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<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Results 1 to 10 of 18

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,706

    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
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    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
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,706
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    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
    In Memoriam mikeb32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Westland
    Posts
    12,928
    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 luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,102
    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
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lake Odessa
    Posts
    1,613
    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 Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    tack this on to something else so we can finally have a Hughes Amendment that we like...
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

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