Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG….Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

Brownells

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: HB 4955 of 2017 Prohibit department from considering firearm possession in placement of a child in foster care or of an adoptee

  1. #1
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    20,311

    HB 4955 of 2017 Prohibit department from considering firearm possession in placement of a child in foster care or of an adoptee

    HB 4955 of 2017
    Human services; foster parents; department considering firearm possession in placement of a child in foster care or of an adoptee; prohibit. Amends 1994 PA 203 (MCL 722.951 - 722.960) by adding sec. 8b.
    Last Action: 9/19/2017 bill electronically reproduced 09/14/2017

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  2. #2
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    20,311

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  3. #3
    MGO Board of Directors

    President mikeb32's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Westland
    Posts
    12,275
    I Believe We as a Group, can get behind this one!!
    "Tell Me No Lies, I'll ask you No Questions"

    NRA Life Member
    MGO Member

    NRA RSO

    NRA CRSO
    MOC Member

    Unless otherwise noted, my posts represent my personal opinion, and are not an official position, opinion, or endorsement by MGO or the MGO BOD.

  4. #4
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    3,516
    I would like to see a penalty. By their own admission, the policy is probably unconstitutional. They violate the constitution, currently, because there is no penalty. If this passes, they can violate state law as well as the Constitution because there is nothing to stop them.

  5. #5
    Refreshing. I would like to see more laws written this simply.

    I agree with luckless. Penalties would only need another paragraph, and it would still be a nice straight forward statute.
    No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
    William Rawle - offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington

  6. #6
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Shooting distance from "8 mile"
    Posts
    6,742
    tack this on to something else so we can finally have a Hughes Amendment that we like...
    "Sec. 2. All persons who are commonly known as “Greasers” or the issue of Spanish and Indian blood, ... who go armed and are not known to be peaceable and quiet persons, and who can give no good account of themselves, may be disarmed by any lawful officer, and punished..." - Disarming of "Greasers", An Act to punish Vagrants, Vagabonds, and Dangerous and Suspicious Persons” California, passed April 30, 1855.

  7. #7
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    17,215
    Quote Originally Posted by DrScaryGuy View Post
    tack this on to something else so we can finally have a Hughes Amendment that we like...
    I am pretty sure that the Michigan Constitution would prevent that in the State. The US Constitution is looser on the subject of hostile amendments.

    Article IV Sections 21-27?


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  8. #8
    Legal Forum Contributor / Super Moderator Shyster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Riverview
    Posts
    8,151
    This is a HORRIBLE bill. Yes it sounds good at first glance but what it actually does is chip away at field preemption.

    It is already illegal for agencies to consider firearms ownership under MCL 123.1101. This could easily harm rather than help us.
    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners. Any opinion I express on an issue should not be considered legal advice.

    For those interested in establishing an NFA or Gun Trust click here. For my contact information click here. Follow me on Twitter @makowskilegal or my website www.makowskilegal.com

  9. #9
    MGO Board of Directors

    President mikeb32's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Westland
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyster View Post
    This is a HORRIBLE bill. Yes it sounds good at first glance but what it actually does is chip away at field preemption.

    It is already illegal for agencies to consider firearms ownership under MCL 123.1101. This could easily harm rather than help us.
    Then upon the advice of My Attorney I Stand Corrected!!
    "Tell Me No Lies, I'll ask you No Questions"

    NRA Life Member
    MGO Member

    NRA RSO

    NRA CRSO
    MOC Member

    Unless otherwise noted, my posts represent my personal opinion, and are not an official position, opinion, or endorsement by MGO or the MGO BOD.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyster View Post
    This is a HORRIBLE bill. Yes it sounds good at first glance but what it actually does is chip away at field preemption.

    It is already illegal for agencies to consider firearms ownership under MCL 123.1101. This could easily harm rather than help us.
    I agree with this. After going through this very situation as recent as yesterday, I don't think there's any need to change anything unless it's an addition of penalties towards the offending agency. We were told yesterday, word for word, in regards to their rules against carrying or possessing a firearm while fostering, "it's our request and we know it's not legal and there's nothing we can do about It". They are fully aware it's illegal and they don't care because there's no penalty for making this request. They refuse to license my wife unless she signs their paperwork and agrees to never carry her firearm while fostering. The kicker is, the paperwork she had to sign only cover safe storage and zero about carrying, so she signed the safe storage agreement and will continue to carry.

    I don't want anymore bills or laws, I just want people to start obeying the ones we have in place or answer to someone for violating them.

    Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter