Lawsuit Alleges Michigan Agency Told Grandfather He’d Have to Give Up Gun Rights to Foster His Grand

'The 54-year-old Johnson is a retired, disabled Marine with a Michigan Concealed Pistol License. He and his wife were asked by the state of Michigan to foster their grandson. According to Johnson's suit, however, the issues began as soon as he arrived at MDHHS to pick up the child.

Johnson said he was searched for a firearm and, although he was not carrying a gun, officials demanded to see his concealed carry license. He was then told he would need to give MDHHS the serial numbers of all of his firearms, including rifles and shotguns, and register them with the agency. After questioning why he would have to register his firearms in order to foster his grandson, Johnson said he was told by one caseworker, "if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights." When he objected, he was told there would not be a "power struggle" and MDHHS "would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home" if he didn't comply with their requests.'

back door gun control via emotional blackmail.This has occurred in several states now.




Source: http://freebeacon.com/issues/lawsui...ndfather-hed-give-gun-rights-foster-grandson/

 

This is an outrage!

 

This is when you need it the most.

 

the bureaucrats who did this should be sentenced to hard labor in prison. that sort of attitude and action should be a first degree felony.

 

Not enough details given in the article.

How old is the grandson? Does he have a history of violence?

A good friend of mine had to give up his firearms to allow his felon son to move in with him.

 

he should have fought that. I believe there are cases which say someone doesn't lose their constitutional rights based on who is residing with them.

 

It was either he moved the guns put of the house, or his son wasn't moving in.

 

my guess is, the onus was on son as a felon,he could go to jail

 

As I said, his son wasn't allowed to live there with firearms in the house. There was a choice between storing the firearms at his brothers house, or his son was going to a halfway house.

 

The anti-gun left is working on a way to apply this to every facet of our lives.

 

Not really, it was either he registered the guns with MDHHS or the grandson wasn't moving in. Does anybody actually read the source article anymore?

I do agree this was an overstep by the MDHHS, but they weren't saying he couldn't have guns, just that he would have to give them all the serial numbers, etc. of his guns.

 

Where are y'all getting information about a son? The article doesn't mention a son.

 

I'm assuming you just skipped to that comment without reading any of the preceding conversation.

I forgive you

 

So, decisions have consequences. The guns or the kid. The choice is his.

 

please see my dialog with jimmy

 

good of you to acknowledge it wasn't a safety issue...just an opportunity to register and gather information without legal basis

 

There was nothing relevant in it.

Anyway, where did the whole "son" thing come up? I have read the article and the lawsuit brief linked in the article, and there was no mention of a son, just a grandson.

I'm a pro-gun rights person, I feel this is a major overreach (requiring he register his guns with MDHHS), but I don't like it when new facts (that are made up) are added to a story. It doesn't help our argument if we make things up, like the fictitious son. Now, if there is a reference that mentions the son, tell us, but it wasn't in the article in the OP.

 

Yes, your authoritarian, anti-constitutional opinions are already documented.

 

which they have no proper reason to ask for--the people who did this need to be in Jail. we need to start making it a felony offense to knowingly violate the constitutional rights of citizens.

 

that's a specious argument that has no merit. it violates the constitution and those who tried to force this choice on the man need to be held in contempt of the constitution and sent to jail for at least 5 years.

 

You wouldn't know if there was anything relevant since you didn't read any of it.

 

Which section of the CFR makes "Contempt of Constitution" a crime?

 

intelligent readers know that I was suggesting that should be the law. CFR isn't federal statutes but rather regulations. nice try but it didn't work. In an ideal world, politicians who try to violate the second amendment would be disbarred from public office and shunned by the citizenry.

 

There was nothing relevant in it.??...try again...we knew what we were talking about, you still haven't caught up

 

The part where the government is infringing on the Bill of Rights.

Would you accept taking away his 1st amendment rights for the same reason?

He was already illegally searched so why not.