Foster Care Certification & Firearms

[Voice]

My wife and I are in the process of becoming certified foster caregivers, with the goal of adopting. It came up during class a few weeks ago that there are some rules regarding the storage of firearms, ammunition, and other projectile implements (such as bows & arrows). O.A.C. 5101:2-7-12 (F)

Specifically, paragraph F requires:

(F) A foster home shall comply with the following requirements regarding weapons:
(1) The following weapons kept on the grounds of or in a foster home shall be stored in an inoperative condition in a locked area inaccessible to children:
(a) Firearms.
(b) Air rifles.
(c) Hunting slingshots.
(d) Any other projectile weapon.

(2) All ammunition, arrows or projectiles for such weapons shall be stored in a separate locked space.

(3) Any foster caregiver who is also a law enforcement official and can document that their jurisdiction requires them to have ready and immediate access to their weapon shall be exempt from the requirements of this paragraph.

I have a few questions regarding this:
1) What, in practice, is the minimum required to meet the standard of: "stored in an inoperative condition in a locked area inaccessible to children"?
I currently have a quick-access lock box for my carry/home defense pistol (the upright biometric GunVault), which is securely bolted to the wall. I'm planning to get another small lockbox where I'll keep the loaded magazines which I'll attach to a nearby drawer. Will this pass muster?

2) What, in practice, is the minimum required to meet the standard of: "All ammunition, arrows or projectiles for such weapons shall be stored in a separate locked space"?
I currently keep most of my ammo stored in a safe with my 10/22, but have a separate locking cabinet nearby that I'm thinking will be sufficient.

3) How does this square with O.R.C. 9.68?

4) Is there any work being done to fix and/or clarify this?
I found an article talking about this, but it seemed more like a 'kept things from getting worse' sort of deal, rather than a 'helping things get better' one.


Finally, our class's teacher doesn't have a problem with firearms or CCW, but indicated it *can* be a sticking point, depending on who handles what parts of the certification process, so I have a favor to ask...
Would someone with more legal chops than I have be willing to try to get some more concrete answers on what is actually required? I want to be able to be prepared *before* the home study process begins. I'm cautious about asking questions myself, because, in a thread from 2012 or 2013 that I can't currently find again, someone else who posted here ran into issues, and (IIRC) was denied when they tried asking for clarification.
Note: We are in Warren County.

Thanks for any help that you folks can provide.

[JediSkipdogg]

As my last relationship was dating someone that certified foster homes we talked about this at one point.

1&2) That is up to the person doing the home inspection. This can vary greatly from one person to another or one county to another.

3) Since it's written in the OAC, I say that's state law.

4) Not that I'm aware of. This one may be tough to change.

The home inspectors is basically given a lot of power. It's their description how they want to interpret each of those.

[cashman966]

I think this is the thread you are thinking of

Foster Parenting and CCW


Here is another from earlier this year

Foster Care

[catfish86]

Interesting that it talks only about storage but one could argue that means it has to be stored, not carried. I understand that kids who are in foster are there for reasons all over the spectrum. Some are children of turds, some are turds that good parents couldn't handle and usually in between. It's hard to be raised in an outhouse and not get dirty.

There is a danger to them.

Some of them were removed from dangerous parents and the location of their foster home is kept from the parents. My sister-in-law has experienced quite a bit as a foster parent who has adopted three of them. I was just shooting with my nephew this weekend (one of the adoptees). No current fosters are in the home. She has had kids where siblings were killed in the home and about every other type of abuse and neglect you don't want to imagine. There are risks of violence from the parents and there are suicide risks with the kids. Hard to guess what the bigger risk is. IF it is legal, I would say responsibility states you carry you MUST be very conscious of controlled access to the firearms and control of any carry weapon.

I would tend to read the statute as a whole saying it must be stored unless you are a LEO with a boss that requires you carry at all times.

[SeanC]

I used to represent ODJFS while I was with the attorney general. Unfortunately, the posters above are correct: it comes down to your individual inspector. There is a process for reviewing the decision if you're denied, and you would have an opportunity to make a big issue over the whole thing if it becomes a problem. Practically speaking, you should be fine if you can show that there is any reasonable kind of safe for the weapon, and that here's a locked place to store the ammo.

I thought long and hard about 9.68. There may be some arguments to make that the rule is a violation, but it's a tough case. "State law" isn't defined in a way that means just the ORC. State agency regulations are arguably "state law," as are judicial opinions. Since this regulation has uniform application throughout the state, I'd suggest that it's not in violation of 9.68. Could go either way.

Note: We are in Warren County.

You'll be fine. We love guns in Warren County!

[Werz]

I thought long and hard about 9.68. There may be some arguments to make that the rule is a violation, but it's a tough case. "State law" isn't defined in a way that means just the ORC. State agency regulations are arguably "state law," as are judicial opinions.

But how far does one go down that slippery slope? In OFCC's current lawsuit against The Ohio State University, OSU has argued that the OAC is "state law," and thus, because their Code of Student Conduct is promulgated by the Board of Tustees pursuant to an enabling statute (R.C. 3345.21) - just like the administrative rules in the OAC - the Code of Student Conduct is also "state law." Then what about local court rules? No, I'm not talking about Ohio Supreme Court procedural rules which grant veto power to the Ohio General Assembly. I'm talking about a local court rule which purports to comply with R.C. 2923.123(E), but does not, because it carves out specific exceptions to the "prohibits all persons" provision of that subsection. Obviously, the non-compliance of such a rule precludes criminal prosecution of persons exempted under 2923.123(C), but would it not also preclude a contempt-of-court action based upon such a rule, since the rule does not conform to state statute, and thus, violates R.C. 9.68? Or does that rule become "state law" simply because R.C. 1901.14(A)(3) allows the judges to promulgate local rules?

Where does it all end?

[Voice]

Ok, let me see if I'm understanding the consensus here;
1&2) My plans, regarding the storing the ammo in a separate (locking) cabinet should be sufficient, but it may come down to the individual doing the inspection. But it shouldn't be a problem in Warren county?

3) It *could* be considered a conflict with ORC 9.68, but it's not a slam-dunk argument.

4) No known movement regarding improving/clarifying this particular piece of the OAC.

If I'm understanding correctly, I'm feeling a bit better, though I can't say I'm a fan of '"t's up to the whims of an arbitrary person". (The reassuring comment about Warren county helps with that though.)

P.S.: That was the thread, cashman.

[JediSkipdogg]

I thought long and hard about 9.68. There may be some arguments to make that the rule is a violation, but it's a tough case. "State law" isn't defined in a way that means just the ORC. State agency regulations are arguably "state law," as are judicial opinions.

But how far does one go down that slippery slope? In OFCC's current lawsuit against The Ohio State University, OSU has argued that the OAC is "state law," and thus, because their Code of Student Conduct is promulgated by the Board of Tustees pursuant to an enabling statute (R.C. 3345.21) - just like the administrative rules in the OAC - the Code of Student Conduct is also "state law." Then what about local court rules? No, I'm not talking about Ohio Supreme Court procedural rules which grant veto power to the Ohio General Assembly. I'm talking about a local court rule which purports to comply with R.C. 2923.123(E), but does not, because it carves out specific exceptions to the "prohibits all persons" provision of that subsection. Obviously, the non-compliance of such a rule precludes criminal prosecution of persons exempted under 2923.123(C), but would it not also preclude a contempt-of-court action based upon such a rule, since the rule does not conform to state statute, and thus, violates R.C. 9.68? Or does that rule become "state law" simply because R.C. 1901.14(A)(3) allows the judges to promulgate local rules?

Where does it all end?

Not to get too far off topic, but my opinion is that if it's written in the ORC or OAC, it's state law. If state law references a document that someone can change at will not through a state legislative process, then it's not state law.

Ok, let me see if I'm understanding the consensus here;
1&2) My plans, regarding the storing the ammo in a separate (locking) cabinet should be sufficient, but it may come down to the individual doing the inspection. But it shouldn't be a problem in Warren county?

3) It *could* be considered a conflict with ORC 9.68, but it's not a slam-dunk argument.

4) No known movement regarding improving/clarifying this particular piece of the OAC.

If I'm understanding correctly, I'm feeling a bit better, though I can't say I'm a fan of '"t's up to the whims of an arbitrary person". (The reassuring comment about Warren county helps with that though.)

P.S.: That was the thread, cashman.

Trust me, my ex that I dated told me they use to have counties call them after a set amount of time and try again with their country. It's interesting that you don't have to apply with the county you live in, yet the county you get the children from has to "supervise" those Children. Essentially, if you got approved by Cuyahoga County (they could deny based on the distance) they would have to make the drive down to do the interview and then home checks. IMO, a crazy process, and not one I agree with, but some counties are more desperate than others.

[catfish86]

Yes but the local cities and counties are created by state law yet their ordinances are local laws. The Ohio State University is more like a locality than a statewide entity, promulgating rules like cities have ordinances. The gun rules in this instance are embedded in the OAC itself and thus are part of that body of statewide law. 9.68 acts to restrict any attempt to use state granted authority for local purposes to confuse gun laws by enacting different requirements. To the extent that campus carry is forbidden directly in the Ohio Revised Code or arguably Ohio Administrative Code, it is state law.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

OAC is not state law.

The content of the OAC is created by the various departments and divisions of the state.

These codes are NOT created by the OGA and are NOT law.

[JediSkipdogg]

OAC is not state law.

The content of the OAC is created by the various departments and divisions of the state.

These codes are NOT created by the OGA and are NOT law.

I thought the OAC was created by legislative? Never realized that it was just a compiling of regulations.

[djthomas]

I thought the OAC was created by legislative? Never realized that it was just a compiling of regulations.

It is created by the executive (agencies), but subject to disapproval by the legislature.

[Werz]

OAC is not state law.

The content of the OAC is created by the various departments and divisions of the state.

These codes are NOT created by the OGA and are NOT law.

I thought the OAC was created by legislative? Never realized that it was just a compiling of regulations.

I assumed you knew that. Now does my post make more sense?

[SeanC]

OAC is not state law.

The content of the OAC is created by the various departments and divisions of the state.

These codes are NOT created by the OGA and are NOT law.

The OAC are regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. The trick is, an agency can only promulgate regulations if it has a statutory authorization from the general assembly. So it's kind of like the legislature saying "this is your area, handle it." I think there's a very clear argument to be made that an administrative rule is a "state law" because it's the result of the general assembly giving--some would say delegating--authority to legislate in a particular area.

I didn't have the opportunity to work with OFCC on the OSU lawsuit. When it was being developed I was working for the attorney general and, had I not left the office shortly after the suit was filed, I probably would have been working on the defense team. Since I'm in the middle of this one, I'll keep my opinions to myself.

[dsk]

An administrative regulation issued pursuant to statutory authority has the force and effect of law. State ex rel. Mansfield v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St. 3d 16; State ex rel. Cuyahoga Cty. Hosp. v. Bur. of Workers' Comp. (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 25, 28, 27 OBR 442, 500 N.E.2d 1370.

The Supreme Court recently observed that: "'administrative regulations issued pursuant to statutory authority have the force and effect of law * * * .'" See Leyden Co. v. Tracy (1996), 76 Ohio St. 3d 66, 69, quoting from State ex. rel. Cuyahoga County Hospital v. Bureau of Workman's Compensation (1986), 27 Ohio St. 3d 25, 28. On the other hand, the Supreme Court also held: "'administrative agencies are bound by their own rules until those rules are duly changed.'" Leyden Co. v. Tracy, supra, at 69.