Disabled Marine Forced to Give Constitutional Rights to Get Custody of Grandson

By Dave Dolbee published on in Legal

Do you think the gun control issue is dead? Do you believe the last presidential election secured your gun rights? What if a court openly admitted it was trampling your constitutional rights, but gave you an unthinkable ultimatum of giving up your Second Amendment rights or losing custody of your grandchild? Don’t think that could ever happen? Then, you have never heard of William and Jill Johnson.

William Johnson is a Marine Corp veteran who is 100 percent disabled. The Johnson’s were seeking custody of their grandson when their civil rights were allegedly violated—after the state asked the Johnsons to be foster parents to their grandson. The sad story goes like this.

Second Amendment Foundation

National Organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation are the great defenders of our rights.

Michigan DHHS caseworkers told Mr. Johnson, that he would have to give the agency the serial numbers of all of his firearms. Johnson logically questioned this—as I would imagine we all would. The caseworkers allegedly replied, “If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.”

What a caseworker allegedly said is one thing, but we have a belief that the Lady Justice is blind and the courts will right certain wrongs. However, the lawsuit filed jointly by several parties including the Second Amend Foundation (SAF), alleges a Gogebic County Court judge told the Johnsons that if they wanted their grandson placed in their care, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”

The Second Amendment Foundation

“The statements from the caseworker and judge are simply outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “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.”

The lawsuit asserts that “the policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

“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.”

Will the Second Amendment Foundation be successful in defending the Johnsons’ Constitutional rights? Share your answer, thoughts, or feelings about the Michigan case in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (59)

  • art

    |

    boy a lot of judges lean so far left they are going to fall on communism. our country has not only a lot of judges, it seems most of our school teachers also. i only hope the right can stand tall and take some of the control back.

    Reply

  • Jay

    |

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am in Michigan and have not heard of this. I will be passing it on to a few other Michigan gun rights groups I belong too. Also donating to SAF.

    Reply

    • Dave Dolbee

      |

      Thanks for spreading the word… and supporting the SAF. ~Dave Dolbee

      Reply

  • G-Man

    |

    Once again, it would be remiss of me were I not to point out the blind naysayers who’ve trolled this forum to impart their lack of wisdom with claims there is absolutely nothing to fear from this increasingly tyrannical government.

    But in particular, I chastise those who can’t tell the difference between legitimate court decisions, versus judges that abuse their positions to legislate new liberal laws from their benches.

    Reply

  • drew

    |

    When you hire an attorney, you AUTOMATICALLY give up your unalienable rights and receive in its place civil privileges. You’ve admitted and acquired what is called ‘legal disability.’ Your new status puts you under the corporation’s (private, for-profit, owned by foreign investors – known as United States, Inc.) , private company policy (think 3M, Exxon, etc.). This private company policy is referred to more commonly as ‘public policy.’ These people don’t have a chance in this lawsuit because of their decision to hire a bar attorney. One of the differences between the organic Constitution and the private company policy known as the ‘Constitution of the ….’ is there is no civil right (not really rights..just privileges that can be taken away at a moments notice) to bear arms in that version. The only reason they haven’t totally eliminated weapons in this country is because they would have a war on their hands and they aren’t ready for that yet. All the legal pieces are in place to make it happen when they are ready. If these people are going to win, they need to fire all attorneys, represent themselves, claim their sovereignty under the ‘We The People’ as stated in the Declaration of Independence, move the law system to the Common Law by invoking that unalienable right (also guaranteed by the organic Constitution), revoke their signatures off all gov”t forms they’ve signed related to this issue for coercion, duress, unconscionable contract and fraud, etc. If they are afraid to proceed all by themselves, hire an attorney to advise but NOT REPRESENT them in court. If they do it correctly, they will easily win, keep their grandchildren and in addition restore their unalienable right to bear arms. We didn’t get our right to bear arms from man. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave us that right. We do not need a constitution or man’s permission to bear arms. I would be willing to assist these people if they desire – just make a comment.

    Reply

  • Ron Laramee

    |

    What do you have when you fire 300 liberal judges, a good start!

    Reply

  • Ross Bonny

    |

    This action is worth taking to the Supreme Court, if necessary. The government bureaucrats who admit they are trampling on Second Amendment rights should be fired and sued into poverty.

    Reply

  • Kevin Hagus

    |

    I agree one thousand percent! This case “must” be litigated with utmost concern. This is the United States of America! No Federal or State agency (or anyone else for that matter) can be allowed to usurp a citizens civil and Constitutional rights in this manner. If need be, it needs to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court!

    Reply

  • Auggie Will

    |

    It never stops!
    The people who play by the rules should be given every concession by the courts.
    If he were a low life who is in and out of jail I’ll bet there would be no problem

    Reply

  • Cmac

    |

    The ACLU should be on this like stink on a pile of fresh cow crap. They won’t but they should be.

    Reply

  • Michael Norwood

    |

    GO GET THEM SAF

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: