It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

I imagine there are all kinds of policies and rules that the State of Michigan has come up with that eliminate the chances of many, many people from being foster parents.

No one is guaranteed the right to be a foster parent under the Constitution.

Again, social workers typically advocate for family members to be foster parents, but it is not a Constitutionally-protected right. I really don't understand why you think it is.




posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

it is them saying he must give up his second amendment right to be able to foster his grandson that has people spun up.

You are right he does not have a constitutional right to foster his grandson, they do not have the legal right (at this time) to say choose family or your constitutional rights.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow

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?



I've answered this ad nauseam....but one more time: The Constitution does not grant any rights to grandparents (or anyone) to be foster parents.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

Good christ get outta here with your sovereign citizen crap. It doesn't work, and it certainly doesn't apply here.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: MotherMayEye

it is them saying he must give up his second amendment right to be able to foster his grandson that has people spun up.

You are right he does not have a constitutional right to foster his grandson, they do not have the legal right (at this time) to say choose family or your constitutional rights.


They do have the legal right to do that though.

This grandfather is faced with a decision to give up the firearms if he wants to qualify as a foster parent. That is the choice he has.

Otherwise, he can keep them and not foster parent the grandchild.

The child is in the state's care, not the parents, not the grandparents...they can say they don't want the child in a home with a gun just like I can do with my own child.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.



*****************

This was taken directly from the agencies own guidelines.someone show me where it states a potential foster parent MUST give u I their 2nd amendment protections as a qualification? There are "reasonable" restrictions in place for firearm ownership listed, yes. But not total confiscation o n, which we are constantly assured the govt I s not trying to do. We gave in to "reasonable" restrictions, yet that seems to still not be enough. Only total stripping of the 2nd amendment protections is the end game.

This is yet another example of that lie.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think a lesson in the preemption clause is needed here. Not for you, obviously, but perhaps another chiming in will help clarify for others.

There is no federal law governing foster-care being provided by grandparents. There are federal laws that pertain to adoption, but adoption isn't foster-care. Because of this, the states can legislate foster-care more or less however they want to legislate it, and can enforce it as such. It would be up to the individual to challenge those state laws by asserting a civil rights violation, because there's no federal law to supersede the state ones when it comes to foster-care.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
"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



Ug...I hate agreeing with you, but I do.

If a grandfather is an admitted drug abuser...the state doesn't have to allow him to be a foster parent, even if he's never been convicted of a drug-related crime.

The state has custody of the child and is allowed to make whatever decision they want with regard to who can be a foster parent -- equally and fairly, of course. Can't have laws/rules/regulations/policies that are applied unequally and unfairly.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Then that is the sound legal argument....if other foster parents weren't required to give up their firearms/licenses...then this grandfather shouldn't be required to do so.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Agreed, and it seems in this case the state is attempting to change the rules without due process. Which is unconstitutional.

edit on 7/19/2017 by Krakatoa because: Additional thought



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The young one's well being comes 1st I think we agree.Wife & I live where the most abundant source of protein is from legally harvested wild game. So do you think child should starve to death or as time goes on learn how to provide for himself from the woodland & garden?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
To late the damage is done .
Go to court you say ? wile court cases are backed up till doomsday ? and worse the state can just keep contesting teh verdict over and over .
This is how the state takes your rights . heck they alawed my sons to be moved out of state without even informing me .
fight sure i fought it and guess what its still in limbo 12 years later and the boys are grown men .
Forget your rights you only have them as long as the state does not want something you have .
Its not you so you dont care ( Untill it is you but no one cares untill it is them and no one cares and so on .
the Government was quite successful in using dived and conker . so successful even you own family will turn on you for money power or just plan meanness .



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Im in Michigan...have a concealed carry license... Youll find 99% of carriers and NRA members and Joe-averages...have not heard of this kind of fiasco...and such nonsense. Only in a couple cases...

It might be something in his background (criminal, military, psychological)-you may not be aware of. Get a lawyer, legal team...something.

Good Luck...I hope it works out. And let us all know. *

*Contact GEOFF FIEGLER (Jenny Jones trial, Dr. Jack Kervorkian's attorney) he's here in Metro Detroit and goes for blood...and he wins.

God Bless

edit on 19-7-2017 by mysterioustranger because: err



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: EternalShadow

I imagine there are all kinds of policies and rules that the State of Michigan has come up with that eliminate the chances of many, many people from being foster parents.

No one is guaranteed the right to be a foster parent under the Constitution.

Again, social workers typically advocate for family members to be foster parents, but it is not a Constitutionally-protected right. I really don't understand why you think it is.

Social workers? See you're stuck in the paradigm of social policies over constitutional law.

Splitting hairs about who has a right to children that are clearly established as family members but have been classified has wards of the state, is lunacy. The state asking relatives to take their relatives back under their oversight and policies that undermine constitutional rights as a means of holding hostage said members until such policies are adhered to is blackmail.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ericendtimes

The state won't let the child starve in foster care....I hope.

Also, I HOPE, the state would make a great effort to place any foster child with grandparents who can provide a loving, quality home for them and not base it solely on the fact that the grandfather is a gun owner.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

I am not a lunatic and I resent your comments barfing at me and calling my contribution lunacy.

Regardless of all your feelings on the matter, the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to be a foster parent. You are off on another debate, all together. I am not saying it's not worthy to revisit the power states are given to remove children to their care, but this is not that debate.

edit on 7/19/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: EternalShadow

I am not a lunatic and I resent your comments barfing at me and calling my contribution lunacy.

Regardless of all your feelings on the matter, the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to be a foster parent. YOu are off on another debate, all together. I am not saying it's not worthy to revisit the power state's are given to remove children to their care, but this is not that debate.


My responses are not directed at you personally, just the policies that certain agencies think override jurisdictional authority over family members.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I agree again with you ,if the young one came to live with me he to survive in my area would be loved by all around,with that he would have to do his part when at correct age to help harvest dinner.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: EternalShadow

Good christ get outta here with your sovereign citizen crap. It doesn't work, and it certainly doesn't apply here.


Oh the unenlightened.... read a book.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

well then here is my question for you, would you be so blase about being forced to choose between family or the constitution if it was an amendment you cared about?




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join