Michigan Agency Told Grandfather He’d Have to Give Up Gun Rights to Foster His Grandson

Note: The title was shortened to fit within the ATS size limitations.

Caseworkers from MDHHS and a county judge told William Johnson of Ontonagon, Mich., that he had to choose between his Second Amendment rights and fostering his grandson, according to a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. 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.

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

So, when did the state's get the permission to infringe upon a citizens rights, using coercion and blackmail? Especially when it comes to the custody of blood relatives! This is way over the line of constitutional violations!

Would this apply to any of the other rights I wonder?
Could they prevent someone to take custody of a family member based upon their religion?
What about needing to sacrifice your right to free speech?

Michigan, what are you doing? How much government overreach are we as citizens going to allow?

Well ATS, your thoughts?

a reply to: Krakatoa

I imagine this will work it's way through the court system. The people responsible will have to answer under oath. Ahh the liberal agenda.

The state of Michigan is slowly going through the legislative process of allowing the populace to conceal carry a hand gun with no licensee.

Take em to court for a few million.

Aim the legal canons. Set phasers to sue!

This right here sounds like a case of "is stupid".

Hopefully the agency gets sued into oblivion.

a reply to: Krakatoa

This is insane.I could understand if a stipulation was to keep firearms secured from grandsons reach but this is going too far.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Sure!

And if he complains, the state can take away his 1st Amendment right.

Isn't this how leftists operate?

"if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights."

That right there- the person who said that belongs in prison. Denying a citizen constitutional rights is a crime, isn't it?

a reply to: ericendtimes

This is insane.I could understand if a stipulation was to keep firearms secured from grandsons reach but this is going too far.

Yes, yes. Let's let the govt tell people where to store firearms. How about the local sheriff's dept? Or a licensed storage area that has the proper safes and security for a monthly fee of course? Or how about mandatory safety checks?

That sounds like a terrible idea.

And on the same day Chicago?

Just saying as you Muricans tend to highlight how many people get shot per day per city etc...

Prove me wrong.

Warmest

Lags

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
And on the same day Chicago?

Just saying as you Muricans tend to highlight how many people get shot per day per city etc...

Prove me wrong.

Warmest

Lags

Yes, yes, well if you want to have custody of your grandson, you will just have to give up some of your rights ... like voting or what religion you want to practice or what kinds and amounts of food you want to eat or where you want to live or what kind of education you want him to receive or what time you wish to send him to bed ...

Because, we, the state know what's best, so we really only allow you to pay for the upkeep we determine is proper for the child to receive because we aren't actually responsible for that. You are, but we'll make sure to tell you just how much we feel it best to pay.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Criminals shooting each other? What does that have to do with a constitutional right being arbitrarily taken from a legal citizen?

Try again.

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
And on the same day Chicago?

Just saying as you Muricans tend to highlight how many people get shot per day per city etc...

Prove me wrong.

Warmest

Lags

That is immaterial to this topic. Nice attempt at deflection, but it will not work anymore.


Do you have any thoughts on the topic at hand?

originally posted by: lordcomac
"if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights."

That right there- the person who said that belongs in prison. Denying a citizen constitutional rights is a crime, isn't it?

Prison.....or a hole, either way it's amazing the complete lack of intelligence some people display.

I'm guessing this was some 50 year old single woman with a modicum of authority, pushing her "weight" around.

That "better than you" government mentality is slimy and oozes it's way all the way to the bottom of the barrel.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Taking guns away isn't going to solve the underlying cause of violence.

You need to fix that first. Otherwise people will find other ways of killing each other.

However let's get back on topic.

Im sure the aclu will be all over this civil rights violation....


Crickets.....

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
And on the same day Chicago?

Just saying as you Muricans tend to highlight how many people get shot per day per city etc...

Prove me wrong.

Warmest

Lags

You're confused, dude... but logical fallacies are like that.

This thread is about people who are law abiding.

Chicago is currently the most gun legislated city in the United States. If someone uses a gun to kill someone in Chicago... they were breaking the law before they pulled the trigger.

After the Heller decision was made by the SCOTUS restoring gun rights to residents of Washington DC, (which had the previous title as most gun restricted city in America) within 18 months the gun crimes rate in DC dropped by around 50%.

Scum bags hate it when legally armed folk can shoot back. Well, scumbags and politicians... and miscellaneous foreigners who are not CURRENTLY overrun by enemies or State sponsored jackbooted thugs.

a reply to: seasonal

I was suggesting some form of gun safe or locked room so grandson has no access. Would never store my firearms under someone else's care. Great point you brought up.

I live in Michigan, and this is how it works here. Our social agencies as well as a good fraction of lower court Judges are so backwards and out of touch with reality, it's surprising that any of them even have jobs, to be honest.

For example, some time back, CPS was called on a family as they had children in the home while also being part of the Michigan medical marijuana program. After the children were taken from the home, it was several court dates later and eventually having to be decided by the Michigan State Supreme Court, that the parents were obeying the law and could have their children returned to them.

In regards to firearms, we are also one of the very few states with a law on the books to keep trigger guards on pistols in the home. Never mind that this is in complete contradiction with a federal supreme court ruling that trigger guards are unconstitutional.....

Michigan has a tendency to completely disregard the law as they see fit, and worry about repercussions later.

a reply to: ericendtimes

I get it. And your point is a valid one. Keeping interested young boys from unsupervised guns is a must.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krakatoa

Sure!

And if he complains, the state can take away his 1st Amendment right.

Isn't this how leftists operate?

Pretty much what they did when they told him there wasn't "going to be a power struggle between them" and they'd just take his grandson away, isn't it?

When I got divorced, I dealt with the same kind of thinking by a social services worker. Not to this degree, but the seeds were absolutely there. Even in spite of my profession, and them knowing my profession. It was simply mind-blogging.