• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Lose 2nd Amendment Rights to Become Foster Parent

Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,507
Location
Central Ma.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
WTF?
**********
A lawsuit filed in federal court on Monday alleges the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) violated the gun rights of foster parents.

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.

Two weeks later, during a hearing on placement of the child, Johnson said a Gogebic County Court judge similarly told him, "if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights."http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/19/lawsuit-alleges-michigan-agency-told-grandfather-hed-have-to-give-up-gun-rights-to-foster-his-grandson.html
 
"Shall Not Be Infringed"

I believe the statement: "if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights" is infringing.
 
The judge told him he would have to give up some of his constitutional rights? I wonder what some means? Does he have to give up the First Amendment? the fourth amendment? the fifth amendment?
 
We fostered a newborn for a year before the state took her away. No hassle over guns. Case worker asked to see in bed side safe. Showed the unloaded pistol in the back. That was over 7 years ago. No idea what they do now. This was in Ma.
 
3 yrs ago before my wife and I were finally able to conceive we tried the adoption/fostering route. Same story, the lady from DCF wanted numbers on firearms. She was promptly thrown off of our property and told never to contact us again. My wife finally forgave me the day our son was born. just recently she actually told me that I made the right call.
 
That is a crazy case in Michigan.

If the grand dad wants to keep his grandson out of the hands of the state where he could be molested...

Temporarily transfer the guns while this works its way through the courts.
It will only likely be temporary since you are not suppose to use you constitutional rights when taking care of kids.

Edit:

Of course this man could also stage a publicity stunt and threaten the use of force to protect his grandson.

That may be more effective then the courts and have a better outcome as long as Trump is in office.

Remember - if a law is unconstitutional is it not a law and does not need to be abided by.

Marine should request the help of other Marines to surround and defend his home.

That would be a great cause that no Marine could deny.

Even a tyrannical government could not win that battle.

Edit #2:

Home School, Peapod, and Amazon. Family would be invincible.

Edit #3:

This is on the radar of the Oath Keepers. It's posted on their website.
This Marine grand dad needs to draw a line in the sand and get his kid back.
 
Last edited:
We fostered a newborn for a year before the state took her away. No hassle over guns. Case worker asked to see in bed side safe. Showed the unloaded pistol in the back. That was over 7 years ago. No idea what they do now. This was in Ma.
Guns often fly under the radar in MA, since there is a perception that few have them, and that only connected people can actually carry them.
 
That is a crazy case in Michigan.

If the grand dad wants to keep his grandson out of the hands of the state where he could be molested...

Temporarily transfer the guns while this works its way through the courts.
It will only likely be temporary since you are not suppose to use you constitutional rights when taking care of kids.

Edit:

Of course this man could also stage a publicity stunt and threaten the use of force to protect his grandson.

That may be more effective then the courts and have a better outcome as long as Trump is in office.

Remember - if a law is unconstitutional is it not a law and does not need to be abided by.

Marine should request the help of other Marines to surround and defend his home.

That would be a great cause that no Marine could deny.

Even a tyrannical government could not win that battle.

Edit #2:

Home School, Peapod, and Amazon. Family would be invincible.

Edit #3:

This is on the radar of the Oath Keepers. It's posted on their website.
This Marine grand dad needs to draw a line in the sand and get his kid back.

Issue is the lawsuit is probably enough that they would either take the kid back or never give it to him in the first place. Someone on here was talking about MA with adoption or fostering and they wanted all the guns locked at all times in a safe, with trigger locks on them too, all ammo locked in a separate safe in another room and maybe some other nonsense.
 
Issue is the lawsuit is probably enough that they would either take the kid back or never give it to him in the first place. Someone on here was talking about MA with adoption or fostering and they wanted all the guns locked at all times in a safe, with trigger locks on them too, all ammo locked in a separate safe in another room and maybe some other nonsense.

This is TYRANY!!!

People need to get behind this cause.

Marine needs to have a meeting with his peeps and decide what to do.

This is Wacko / Ruby Ridge level tyranny.
 
We thought about adopting through DSS. The lady came over and wanted to know how many guns I had and wanted to see them. She didn't even say hello to me first since I had walked in halfway through her visit. Obviously she didn't get what she wanted. We ended up adopting for a second time through an agency. She told my wife that guns need to be unloaded, trigger locked, and stored seperate from ammo. I'm glad my wife didn't let her look while I was gone.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 
While they are at it, why don't they check the house for some of the things that cause fatalities at a higher rate than firearms.

like , give up your car to prevent accidents, fill in the pool, no bicycling ,

do a radon, and less paint test. No riding on a yellow school bus, because no seat belts,

the list is endless.

lib political activism gone fascist.

ask for stats for foster children and gun accidents in the home.
 
I order to adopt my son I made the choice that if the firearms were a problem I would sell them all if it was an issue with DCF.
After the adoption was all said and done legally I would get back what I had to given up.

Family is worth more than a few pieces of iron and steel.
I know the principle is that you have lost your 2nd Amendment rights.

In this man's case I could not live with the though of someone raising a family member instead of me.

The 2nd Amendment fight will I fear someday restart a civil war over the rights of the people vs state or federal over reach!
We "the people" are the sleeping giant! God help those in power when we awaken!
 
Last edited:
I order to adopt my son I made the choice that if the firearms were a problem I would sell them all if it was an issue with DCF.
After the adoption was all said and done legally I would get back what I had to given up.

Family is worth more than a few pieces of iron and steel.
I know the principle is that you have lost your 2nd Amendment rights.

In this man's case I could not live with the though of someone raising a family member instead of me.

The 2nd Amendment fight will I fear someday restart a civil war over the rights of the people vs state or federal over reach!
We "the people" are the sleeping giant! God help those in power when we awaken!

Never thought of that.

The 2a loss is only temporary.

Once he becomes a full parent he can get them back.

He could take a stand for the 2a though.
 
3 yrs ago before my wife and I were finally able to conceive we tried the adoption/fostering route. Same story, the lady from DCF wanted numbers on firearms. She was promptly thrown off of our property and told never to contact us again. My wife finally forgave me the day our son was born. just recently she actually told me that I made the right call.

I have read of similar stories to the one posted above and the one I quoted on a couple of national firearms forums. Don't know how often it's an issue but it certainly is one with some agencies.

Good to see a lawsuit over it, might put the issue to bed for once and for all.
 
Should've told em about that tragic boating accident a month ago.

I'd have taken them on a tragic boating accident.


"I'm sorry, sir. But in order to be a foster parent to your GRAND-F'ING-CHILD, you will no longer be allowed to have internet service. We can't have you spreading ideas out there."

"I'm sorry sir. But a condition of your fostering your grandchild, we are going to quarter an officer in your house."

"I'm sorry, sir. If you want to foster your grandchild, we are going to have the ability to put you in jail at any time at our discretion."

I will say it for the millionth time, if the Left ever understood what it would gain them in membership, they'd embrace 2A with open arms and run 90% of the country. Thankfully, they are duuuuuumb. . . . and afraid their current sheep would run away from them.

- - - Updated - - -

Did someone say free bacon?


There is no free bacon - only bacon that SOMEBODY ELSE paid for, ya commie! [rofl]
 
This case does not surprise me. The folks that generally end up working for DCYF are almost always self-righteous, aggressive, petty tyrants. Family members of mine have had run-ins with them in MA, VT and CT and DCYF employees have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be generally horrible people. They can be vindictive, nasty and more than happy to trample any law they disagree with. For reasons I do not understand, DCYF is universally allowed to do whatever they want, however they want it, with zero regard for any state law. Judges and cops won't touch DCYF. It's like a rouge agency without any restrictions. They LITERALLY make up policy and enforce demands on a case-by-case basis. Most of them should be indicted on federal charges of civil rights violations.
 
The Michigan child welfare department is out of control in a number of ways. This doesn't even have to be a 2A case because MI state law preemption does not allow the department to do what they're doing. They will lose this and they will lose it badly. There's a good legal team on this and they know what they're doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom