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

He can't say Fire in a theater or a gun range if he wants his grandson to live with him. And he was not "illegally searched". You get electronically searched every time you walk through a metal detector into a great many buildings, including the courthouse where his case will be heard. Set the alarm off, and you may get wanded and if the wand goes off and they brush it up against the spot and feel anything you may get the pat down search. Don't like it, don't go into the building.

 

Why would the grandson not be able to live with him if he had firearms.

 

so many falsehoods in that. he can yell fire in a theater if there is a fire. or if there is no one there. why are you so supportive of desecration of constitutional rights? Is it because you hate the politics of gun owners or you worship a fascist state? and you can say fire at a gun range in many circumstances. Of course that assumes you have actually spent time on gun ranges-like i have.

 

That is what he is alleging per the article that he was told by the caseworker and the judge. ask him.

 

because gun banners are often hateful individuals? the clowns that tried to impose that choice on him ought to be doing hard time in a nasty prison

 

I'm asking you for what you think the justification is.

You seem to agree with the decision, I'm just wondering why.

 

I am sure you are the king of gun ranges, and if you don't have to have a reason to have a firearm then I don't have to have to have a reason to oppose you having one. It is what it is

 

I have plenty of reasons, one of the most important is that there are people who think like you existing in our nation. we need to be armed to prevent your way of thinking from taking away our freedoms

 

Actually, owning a firearm is a protected right. You definitely need a reason to support infringing a right.

 

you have to really think about what he said. He hates rights He hates freedom He thinks if you cannot justify the exercise of a right, then he should oppose that right. that sort of attitude is why ever patriot needs to be both armed and well practiced in using said arms.

 

You didn't read the article either. The choice wasn't the guns or the kids. The choice was a silly, unnecessary, intrusive listing of his guns' serial numbers or the kids. Does anybody read the articles but me?

 

Again, you didn't read the article. The firearms weren't the problem. The MDHHS people wanted him to provide them with the serial numbers, etc. of the firearms. A totally useless gesture that was just intended to harass him.

 

What are you talking about? I read the article and the linked claim against the state. There was no mention of "son" in the case. The only mention was of the grandson.

 

The difference is that I have a right to own a firearm. You don't have a right to oppose it, other than your freedom of speech.

 

its the normal attitude of many gun banners. They hate our politics and want to punish us for not generally supporting their socialist views. Look at the HUGHES amendment , the only reason it was passed was out of spite by anti rights politicians who were mad a pro gun owner bill was going to pass

 

Anyone involved in public service has to take a legal oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. For a government entity to openly violate the Constitutional rights of an American citizen is a crime against the Constitution.

 

'
which is why such bureaucrats should be in prison.

 

They haven't violated the Constitution. There is no right to become the foster parent of your grandchild.

 

Actually I do have a right to oppose it, and I do.

 

I read it but thank you for opening the door. The man is either a liar and therefore shouldn't be trusted with the grandkid because he would lie about the guns too, or the law gives him a choice and he feels entitled to have his cake and eat it too. He will lose this battle if for no other reason than because he has already undermined his own credibility by telling the same lie about both a social worker and a judge.

 

The reason I asked that question was because I wanted to know why, in his opinion, it was something he agreed with.

 

No.

First of all, they have no right to ask if he owns firearms.

Would you feel the same way if they wanted to know if he was gay and how many sexual partners he had?

The law does not get to decide that someone who has guns cannot adopt a child. The law does not get to demand you give them a list of firearms with serial numbers.

That is a clear violation of the Constitution, and not only the 2A. The right to have an abortion, for example, is purely predicated on the right to privacy. In what way is this different?

If telling a lie makes one ineligible to raise a child....well....I think you can see the problem there. Incidentally, what do you think he was lying about? I'm not seeing a lie in the story.

 

He's being denied something based on a Constitutionally protected right.

That's "slap you in the face" level of obvious.

 

sure out of spite and hatred of those in the "gun culture". its like people who oppose abortion or gay rights because they are bigots and don't like anyone violating their sense of "propriety" when it comes to sexuality

this sort of nonsense you post is very educational to people in the middle. It shows your anti rights agenda is based on spite not any rational argument. It has been well established that most of the anti gun nonsense the left spews in terms of laws they dishonestly claim are designed to stop criminals when the laws they propose only impact honest people

criminals cannot possess any modern firearm. so bans on "assault weapons" 15 round magazines etc are only intended and expected to restrict what lawful gun owners can own. which of course is the real goal of people like you

 

My apologies to the other posters. I ignored the side conversation about the felon son, which, IMHO, is a very different issue than the OP. It's one thing to have to give up guns to allow a felon to live in your house. That, IMHO, is reasonable, and is because of the bad actions of the felon son. It's another thing to be treated as a criminal by the foster care system and give up reasonable privacy about your guns in order to satisfy a bureacrat to keep your grandchild.