Matt
A few months later his first one was riding in the baby backpack at the 3D shoot. They both grew up to be smart successful young ladies that share their dad's love for the outdoors and archery.
Or, are you willing to admit your knee jerk reaction ( and title of this thread) was misguided?
Matt
Requiring them to give up a constitutional right and a life-saving device is wrong-headed.
So now you're promoting vigilantism?
You're a hoot, comic boy.
Matt
"Yes, there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but last I checked there wasn't a constitutional right to foster a grandchild. Do the math."
Since when do we abdicate inherent rights guaranteed by the constitution. Would you be willing to give up say, your 4th amendment rights to foster a child? First? Stop practicing your chosen religion.
Do agree though that the legislature is the place to change it. Unless of course someone files a challenge and the court strikes it down.
When I see stuff like this, I wander about my fellow gun owners that are NOT members of the NRA.
So, yes, having them is a right according to the Supremes.
We disagree. Not on a legal basis but a personal one. There is NOTHING more important to me in this life than my child. If the Constitution were adhered to like the founders intended then it should never been an issue. But we all know that many times that isn't so.
From the article:
"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."
and this:
"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.”
So tell me where I was wrong when I said about abdicating inherent rights.
"Anything less would be a dereliction of duty on the states part."
Why? Especially as it pertains to the 2A. What if the caseworkers decide that a strong Bible believing christian family cannot be foster parents because of their beliefs on same sex marriage and homosexuality. Not part of the current law, you say. Neither was all the gun bravo sierra until some liberal whack job with an agenda got into the legislature.
Kevin, it appears to me that the man was told on numerous levels that he must give up his constitutional rights in order to foster his OWN grandson. Whether he was told that or not by the state workers is of no importance to me. What is important to me is the fact he was told that by the law you quote. It's absurd. The Constitution was written to keep the government from infringing on the personal rights given to every US citizen by the Bill of Rights. So, it could and very well should be argued this is in total contradiction to the founding documentation of the United States of America. These examples of local regulation over ruling the founding documentation is rampant and, why this country struggles.
I understand you are quoting state law. I understand that you may or may not agree with it. I also understand that what founded this country was lawlessness to the restricting rules handed down by people that thought they knew what was best for the common folk, that ended up revolting against the tyranny. So, please excuse others and myself that still have that tendency pumping through our veins. It's for the betterment of this republic to question and fight such things. It is what makes democracy work for all. God Bless men
The state tries to insinuate they own these children. I thought slavery was abolished by Abe long ago in this country? This is simply an example of an over bearing government restriction. Because, No where in history can there be a correlation of gun registration equaling more safety. However, to those that haven't implanted their head in the sand, it is proven fact and history that gun ownership rights will be infringed upon once mandatory registration is required. Can you not see where those that insist his 2nd Amendment rights are being compromised, are coming from?
Gun registration is not federal law. It is the result of municipal law that is in direct contradiction to FREELY bearing arms as a militia. The Constitution does not give the federal government that right. Therefore, in this instance, the states have no right to elaborate law in direct contradiction to the 2nd amendment.
In regards to your question, I didn't read it previously because I didn't read your whole post that contained that question. However, it is an apples to oranges question that has zero resemblance to the matter this thread was started about. FWIW, no I do not believe that should happen. Nor, do I believe that exists in the concept you suggest.
Medical care and, its effectiveness is a subjective matter outside of life saving procedures. I know a lot of parents that "self" medicate their children versus doing what modern medicine suggests they should do. Example; they don't allow their kids to suck down sugar in excess. And remarkably, none of their kids are now considered to be ADHD. Ironically, three of these kids were diagnosed as being that earlier in life. Modern liberal medicine says give them a pill and, let them run rampant doing as they want. Common sense parenting says treat them like your kids instead of your best friends by enforcing rules that protect them from an unhealthy diet and, a medically influenced environment.
No, a child shouldn't be placed in a home that worships Satan. Simply because of safety issues. That was a dumb comparison Kevin. Safety is paramount in all placings. If you can show me where children being placed in homes with unregistered guns versus, registered guns posses a threat to their safety, I'll concede these two examples have comparison. Until then, you are only coming up with extrapolated examples to try and prove a point that the state has warrantied safety concerns placing children in homes with unregistered guns.
Like I said, whether you agree or not is your business. But, you keep harping law and order. And, suggested that anyone who saw it different was an anarchist of sorts. Well, I and many others don't see it that way based on the reality that state's imposing law that contradicts our Constitution and Bill or Rights, is guilty of such actions. And, we simply refuse to say that is ok.
God Bless men
How many times do I need to say that everyone knows the dang law? Stating over and over what isn't even the issue at hand does not change it or, the way people are perceiving this. However, what I'm having a hard time understanding is that a guy like yourself, that insist everything he develops an opinion on is based on critical assessment, is not using facts to back his argument, Like I said before, post proof that gun registration provides more safety for foster children and, I'll concede. Until then, you are simply reciting what the state suggests. Which WE all know is not inline with real world statistics say concerning gun registration and violent crime.
I nor anyone else needs the example about loaded guns and kids being a conflict of interest for the child's safety. That is common sense. No state intervention needed to KNOW that. LIKE I SAID several times before, that IS NOT the issue. The issue is the state saying foster parents must register their firearms to provide additional safety to foster children. Because reality is that gun registration provides no additional safety to the kids. Responsible gun ownership does. And, registration goes not go one step in the direction of providing that in any more degree than non registration. So, why do you keep using examples to insist the state's stance on gun registration offers additional safety to foster children? For goodness sake's man, how are you repeatedly missing that?
Also, trying to compare that to someone's 1st amendment rights to worship satan and, still be eligible for foster parenting, is borderline lunacy. It isn't a relevant example because we all know that would be an unsafe atmosphere.
You are obviously so personally involved in this you cant even comprehend what you read. Reasoning with you on this is a lost cause. Your bold assertions of what is correct while completely refusing to admit the true topic at hand is growing mundane. You don't want reasoning. You want to be told you are right in your picking and choosing of what is lawful and, what isn't considered a breech of individual rights. You need to get over what Fox and everyone else is saying the guy was asked to do. I could care less who said what. You should too. Instead, focus on the fact that potential foster parents required to register their firearms, has no bearing on a foster child's safety. Meaning, Gun registration is a dumb rule in the name of added security. At this point all other meaningless individual points are mute. Argument over and, case closed.
God Bless men
You don't comprehend what others write. You have no desire to discuss anything that doesn't lead to people saying you are right. It's a shame your ego has taken you to this place. Watching it develop over the last few months has been disheartening. You' ve voluntarily went from critically thinking to always being critical from some weird position on every subject. You just repeat things over and over. It's went from truly being antalytical to you misrepresenting what others have/are saying just so you can self proclaim you are right. It's a real shame too.
The way I see it the issue isn't does the MI law require anyone to abdicate their 2A rights (it clearly doesn't) but whether or not it infringes upon their 2A rights.
As the 2A does not require any firearms to be registered it could be argued that requiring this "extra" step does constitute infringement. I agree with badKarma; this is a case that needs a plaintiff backed by someone (or something) with deep pockets.
With regard to foster parenting (having been one for years in CT); the state does not "own" these children but they are in fact "wards of the state" with the state having liability for the children's well-being. Acting not out of a preconceived notion of "the best interests of the child" but rather out of what common sense dictates I don't see a problem with securing firearms anymore than I would with ensuring medicines, chemicals, or power tools are not easily accessible to children who would have high risk of harm if unsupervised access was possible.
I think there are really two separate arguments here and some are conflating them into one.
I'm chuckling over the irony of my referencing two issues being conflated and then by less than clear wording doing exactly that myself with regard to the registration aspect.
So we're on the same page I never meant to imply that registration was a requirement for being a foster parent, I meant only to highlight it as a potential legitimate infringement on the 2A as opposed to securing the firearms in a safe.
In re-reading what I wrote I did not make that distinction clear so thanks for catching it so that I can address it.
I hope with this clarification we're all on the same page now.
When an intruder enters the house to kidnap his grandson, going to the locked safe to retrieve a gun and then to a separate location to retrieve ammunition doesn't fit any reasonable definition of "bearing".
Drain cleaner and table saws aren't a right. They could mandate locking them away as a prerequisite and that would not require him giving up any rights.
Other stuff aside from fostering is also a State sanctioned privilege. How about no drivers license without mandating no firearms in a vehicle unless locked away separate from the ammunition? How about no cosmetology license without following a mandate that no religious symbols are present in the business? Maybe no hunting license unless you agree to house military personnel from the nearby base or no boat registration unless you agree to not wear political T-shirts while fishing?
How is that "wacked", Spike?
Matt
" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of .......... according to the best of my ability."
Define "there". Sleeping? In the same room? House? When ever you set conditions and limits on how you are allowed to defend your home, you open yourself for more restrictive legislation. Don't believe me? When has the anti gun movement ever stopped with a recently passed bill? Never. That's when. It's why we have 22,000+ laws on the books now.
"I get it that our 2A rights are constantly under assault and we need to vigorously fight that but at the end of the day, the state is ultimately responsible for the well being of the children that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the foster care system, and if they err on the side of caution, I'm ok with that."
So much anti-gun legislation has been pushed through under the guise of "doing it for the children." Glad you're on board with it.
And again, the judge acted in the appropriate manner. He enforced a law.
Matt
Exactly, Darren. I will never have a CC permit, nor will I ever register any of my firearms. I won't even buy a firearm thru a licensed dealer for the same reason. I avoid government lists like a plague.
Matt
Admirable, but anyone who does anything on line - including Bowsite - are already on government lists. If you do any business (banking, buying or selling), you are also already on many lists. There is no privacy in America.
FWIW, I see a bunch of assumptions being made by a few, that is only a mind fart. Meaning no one has said the judge was acting outside the law of MI. Only that the law itself is treading on being unconstitutional.
God Bless men
Henry,
That's true to some degree, but I was speaking specifically about firearm lists.
If, god forbid, the government ever tries to confiscate firearms, who do you think they will go after, first? Yep, registered guns, CC permits, and gun sales lists. My name won't be on any of those. They will have to find my firearms, or pry them from my cold dead hands.
Matt
Matt, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make the top 10 list, good buddy.
LOL :-)
Wow!
And what is the "wow" all about. Did I say something surprising, or shocking?
Matt
As long as I'm legal, I really don't care what lists I'm on. YMMV.
Your "legal" status can change, as we've seen in other countries. We'll see how you feel about gun lists, then.
Yeah, maybe I am paranoid. ;-)
Matt
Kevin, tell me how you aren't on board with the law where it requires guns and ammo to be stored separate. Tell me how you havn't stated the law was good for requiring that. As if a person needs a law to be told how to safely store their guns around kids. Go ahead, keep taking about how well this gun registration protects the kids. At this point, with no attempt to answer previous questions asked concerning how gun registration will create a safe environment for the children, tell me how else am supposed to take your position.
Once again, you seem to be confused about what we have been discussing this whole time. To clarify, no one is suggesting the judge wasn't acting within the boundaries of MI law. I and all others have stated that MULTIPLE TIMES, proven by the severe criticism of that law. We stated it was a DUMB to require gun registration under the disguise of safety.
Instead of addressing or even acknowledging that, you keep going on about how the law requiring gun owners to store firearms safely is a good thing. No kidding? Really? I don't need a law to tell me how to safely store a firearm around kids. Nor does anyone else that has a brain cell.
It's obvious you believe differently than that. You keep jumping around confronting the unconstitutional charges made by many here. Well, you and a few others saying it was NOT in breach of the mans constitutional rights doesn't make you right. It's in the eye of the beholder at this point. But, by design, no state law has the right to infringe upon our Bill of Rights. And, until you can prove that gun registration creates more safety in these homes, a big margin of the people are going to see this for what it is. A government wanting info for ulterior motives. Nothing more. And, if that isn't unconstitutional, then what the heck is?
So, what I've truly gotten out of this from you up to this point is that you think the law is grand. You think everyone is suggesting the judge acted outside MI law. And, you have no earthly intent to address how gun registration creates a safer home. Once again, that's about as clear as I can make it. And, if you conduct yourself the same in the response to this thread, as you have previously, we'll hear about how his constitutional rights were not infringed upon, MI law is why the judge did what he did. You think it's great the law requires "SAFE" gun storage, and not a dang thing why gun registration makes for a safer home.
Listen, if you feel the way you do that is fine. However, it doesn't make it or, your opinion correct. This law is STUPID in that its intent is not accomplished by gun registration. PERIOD. What about that is confusing to you?
So, in Mr Johnson's shoes, would you give up your grandson, register your guns, dispense of your guns or be an outlaw?
Unanswerable, because I will never be in Mr. Johnson's shoes. I don't have grandkids and never will (regrettably) , and I will never willfully live in a state, or county, that infringes on my 2A rights.
I've always stated, the day I'm legally obligated to register firearms, or have a permit to carry one on my hip, will be the day I become a guiltless criminal.
Matt
Look, I hate the law, and it's consequences. But, the fact remains, Mr. Johnson, and the voters in his State, are ultimately to blame. Not the courts, or the judge, or some clerical worker.
Matt
Keep in mind there's no time limit.
Thank you guys.
Until then, I'll be on some list. Some where.
That's logical and realistic.
No kum bay ya smiley face necessary.
Not being on a list is great but no longer an option for us in Colorado unless we never buy another gun. Private party sales require the same FFL background check and paperwork a new sale does. That record is on file forever and available to the ATF upon request. If a dealer closes, the records go to the ATF.
Staying off lists is still very much an option in Colorado. Guns can be gifted, loaned, or inherited between family members without a background check. And if you're like me, you already have more guns than you'll ever need, so not buying more isn't a problem.
That said, I am disgusted with the slippery slope Colorado is headed down, but that's the direction the whole country is going. God forbid, if another Columbine-type tragedy happens, we'll see a flood of new gun laws sweep the country. If that happens, you "legal" list boys may change your tune.
Matt
