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

a reply to: Krakatoa

its just a bully tactic. If the report is accurate they have no ground to stand on.

Problem is now this guy is a target and will probably be investigated by all sorts of people wether he knows it or not..... legal or not.

this is the conundrum we all get in with this stuff.

originally posted by: agenda51
these type of events are the reason things like WACO happen.

Actually braindead idiots in government positions making decisions based on saving the world from itself are the reason things like Waco happen.

a reply to: Atsbhct

So would most people, when it comes to their children or grandchildren.

The question, however, isn't would you do it but rather should you have to?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

LOL... I think it goes a little deeper than that. They are not brain dead thats for sure. Pretty cunning actually. You want to think that they are stupid your letting them off the hook to easily.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Atsbhct

So would most people, when it comes to their children or grandchildren.

The question, however, isn't would you do it but rather should you have to?

Or should you be forced to by the organization that I supposed to protect that right?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I would be surprised if the state of mich can nullify constitutional rights to take a child in. I wonder if we will hear anything more out of this. Or will it fade into the paid off with a gag order?

That's an entirely different discussion and a worthy one.

Unfortunately, I don't think grandparents have legal rights over their grandchildren in cases where a child has been removed from their parents' home and put into state's custody.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Here in KY, the "only" mandate when fostering children is that ammunition and firearms (and alcohol, and dangerous pets, etc.) are inaccessible to the children. It certainly seems to me that agent in Michicgan is full of sh*t (AKA: Ideology), because according to the MDHHS' own guidelines:

R 400.9415 Hazardous materials.

Rule 415.
(1) A foster parent shall follow the agency’s hazardous materials policy.
(2) Dangerous and hazardous materials, objects, weapons, chemicals, medication, or equipment that may present a risk to children placed in the foster home shall be stored securely and out of the reach of children, as appropriate for the age and functioning level of the children.
(3) Firearms are subject to the following conditions:
(a) Stored in a locked metal or solid wood gun safe or
(b) Trigger-locked and stored without ammunition in a locked area.
(c) Ammunition shall be stored in a separate locked location.
(d) A handgun shall be registered. Documentation of the registration of the handgun shall be available for review.

Now, if I were a legally minded fella (and I am), I would argue that paragraph 415(3)(d) is referencing the state law of Michigan, which states that all handguns must be registered through local law enforcement. There is zero law that I can find that notes that long guns or shotguns must be registered, which is apparently what was noted by the employee.

This employee is an ideological idiot, IMO, and should be fired if what this guy claims is true.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am not as legal minded as you but that seems like a good assessment to me, about the only thing I would add is there needs to be pressure placed on the powers that be in the state to get rid of that judge.

Any judge that says you need to give up some constitutional rights to foster your grandson should never rule over a case again.

I wonder if Kid Rock has seen this yet? Somebody should alert him.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am not as legal minded as you but that seems like a good assessment to me, about the only thing I would add is there needs to be pressure placed on the powers that be in the state to get rid of that judge.

Any judge that says you need to give up some constitutional rights to foster your grandson should never rule over a case again.

I'm not clear if it was the judge our a state CPS employee that made that statement. Regardless, they need to lose their position, or be required to attend a seminar on constitutional rights and limitations.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I was in the same boat as you--after re-reading the OP's linked story, it appears that both an MDHHS employee AND a county judge made similar statements about choosing between the 2nd Amendment or their grandchild.

Absolutely unacceptable behavior on both of their parts.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Totally agree with you & slapMonKey. This is wrong on so many levels. It is unconstitutional imho.

originally posted by: ericendtimes
a reply to: Krakatoa

Totally agree with you & slapMonKey. This is wrong on so many levels. It is unconstitutional imho.

No one has a Constitutional right to be a foster parent.

I personally don't agree with the policy, but it's not Unconstitutional.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ericendtimes
a reply to: Krakatoa

Totally agree with you & slapMonKey. This is wrong on so many levels. It is unconstitutional imho.

No one has a Constitutional right to be a foster parent.

I personally don't agree with the policy, but it's not Unconstitutional.

Apples and oranges...

Explain to me from where such authority derived to circumvent the Constitution..

Yeah......exactly.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ericendtimes
a reply to: Krakatoa

Totally agree with you & slapMonKey. This is wrong on so many levels. It is unconstitutional imho.

No one has a Constitutional right to be a foster parent.

I personally don't agree with the policy, but it's not Unconstitutional.

Apples and oranges...

Explain to me from where such authority derived to circumvent the Constitution..

Yeah......exactly.

How is it circumventing the Constitution?

I can't fulfill your request unless you show me where the Constitution guarantees a grandparent's right to be a foster parent to their grandchild.

Yeah....exactly.



ETA: I mean, I get it. It seems excessive when all that needs to happen is the grandfather demonstrating he understands how to store his firearms and ammo. But the fact remains....no one has any Constitutional guarantee/right that they can be a foster parent.

No one's Constitutional rights are being violated in this case. The grandfather does not have to give up his concealed carry license or his guns...he can just NOT be the child's foster parent. That is how the Courts will view this case.

It doesn't mean it's the best way to handle the situation, and I don't think it is. But that is the way the law works.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ericendtimes
a reply to: Krakatoa

Totally agree with you & slapMonKey. This is wrong on so many levels. It is unconstitutional imho.

No one has a Constitutional right to be a foster parent.

I personally don't agree with the policy, but it's not Unconstitutional.

Apples and oranges...

Explain to me from where such authority derived to circumvent the Constitution..

Yeah......exactly.

How is it circumventing the Constitution?

I can't fulfill your request unless you show me where the Constitution guarantees a grandparent's right to be a foster parent to their grandchild.

Yeah....exactly.

Exactly what?

How does an agency's policies override the supreme law of the land and the rights proscribed?

Explain to me how that works, where the authority derives from, and how policy supersedes the Constitution.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ericendtimes
a reply to: Krakatoa

Totally agree with you & slapMonKey. This is wrong on so many levels. It is unconstitutional imho.

No one has a Constitutional right to be a foster parent.

I personally don't agree with the policy, but it's not Unconstitutional.

Apples and oranges...

Explain to me from where such authority derived to circumvent the Constitution..

Yeah......exactly.

How is it circumventing the Constitution?

I can't fulfill your request unless you show me where the Constitution guarantees a grandparent's right to be a foster parent to their grandchild.

Yeah....exactly.

Exactly what?

How does an agency's policies override the supreme law of the land and the rights proscribed?

Explain to me how that works, where the authority derives from, and how policy supersedes the Constitution.

It doesn't supersede the Constitution. That's YOUR argument, not mine.

So why would I explain it?

The Constitution does not guarantee that grandparents can be foster parents to their grandchildren.

Sorry, but it doesn't. I don't know why you think it does.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ericendtimes
a reply to: Krakatoa

Totally agree with you & slapMonKey. This is wrong on so many levels. It is unconstitutional imho.

No one has a Constitutional right to be a foster parent.

I personally don't agree with the policy, but it's not Unconstitutional.

Apples and oranges...

Explain to me from where such authority derived to circumvent the Constitution..

Yeah......exactly.

How is it circumventing the Constitution?

I can't fulfill your request unless you show me where the Constitution guarantees a grandparent's right to be a foster parent to their grandchild.

Yeah....exactly.

Exactly what?

How does an agency's policies override the supreme law of the land and the rights proscribed?

Explain to me how that works, where the authority derives from, and how policy supersedes the Constitution.

It doesn't supersede the Constitution. That's YOUR argument, not mine.

So why would I explain it?

The Constitution does not guarantee that grandparents can be foster parents to their grandchildren.

Sorry, but it doesn't. I don't know why you think it does.

How does it not then?

"he was told he had to give up his constitutional rights"........uh huh....who's this person that told him that?....has he/she been interviewed?.....what was actually said?....what were the actual reasons?....is there a state law that this "whoever" was simply following?.....as always, with the right....details matter, but never discussed. "emotionally charged phrases" said over and over again are the only thing that matters