We dont live in a sane world.
The law requires that every report of child abuse be investigated.
It is reasonable to bring the police considering that it there were firearms on the premises. It was not reasonable to try and force the issue of seeing the firearms.
"Child abuse?" What "child abuse?" There was no "child abuse" reported, and a report of something that is not "child abuse" is not required to be investigated.
The photo of a smiling boy, holding his legally-owned weapon, hardly indicates any kind of abuse. The photo alone should have made that clear. ... In a sane world.
Can we all agree that a report of the existence of a picture of a smiling child holding a rifle is NOT a "report of child abuse"?