Judge tells man to choose between 2A and grandson

[Grand58742]

SIAP. But, damn. A judge saying this without ruling the so called law illegal? And stating outright they know they are violating his Constitutional Rights?

https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/...dge-marine-2a/

On Monday, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit against Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) for impeding on foster and adoptive parents’ Second Amendment rights.

SAF filed the lawsuit on behalf of two couples: William and Jill Johnson and Brian and Naomi Mason.

The Johnsons were going to take custody of their grandson to keep him from going into foster care. When they went to pick up their grandson, William, a retired, disabled Marine with a Concealed Pistol License (CPL), was searched for a firearm. He was not carrying a firearm at the time. At that point, agency officials told the Johnsons that they would be required to provide all firearms’ serial numbers to the agency as part of a registry. When Johnson questioned agency workers, he was given a surprising response.

“If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights,” a MDHHS worker retorted.

When the Johnsons appeared before a Gogebic County Court judge, the judge reiterated the agency worker’s statement.

“We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home,” the judge said.

[Bulletdog]

These are the people who need to be hung from the nearest tree when the time comes.

This seems to be the way it is with the left now. Who cares if its right or legal? We can just do whatever we want and nobody can or will do anything about it.

[glocktogo]

They should all be stripped of their titles and authority, and be barred from ever holding positions of authority, ever. This kind of shit makes my blood boil!

[WillBrink]

I suspect there's more to that story but if it's accurate, would seem a slam dunk win the case. I thought Michigan one of the more pro 2A states too.

[SomeOtherGuy]

I suspect there's more to that story but if it's accurate, would seem a slam dunk win the case. I thought Michigan one of the more pro 2A states too.

This case is actually almost local to me. The area is mostly rural and small town, and on this sort of issue would be considered conservative (in broader politics it's a mix of rural Republicans and rural Democrats, meaning differing views on the economy and business but similar socially).

Michigan overall is a pretty good 2A state these days. It was pretty bad through the late 1990's but a range of good, persistent political activism has made huge changes for the better in the last 18 or so years. Not quite Idaho/Arizona on 2A issues but more like Indiana or the Dakotas.

That's Michigan overall. This case is in the extreme western UP, which is a little different, but again somewhat like the Dakotas - guns aren't a big issue because almost everyone has them and violent crime is very low. It's hard to estimate gun ownership rates but I would guess 80-90% of households in Ontonagon would have at least a hunting rifle or shotgun, with over 50% having collections of guns.

Due to this being local, I will say less of my opinion, but I will be very interested in the outcome of this case. The claims in the lawsuit are certainly troubling.

[TAZ]

The way the appeal is worded it will get tossed. The registry in no way violates the 2A or his ability to defend himself. Unless I missed something they are asking for serial #'s and not to hand over the guns or forfeit his permit. Not agreeing with the FUBAR liberal activism though. It may violate state or federal laws on database of serial numbers but I doubt it. If FOID cards and other state based registries haven't been overturned this will stay as well.

If the judge doesn't mind violating his oath, which is what his quote implies, then the old guy shouldn't mind lying to him.

[SomeOtherGuy]

The way the appeal is worded it will get tossed. The registry in no way violates the 2A or his ability to defend himself. Unless I missed something they are asking for serial #'s and not to hand over the guns or forfeit his permit. Not agreeing with the FUBAR liberal activism though. It may violate state or federal laws on database of serial numbers but I doubt it. If FOID cards and other state based registries haven't been overturned this will stay as well.

Did you read the actual complaint? Here's an important part of it, from page 2:

However, the policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
4. Plaintiffs seek to establish that the recognition and incorporation of the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, renders the State’s ban on the possession and bearing of firearms by foster and adoptive parents, and would-be foster and adoptive parents, unconstitutional. As the Plaintiffs only seek to be treated the same as other law-abiding Michigan residents, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments render a ban such as that challenged in this action, impermissible.

The article could have been better but I don't think this case is primarily about stating the serial #s of guns owned. It is claiming that MDHHS policies infringe on 2A rights that are held and exercisable by everyone else not falling under their requirements. I think they are saying that MDHHS requires the foster/adoptive parents to agree to strict locked storage requirements that don't otherwise exist under state law, and that those requirements prevent someone from being able to defend themselves by carrying a handgun or having (at home) a readily available, unlocked firearm.

[WillBrink]

Did you read the actual complaint? Here's an important part of it, from page 2:



The article could have been better but I don't think this case is primarily about stating the serial #s of guns owned. It is claiming that MDHHS policies infringe on 2A rights that are held and exercisable by everyone else not falling under their requirements. I think they are saying that MDHHS requires the foster/adoptive parents to agree to strict locked storage requirements that don't otherwise exist under state law, and that those requirements prevent someone from being able to defend themselves by carrying a handgun or having (at home) a readily available, unlocked firearm.

Proper storage of fire arms with children in the house is obviously a must, but far more children die from meds etc people leave lying around, yet I suspect there's no state law that required adoptive parents to demonstrate how they lock up their meds. I could be wrong of course. Hell, Iron tablets alone kill more kids than accidents with firearms.

[TAZ]

Did you read the actual complaint? Here's an important part of it, from page 2:



The article could have been better but I don't think this case is primarily about stating the serial #s of guns owned. It is claiming that MDHHS policies infringe on 2A rights that are held and exercisable by everyone else not falling under their requirements. I think they are saying that MDHHS requires the foster/adoptive parents to agree to strict locked storage requirements that don't otherwise exist under state law, and that those requirements prevent someone from being able to defend themselves by carrying a handgun or having (at home) a readily available, unlocked firearm.

Sorry. I read the article and not the full text of the complaint. Thanks for the clarification. Makes more sense now.

Hope the suit goes well and the judge is removed from office. If the quote in the article is a direct quote on the record he is knowingly violating his oath of office and should be immediately unemployed if not tossed in jail.

[26 Inf]

Proper storage of fire arms with children in the house is obviously a must, but far more children die from meds etc people leave lying around, yet I suspect there's no state law that required adoptive parents to demonstrate how they lock up their meds. I could be wrong of course. Hell, Iron tablets alone kill more kids than accidents with firearms.

We had our house inspected when we began foster care. Had a list of what to secure and how to IIRC. The home study for adoption was a little quicker since we'd already done foster care for several groups of kids and had been doing foster care for the girls we adopted, but they checked meds. I don't remember much fuss about guns beyond keep them secure, to be honest I don't recall if there were stipulations about taking foster kids shooting - we had a couple of boys that I thought would be with us until they were adults and I let them shoot BB guns in the garage under my supervision.