Friday January 21, 2022
SNc Channels:



Jul-19-2007 13:41printcomments

Krummel Compels DHS To Retract Foster Parent Gun Policy

New temporary rules without restrictions on guns were released July 13th.

38 Special gun
Krummel reversed a recent DHS rule that restricted gun ownership for foster parents

(SALEM, Ore.) - State Representative Jerry Krummel (R-Wilsonville) has brought forth a new policy adopted this past spring that will protect a foster parent's right to own and maintain guns.

"The Department of Human Services (DHS) infringed on Oregon foster parents’ lawful exercise of their Second Amendment Rights," he said.

"I didn’t appreciate the agency overstepping its authority, especially when it comes to such an important constitutional right." Krummel challenged the policy and it was recently retracted by DHS.

Two Wilsonville foster parents, both with Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL), told Krummel about a change in agency policy which required foster families to store all firearms unloaded, and ammunition in a locked container, in separate locations inaccessible to children.

These parents cared for a total of eight foster children over the past two years and are now being recertified by the state. If the policy had not been rescinded they would’ve lost their certification and the two foster kids currently in their home. New temporary rules without restrictions on guns were released July 13th.*

"Foster parents in Oregon sacrifice tremendously for the good of the children they care for. They should not have to sacrifice their rights," said Kevin Starrett, Executive Director of Oregon Firearms Federation.

"Before Representative Krummel and his staff stepped up, foster parents were denied their rights, not only to recreational shooting sports, but to the very means to defend the children they are expected to keep safe."

Under state law (Oregon Revised Statute 166.170) only the State Legislature can restrict "the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms".

Krummel obtained a legal opinion from Legislative Counsel which read: "Therefore, the provisions of ORS 166.170 limit the power of the department to enact any rules regulating firearms, unless otherwise expressly authorized by state statute."

The Attorney General’s Office agreed issuing its own ruling stating, "DHS cannot as a condition of receiving a foster care certificate of approval require the foster parent to permit or prohibit access to firearms or ammunition."

Another couple, Aaron and Talia Heath from Canby, also CHL holders, wrote Krummel saying they struggled with the new DHS policy, "because it is in our hearts to care for children and the thought of giving that up was heartbreaking.

Ultimately, we decided it was just as important to fight for the constitutional rights of kids as it was to provide for their physical/emotional needs. It didn't seem right to care for a child who has been abused and then stand by and let their right to protect themselves be taken away."

The Heath’s lost their certification to be a foster family, but may reapply someday.

Don Darland, President of the Oregon Foster Parents Association, explained, "I personally feel this policy change will not effect how our Oregon foster parents operate their homes to keep the children safe. I feel we have some smart folks who are probably more concerned about the kitchen knives than their firearms".

There are 5,300 foster homes in Oregon and on average around 7,700 children in foster care. Darland hopes this policy debate will encourage more discussion about safety issues around the house in general. At Representative Krummel’s suggestion, DHS is forming a work group to look at recommendations for the 2009 Legislative Session.

DHS estimates 60% of the children placed with foster families come from homes where there is drug, alcohol, and/or physical abuse. In many cases there is also criminal activity.

"No one should have to choose between their love for kids and their desire to make sure they are always protected," added Starrett." It makes no sense to ask foster parents to assume this great responsibility and then treat them like they are irresponsible."

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

John Thayer July 19, 2007 11:37 pm (Pacific time)

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California? Emotion in Reading The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's restate the 2nd in another context: A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate. There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state. Gary Possert, Lancaster, CA The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

[Return to Top]
©2022 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

Articles for July 18, 2007 | Articles for July 19, 2007 | Articles for July 20, 2007
Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

Donate to and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.

Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin