Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against MDHHS Over Foster Parent Gun Rights

[partdeux]

This one just got ugly.

What a mess.

Does your wife's "agreement" affect you?

Sounds like you need to contact SAF!

[TylerV76]

Does your wife's "agreement" affect you?

Sounds like you need to contact SAF!

Not yet since we're still technically separated. If/when we move back in together I'll have to go through the training and then yes it would.

I've left the choice up to her for now but at this point I'd rather contact SAF. She has to wait until Monday to speak to MDHHS about alternative licensing. She wants to hear what they say first.

My hope is SAF gets the injunction sooner than later.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[10x25mm]

Radio Moscow is reporting that U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney just ruled against MDHHS and the SAF backed lawsuit of William and Jill Johnson and Brian and Naomi Mason can proceed. Nothing in print yet, but here is a recent post on MDHHS's June motion to dismiss:

http://www.yourdailyglobe.com/story/...urt/10476.html

Ontonagon family back in federal court
Jan Tucker - June 11, 2018
jantuck@jamadots.com

Ontonagon — The case of a gun issue between an Ontonagon family and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services was back in federal court last week. William and Jill Johnson and Brian and Naomi Mason, of Ontonagon had sued the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services claiming the state had violated their second amendment with their requirements concerning licensing foster parents who have guns in the home.

The Johnson’s claimed they were told by DHHS officials they were denied to become a foster parents to their grandson because of the gun issue and filed the suit. Johnson is now licensed as a foster care provider and has foster children.

The DHHS filed a motion in Federal Court asking Judge Paul Maloney to dismiss the lawsuit because Johnson now has the license. The Johnson’s claim they filed the lawsuit before the license was approved. The Johnson’s claim DHHS rules classifying guns as “hazardous materials” and requiring guns and bullets stored separately in locked containers restricts their constitutional right.

The DHHS attorney claimed this rule did not mean what it purports to mean and even if it did, it would not restrict the Johnson’s right to defend themselves. Johnson said the Judge went through a scenario that if someone lives in a rural area and someone breaks into their home, the owner would need to open the safe, get the firearm, then go to a different room, open another safe to get the ammunition and then put them together.

Oral arguments went on in the Kalamazoo court for over 90 minutes.

Maloney did not make a decision on the issue, but ordered both sides to submit a brief and gave them more time to brief the issue of “scrutiny.” The DHHS, Johnson said, wants the case to be argued under intermediate or rational scrutiny. The Johnson’s want it judged under “strict” scrutiny. According to the definition, “strict scrutiny” is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of an issue.

The decision on scrutiny will be decided by the judge after the briefs are filed.

[DrScaryGuy]

The DHHS filed a motion in Federal Court asking Judge Paul Maloney to dismiss the lawsuit because Johnson now has the license. The Johnson’s claim they filed the lawsuit before the license was approved.

translation - "oh crap, we knew this would happen sooner or later. let's just give them the license and hope that shuts them up"

[10x25mm]

Michigan Radio finally posted on U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney's decision:

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/la...l-move-forward

Lawsuit to allow guns in foster homes will move forward
By Catherine Shaffer • August 20, 2018

A lawsuit over whether foster parents can keep unsecured firearms in their homes is moving forward. Foster parents William and Jill Johnson say state rules requiring them to lock up their guns for storage are depriving them of their Second Amendment rights

The plaintiffs in the case are William and Jill Johnson and Brian and Naomi Mason, all residents of Ontonagon, Michigan; and the Second Amendment Foundation, of which both couples are members.

The Johnsons became licensed by the Department of Health and Human Services as foster parents after serving as relative caregivers for their grandson. Foster care licensing is not required for relative care placement, but the Johnsons undertook licensing so that they could provide foster care for other children. They say that DHS rules for foster homes that require firearms to be locked in a gun safe or trigger-locked and stored separately from ammunition deprive them of their Second Amendment right to use their weapons for home protection.

U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney agreed the parents have a plausible claim and denied the state's motion to dismiss the case. In his opinion, he wrote: “Storing firearms in an inoperable condition makes them useless for the defense of hearth and home, which implicates the Second Amendment....The need for self-defense rarely comes with advance notice; it occurs spontaneously, often at times specifically chosen for the expected vulnerability of the intended victim.”

However, Maloney dismissed claims from Brian and Naomi Mason, who said they would become foster parents, but have not because they wouldn’t be able to possess loaded, unsecured firearms in their home. Maloney said because they were not foster parents, they lacked standing to bring a case.

He also dismissed some portions of the Johnson’s case related to due process and equal protection.

Several amicus briefs were filed supporting each side in the case.Vivek Sankaran is with the Child Advocacy Law Clinic at the University of Michigan. In his brief, he argues that children in the state's care have a constitutional right to a safe environment under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. These protections apply to anyone in custody of the state, including prisoners and children in foster care.

“If you're a parent in the system and your kid is somewhere, how would you feel if you knew the home the child was in had guns and your child could access those guns?” asks Sankaran.

Sankaran also pointed out that foster children come from backgrounds that could substantially increase their risk of being involved in an accident or crime related to firearms.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. His argument largely mirrored Maloney’s final written opinion. “As a practical matter, when a firearm is kept in a home for self-defense, it is always ‘in use.’ Criminals never take a day off, and they never call ahead. To serve its self-defense purpose, a gun must be readily accessible whenever its owner believes he might possibly need it,” Schuette wrote.

[midlandshooter]

Interesting.


What a load of crap that it requires these people to go through so much trouble to HOPEFULLY win their constitutional rights.