good conscience, but is instead mandated by law to be "exercised" by a select few. That is when it becomes law enforcement. You wrote: " For health care workers, legislatures seem to be imposing a duty beyond the 'social contract'." It is that legislatively imposed duty I'm talking about.


    Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
  18. Librarian

    Librarian Well-Known Member

    If you'll pardon the diversion, and sticking to just child abuse here ...

    California no doubt has gone overboard with this, but our 'select few' is defined in law as
    It's not everybody, so it is 'select'.

    So. to whom does the report go?
    The agencies - police or sheriff's departments - are 'law enforcement'; most mandated reporters are not.

    And if the report is not made?
    I don't agree that the state imposing a condition like this on the categories of 'mandated reporters' makes them/us/me part of law enforcement, or that examining in the normal course of duties and reporting suspected abuse is law enforcement activity. YMMV.
  19. romma

    romma Well-Known Member

    I am a foster parent. Also mandated to report abuse.
  20. You are indeed enforcing anit-child-abuse laws, my friend. I'm quite sure it is illegal to abuse or neglect a child in California and if you are one of the 'mandated reporters', you have a hand in enforcing those anti-abuse laws. When employees of photo developing/printing companies (11165.7.(a)-29) are lumped in with law enforcement personnell(11166.7.(a)- 19, and -34) and given the same duties, I'd say that pertty much cements the deal.

    'Course, you do have your own opinion about this, and I can most certainly accept your right to believe that if you are a mandated reporter, you don't consider yourself to have a hand in enforcing the law. I can, therefore, agree to disagree.


    We the People retain our weapons to the end of securing our rights and freedom for when governments fail or ignore or endeavor to usurp or delete those rights and freedoms. B.E.Wood

Share This Page