Marine Veteran Ordered To Surrender ALL Firearms For Sick Reason- It’s HAPPENING

Posted by DINO PORRAZZO at AMERICAS FREEDOM FIGHTERS

A judge in the state of Michigan has taken “black robe fever” to a whole new level letting a Marine and his wife know that they must either surrender their second amendment rights or surrender their grandson.

When the state of Michigan asked William and Jill Johnson, a retired Marine and his tackle shop-owning wife, to be foster parents to their grandson they readily agreed. The alternative was for him to go to foster care and they agreed that was no alternative at all.



However, the Johnsons received a shock during the course of filing the necessary paperwork for placing their grandson in their custody. A local judge gave them the warning that they no longer had all of their constitutional rights.

According to a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan –

“We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”
Now a case has been filed on behalf of the Johnsons as well as another couple – Brian and Naomi Mason by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). They name as defendant Nick Lyon – the director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

The complaint cites the agency’s draconian rules where foster and adoptive parents must surrender Constitutional rights and their possession of firearms or surrender their children. It alleges multiple civil rights as well as constitutional violations for enforcing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of people who want to be foster or adoptive parents.”

The rule was first introduced to the Johnsons by social workers, who said, “If you want to care for your grandson, you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.” When Mr. Johnson questioned them about their agenda, the social workers simply stated: “there would not be a power struggle, that they would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home.”

The complaint states –

“The Johnsons would possess and bear loaded and functional firearms for self-defense and defense of family, but refrain from doing so because they fear their foster child/grandchild being taken away from them by the state.”
Image result for second amendment concealed carry foster care

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the statements from the caseworker and judge “are simply outrageous.”

“This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and we’ve handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale.”

The lawsuit asserts that “the policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Gottlieb believes “This is a case we simply must pursue. State agencies and the people who work in those agencies simply cannot be allowed to disregard someone’s civil rights.”

In a similar case in Illinois, the state also demanded that the Constitutional rights of foster or adoptive parents be set aside. In the case of the Shults family, Colleen Shults works as a nurse at Danville Correctional Center under the state Department of Corrections. Some months prior, she received a letter from her employer’s Central Intelligence Unit “that prisoners in the IDOC system were using people locator websites on the Internet to learn the home addresses of IDOC staff, including correctional officers and nurses.”

A letter warned Colleen and her counterparts to be careful and diligent for their safety. Common sense would determine that one would possess a firearm for self-defense, except since the Shults family had also been providing foster care for the state for many years, the policy of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services suspends their Second Amendment rights.

As a result, SAF filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Shultses.

The complaint stated –

“The Shultses would possess loaded and functional firearms for self-defense and defense of family, but refrain from doing so because they fear their foster children being taken away from them by the state, and/or being prohibited from being foster parents in the future, all due to the IDCFS policy complained of herein.”

SAF also brought a previous suit against Chicago over its handgun ban and later against the state over its restrictions on concealed carry. It won both cases.

According to Gottlieb –

“It was our legal action against Chicago’s handgun ban that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. It was another of our lawsuits that forced the state legislature to adopt a concealed carry statute in Illinois. Now we’re in court to make sure that the state cannot discriminate against foster parents who merely wish to exercise the rights we’ve restored in Illinois.”

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

This post caught my eye. I am a Marine corps vet, I raised two grand kids and had about a dozen guns..

If this story is accurate, I see no way it can survive a court case.. seems an obvious violation of the 2nd. like it or not people have the right by law to have guns and the attempt to take the kids for that reason does not seem legal at all..

In my case (in Minnesota) I do not recall the question being asked.. only one event even related to guns as I recall, we had 3 very large tom turkeys, they found my grandson to be a target, may is blue snow suit had a role in it, but the chased him with full evil intent.. Now he did also try to get revenge through the fence but to little real effect. then the chasing little kids extended to visitors and I had to end it.. I and my grandson, and a .22 went out and dispatched the 3 toms with 3 head shots. His reaction was "that fixed them" and an excited examination of the dead birds.. Somehow the event got related to the kids social worker sometime later, she seemed amazed and unhappy that the little boy watched the killing of the birds, asked about his reaction , that he had none other then they deserved it dismayed her and she nearly hugged him in wanting to help the ordeal of seeing turkeys killed, but no more was ever said and nothing at all about removal of the kids..

So, if this Michigan case does go to court, I can not see anything but it being tossed out..

This post caught my eye. I am a Marine corps vet, I raised two grand kids and had about a dozen guns..

If this story is accurate, I see no way it can survive a court case.. seems an obvious violation of the 2nd. like it or not people have the right by law to have guns and the attempt to take the kids for that reason does not seem legal at all..

In my case (in Minnesota) I do not recall the question being asked.. only one event even related to guns as I recall, we had 3 very large tom turkeys, they found my grandson to be a target, may is blue snow suit had a role in it, but the chased him with full evil intent.. Now he did also try to get revenge through the fence but to little real effect. then the chasing little kids extended to visitors and I had to end it.. I and my grandson, and a .22 went out and dispatched the 3 toms with 3 head shots. His reaction was "that fixed them" and an excited examination of the dead birds.. Somehow the event got related to the kids social worker sometime later, she seemed amazed and unhappy that the little boy watched the killing of the birds, asked about his reaction , that he had none other then they deserved it dismayed her and she nearly hugged him in wanting to help the ordeal of seeing turkeys killed, but no more was ever said and nothing at all about removal of the kids..

So, if this Michigan case does go to court, I can not see anything but it being tossed out..

I'm not sure yet on how I would think about foster parents in general in this matter. The State would have some rights and obligations on where they place children, and the safety within those homes. Would this apply to active police officers and their rights to be foster parents.

But they are way over stepping, when they try to force family to give up their weapons, and how they protect their homes in general. The next step would be to up that to all parents being forced to give up their weapons, in order to keep their own kids.

The bastards never quit in their goals of taking away our God given rights. Damn democrats.

Logically Right

Marine Veteran Ordered To Surrender ALL Firearms For Sick Reason- It’s HAPPENING

Posted by DINO PORRAZZO at AMERICAS FREEDOM FIGHTERS

A judge in the state of Michigan has taken “black robe fever” to a whole new level letting a Marine and his wife know that they must either surrender their second amendment rights or surrender their grandson.

When the state of Michigan asked William and Jill Johnson, a retired Marine and his tackle shop-owning wife, to be foster parents to their grandson they readily agreed. The alternative was for him to go to foster care and they agreed that was no alternative at all.



However, the Johnsons received a shock during the course of filing the necessary paperwork for placing their grandson in their custody. A local judge gave them the warning that they no longer had all of their constitutional rights.

According to a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan –

“We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”
Now a case has been filed on behalf of the Johnsons as well as another couple – Brian and Naomi Mason by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). They name as defendant Nick Lyon – the director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

The complaint cites the agency’s draconian rules where foster and adoptive parents must surrender Constitutional rights and their possession of firearms or surrender their children. It alleges multiple civil rights as well as constitutional violations for enforcing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of people who want to be foster or adoptive parents.”

The rule was first introduced to the Johnsons by social workers, who said, “If you want to care for your grandson, you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.” When Mr. Johnson questioned them about their agenda, the social workers simply stated: “there would not be a power struggle, that they would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home.”

The complaint states –

“The Johnsons would possess and bear loaded and functional firearms for self-defense and defense of family, but refrain from doing so because they fear their foster child/grandchild being taken away from them by the state.”
Image result for second amendment concealed carry foster care

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the statements from the caseworker and judge “are simply outrageous.”

“This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and we’ve handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale.”

The lawsuit asserts that “the policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Gottlieb believes “This is a case we simply must pursue. State agencies and the people who work in those agencies simply cannot be allowed to disregard someone’s civil rights.”

In a similar case in Illinois, the state also demanded that the Constitutional rights of foster or adoptive parents be set aside. In the case of the Shults family, Colleen Shults works as a nurse at Danville Correctional Center under the state Department of Corrections. Some months prior, she received a letter from her employer’s Central Intelligence Unit “that prisoners in the IDOC system were using people locator websites on the Internet to learn the home addresses of IDOC staff, including correctional officers and nurses.”

A letter warned Colleen and her counterparts to be careful and diligent for their safety. Common sense would determine that one would possess a firearm for self-defense, except since the Shults family had also been providing foster care for the state for many years, the policy of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services suspends their Second Amendment rights.

As a result, SAF filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Shultses.

The complaint stated –

“The Shultses would possess loaded and functional firearms for self-defense and defense of family, but refrain from doing so because they fear their foster children being taken away from them by the state, and/or being prohibited from being foster parents in the future, all due to the IDCFS policy complained of herein.”

SAF also brought a previous suit against Chicago over its handgun ban and later against the state over its restrictions on concealed carry. It won both cases.

According to Gottlieb –

“It was our legal action against Chicago’s handgun ban that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. It was another of our lawsuits that forced the state legislature to adopt a concealed carry statute in Illinois. Now we’re in court to make sure that the state cannot discriminate against foster parents who merely wish to exercise the rights we’ve restored in Illinois.”

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

I have a wonderful 19 month old grandson. He joined our family in March of last year as a foster child, and beginning in May of this year, full adoption proceedings were allowed. Hopefully, they will be completed before Christmas! We are definitely praying for that Christmas Miracle!
We live in Texas, and our SOL and our daughter have two boys, 13 and 11, who are now the older brothers to our toddler. Our SOL is police officer. He owns six firearms in addition to his duty weapon, plus the boys have five additional firearms. These include three lever action rifles, and two of those evil military-looking semi-automatic rifles. And I am always armed when I visit, since I almost always carry when I'm awake.
The Texas foster and adoption people are fully aware of all of these facts. They checked that I have a CCW license, and they confirmed that our SOL has a (more than) adequate gun safe and the weapons are secured whenever not on his or my person.
Obviously, Texas is different from Michigan, but it makes me wonder if this is that state's policy, or if it is just liberals authoritarian officials doing what they do.....mandating their personal prejudices wherever they can.
I absolutely approve of the foster and adoption people THOROUGHLY checking the home and surroundings of any potential new parents, and I agree that they need some latitude in setting safety standards. For example, my kids had to get rid of their trampoline, and install child safety locks EVERYwhere, and they had to install a lockable medicine chest.
However, requiring responsible people to get rid of their firearms is obviously a bridge WAY too far.