I’ve barely been posting much lately because of our latest “DYF entanglement.” While I am not under any gag order (which is usually the case with such Family Court business as DCYF cases), much of our time (TMEW and I) has been spent either taking care of our granddaughter or doing a lot to fulfill upgrades to our home.
Sidenote: I found some WONDERFUL contractors, FMS Landscape, Honey Bee Electric, and No Limits Metalwork, that responded quickly based on tight DCYF mandated upgrades. Given the ghosting I’ve had from others, once they heard about our DCYF entanglement, they were very responsive and got the jobs done right and quickly.
Taking care of the paperwork, having arguments with DCYF over that paperwork and what information I’d be willing to provide (Article 2-B, baby!), and the major hassles in finding the CWEP classes that we have to take. A lot of time, energy, and time away from blogging. Oh yeah, and shuffling the Grandson and Granddaughter to two sets of summer school on two different schedules three times a week.
Speaking of “arguments over that paperwork,” I ended up having a DOOZY of one. Actually, several pieces of information they wanted us to do, and I rebelled. Cantankerous, if truth be told. Absolute refusal in a couple of them (as in, “Why should I have to do a credit report on my dime and time simply to give it to you? Pull it yourselves”.)
And a financial statement.
In a roundabout way, it was leaked to me that my old entanglements, going back from before dealing with them over the Grandson, was still in their computer system, Bridges; look it up. Want pictures? When you come out, take them yourself.
I have grown tired of the busy work simply, in my humble opinion, DCYF has had such high-profile cases (like Harmony Montgomery), it’s asking WAY more than in the past. Sorry, I’ve successfully navigated three previous times, I’m not going to do anything stupid – but don’t push me.
Well, they didn’t get the message. And they did. Here’s a copy of the form that was sent to me to fill out. See anything wrong with it? I did – right off the bat.
DCYF Form 1723 Insurance & Safety VerificationIf you missed it, here’s where it went sideways – the “Safety Information” top of this abstracted image:
Yep, the part about firearms.
So the Post Title says a “stealth gun registry,” and if you look at the PDF, it has the family name and address text fields in it. If someone checks NO but DCYF finds out later that someone does, that can land them in legal trouble later. If someone says YES, there’s a Gun Registry record. Sure, to be sure, it would be incomplete in that they don’t ask for, nor is room provided for, the number of guns, types of guns, and calibers of guns. It also doesn’t ask about ammo, either.
But do they need more? There have been rumors for years that new or renewed NH Pistol Revolver licenses have a habit of remaining around for years – and in different localities. And I’m quite sure that any such information will stick around in DCYF’s BRIDGES info system:
Another Sidenote: Note to self – how far back and how much? That would be an interesting experiment, wouldn’t it?
So I refused to give it. After a long discussion, I told the specialist that I already had a Right To Know ready, and that all I had to do was hit SEND. A compromise was reached in that I could blank out that section and submit it. A temporary waiver is in place now until the RTK gets a response. Its payload:
Given that NH is a Dillon’s Rule State, Executive Branch agencies and other subdivisions of the State are strictly restricted to actions specifically enumerated in bills crafted by the NH Legislature. Thus, pursuant to the NH’s Right to Know Law (RSA 91-A:4 (I) ), I am demanding access, within five business days, to the below enumerated governmental records:
- Pertaining to Form 1723 and DCYF] Rule He-C6446.09:
- Provide the NH RSA and the relevant clause(s) that allow DCYF to create its own “unofficial” gun registry contra:
- US Constitution, Second Amendment (re: “infringe”)
- Federal Laws: (National Firearm Act 1934, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
- NH Constitution, Article 2-a
Which, I can tell you after talking with Grokster (and lawyer and active Second Amendment defender) Norm last night, as I was traveling to a meeting, they will have a hard time justifying. Norm sent this to me this morning (emphasis mine):
Attached is a copy of RSA 650-C:1. Highlighting by me.
Note that is absolutely nothing in that statue that requires or even suggests that your ammunition must be kept separate from the firearm.
My interpretation is that the DCYF can ask whether you have guns in the home and you can answer that you do and that “they are kept locked up without any access by any minor who may be on the premises, all in accordance with RSA 650-C:1.”
I might also add that “in accordance with the provisions of RSA 650-C:1, the location and status of any ammunition is a private matter and is irrelevant and immaterial and should not require an answer to comply with your duties.”
And I read the RSA 650-C (emphasis mine):
650-C:1 Negligent Storage of Firearms. –
I. Nothing in this section shall be construed to reduce or limit any existing right to purchase and own firearms or ammunition,
or both, or to provide authority to any state or local agency to infringe upon the privacy of any family, home or business except by lawful warrant.
I’m not a lawyer, but I can lean on Norm that this is a “No means NO!” bit. DCYF is an agency in terms of the law. It is a STATE agency. RSA 650-C, on my reading, seems to be a wall fencing DCYF from interfering with us (just as the Constitution is supposed to wall off and constrain the Government from meddling with us). Thus, this will be interesting in their response.
After all, Article 2-b, right?
