Pick one: your Grandson or your Second Amendment Constitutional Right - Granite Grok

Pick one: your Grandson or your Second Amendment Constitutional Right

We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home,” the judge said.

we the people - ConstitutionThis comes home to me – it’s very personal as I am living this same story.  I can’t go into detail (at least right now) for fear of being charged with a misdemeanor (yeah, a gag order), but I know EXACTLY how and what this prior Marine, who simply is continuing to be a Marine in trying to do the right thing, is going through right now.  But imagine that – a JUDGE, for God’s sake, an officer of the Court, knowingly stating that he doesn’t care about Constitutional Rights.  Blatantly, as the story goes, the State is all too willing to use a young child as a political battering ram simply for an anti-gun animus. As I have said over the years, I generally never just repost someone’s entire post but this one mirrors my life the last two years (and it takes that long) but here it is (reformatted, emphasis mine):

On Monday, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit against Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) for impeding on foster and adoptive parents’ Second Amendment rights. SAF filed the lawsuit on behalf of two couples: William and Jill Johnson and Brian and Naomi Mason.

The Johnsons were going to take custody of their grandson to keep him from going into foster care. When they went to pick up their grandson, William, a retired, disabled Marine with a Concealed Pistol License (CPL), was searched for a firearm. He was not carrying a firearm at the time. At that point, agency officials told the Johnsons that they would be required to provide all firearms’ serial numbers to the agency as part of a registry. When Johnson questioned agency workers, he was given a surprising response.

If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights,” a MDHHS worker retorted.

OK, that’s just a bureaucrat.  Hey, a Judge will follow The Law, will consider uppermost what our foundational Law says, right?  That they are the last defender of someone’s Rights against an encroaching and intrusive Government, right?  So this should turn out with the Judge smacking MDHHS around in a pique of Law, correct?

Yeah….no:

When the Johnsons appeared before a Gogebic County Court judge, the judge reiterated the agency worker’s statement.

“We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home,” the judge said.

Outrageous!  So the word of the last few months has been “collusion” – here’s actual example of it happening between the Judicial and Executive Branch – what chance does a private person with limited means have against a Big Government?

And over the hill comes the cavalry, flags waving:

According to Alan Gottlieb, the Founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation, the statements from agency workers and judges were 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,” Gottlieb said in a statement. “This is a case we simply must pursue,” Gottlieb said. “State agencies and the people who work in those agencies simply cannot be allowed to disregard someone’s civil rights.”

The lawsuit alleges MDHHS’ policy violates foster parents’ right to self-defense inside and outside of the home, which is protected under the Second Amendment.

Constitutional Rights should trump any Federal or State law and certainly that of a mere bureaucratic regulation or policy.  This is a case that proves that the ability for public officials to claim immunity should be rent from limb from limb.  There’s two types that seem to be in play (and no, I’m not a lawyer):

Official immunity is a discretionary immunity from personal liability that is granted to public officers for tortious acts and omissions. It is a personal immunity accorded to a public official from liability to anyone injured by actions that are the consequence of exerting official authority.

This other one?

Qualified immunity shields public officials from damages for civil liability so long as they did not violate an individual’s “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights. The immunity is available to state or federal employees, including law enforcement officers, who are performing their jobs.

Oopsies!  Sue’em for all they got, and then some.

I know what the sacrifices that TMEW and I have already made and will have to make in the future.  For example, to provide for our little guy, I know I have to give up my retirement.  After all, I gotta pay for a college education.

Oh yeah, my RTKBA?  They’re upstairs.

(H/T: Bearing Arms)

>