Quantcast

GHEI: ATF's Latest Gun Grab - agency reduces due process for seizing firearms. Too far?

pdt_ski 2012/09/13 23:19:19
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Nita Ghei of The Washington Times, 6 September 2012, writes:

The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.

It’s a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property — not a person — is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.

Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.



Read More: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/atf...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • CHUCK 2012/09/14 02:03:42
    Agree - this goes too far
    CHUCK
    +5
    I WONDER IF THIS APPLIES TO ERIC S FRIENDS..
    I LL KEEP MINE..

    Photobucket

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Quazimoto 2012/10/01 18:56:18
    Agree - this goes too far
    Quazimoto
    This does not surprise me.
  • Tennessee3501 2012/09/15 19:02:45 (edited)
    Agree - this goes too far
    Tennessee3501
    +1
    We need help from Michelle Obama. Her clothing sends a serious message to all Americans. She supports our 2nd Ammendment consitutional right to "bare arms." LOL !
  • pdt_ski Tenness... 2012/09/15 19:07:52 (edited)
  • Tenness... pdt_ski 2012/09/15 19:15:15
    Tennessee3501
    +1
    Looks good to me!
  • Professor Wizard 2012/09/14 14:44:57
    Undecided
    Professor Wizard
    +1
    I do hope this will be constitutionally challenged by the NRA and the NFA.

    However, I thought confiscation of weapons happened anytime there was a drug bust by all law enforcement agencies.

    And the ATF has had that power for many years... so I wonder exactly what has changed.

    I mean :: If you get pulled over in your car, and you have a gun.. AND you have a bag of pot.. you are going to lose the gun... and it has been that way for a long time!
  • pdt_ski Profess... 2012/09/14 15:52:31 (edited)
    pdt_ski
    The difference here is they could only take the perpetrator's guns (part of the felony). Now they can confiscate any guns remotely connected to the crime. It's a new rule, not a clarification of an old one.

    The full text of the "Authorization To Seize Property Involved in Drug Offenses for Administrative Forfeiture (2012R-9P)" is here

    In the background section quote:

    ATF does not currently have authority 
    under 21 U.S.C. Chapter 13 to seize for
    administrative forfeiture property
    involved in controlled substance offenses.
    Instead, ATF generally refers such
    property to the Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA), which is primarily
    responsible for investigating violations
    of drug laws contained in title 21 of the
    United States Code. DEA then initiates,
    processes, and concludes all necessary
    forfeiture actions for the
    controlled-substance-related property.


    It is (on paper) meant to cover organizations but as the article above describes, a business owner whose employees commit a crime that may in some way be associated with business property may have that propert forfeited and face a long and expensive legal battle to get it back.
  • Profess... pdt_ski 2012/09/14 16:32:15
    Professor Wizard
    +1
    Ohhhh.. I can see some unhappy business owners.

    So... if a president's aid is caught smoking pot in the back room by the presidents office - - would they then confiscate the white house and property therein?
  • pdt_ski Profess... 2012/09/14 17:02:47
    pdt_ski
    Wouldn't that be cool! I think this is directed toward firearms, for the most part (ATF).

    Business owners would be the hardest hit by this. Suppose you have a convenience store with pistol on premesis for protection and your employee is caught smoking pot? According to this the they could take the pistol.
  • Jeff Smith 2012/09/14 13:18:46
    Undecided
    Jeff Smith
    +1
    NOPE!!
  • dispatcher 2012/09/14 13:12:32
    Agree - this goes too far
    dispatcher
    +1
    THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS HERE TO STAY, THEY WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS, TELL OBAMA IF HE WANTS OUR GUNS THEN COME & GET THEM & SEE WHAT HAPPENS !!
    2nd  amendment  for homeowners   gun rights 2nd  amendment  for homeowners   gun rights 2nd  amendment  for homeowners   gun rights
  • pdt_ski dispatcher 2012/09/14 15:37:29
    pdt_ski
    ROTFLMAO - The best one is the Safe Family Gun Guide.
  • dispatcher pdt_ski 2012/09/14 18:09:15
    dispatcher
    +1
    Glad you like it, maybe everyone should have this type of personal inventory !!
  • pdt_ski dispatcher 2012/09/14 19:40:23
    pdt_ski
    I have 3 brothers who do, for those reasons.
  • dispatcher pdt_ski 2012/09/17 13:33:18
  • pdt_ski dispatcher 2012/09/17 13:41:22
    pdt_ski
    Yes, they most certainly will.
  • TheTruth1313 2012/09/14 06:50:03
    Agree - this goes too far
    TheTruth1313
    +1
    More BS from the cowardly dictator in chief obama.
  • pdt_ski TheTrut... 2012/09/14 06:55:44
    pdt_ski
    +1
    Yet another new law by regulation that removes one more bit of freedom. It's like wriggling in a fishing net.
  • TheTrut... pdt_ski 2012/09/14 07:33:51
    TheTruth1313
    Too true.
  • Centurion~PWCM~JLA 2012/09/14 06:31:37
    Agree - this goes too far
    Centurion~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    This is so wrong on so many levels. The usurping communist dictator needs to be removed from office and preferably sent back to Kenya on a slow leaky boat.
  • Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel 2012/09/14 06:14:04
    Agree - this goes too far
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    +2
    How many days now until we boot Obama, Hellery and the rest out?
  • pdt_ski Annie~P... 2012/09/14 06:15:07
    pdt_ski
    +1
    52 days, 17 hours, 43 minutes by my count :)
  • Oaces_b... pdt_ski 2012/09/14 06:21:14
  • Oaces_boss_yo® 2012/09/14 05:53:31 (edited)
  • pdt_ski Oaces_b... 2012/09/14 06:15:28
    pdt_ski
    +1
    Thanks!
  • Oaces_b... pdt_ski 2012/09/14 06:20:37
  • Profess... Oaces_b... 2012/09/14 14:46:33
    Professor Wizard
    +1
    As much as I would like to see that... it isn't going to happen.

    The American Public - current population - are a bunch of passive sheep, and only a tiny tiny percentage has enough balls to complain, or try to do something.. ... ... ... until 51% or more want to change things, NOTHING is going to change - things will continue down the current path.
  • Oaces_b... Profess... 2012/09/14 20:56:48
  • holly go lightly 2012/09/14 02:12:07
    Agree - this goes too far
    holly go lightly
    +2
    Absolutely too far.It will be interesting to see how far the next POTUS tries to go.
  • Ken 2012/09/14 02:05:15
    Agree - this goes too far
    Ken
    +2
    and they will pay the price.
  • pdt_ski Ken 2012/09/14 02:11:15
    pdt_ski
    +2
    Same here, especially if it was the case where someone using my house was caught doing drugs - I wasn't, but it was my house - and they used this rule. It would get ugly.
  • CHUCK 2012/09/14 02:03:42
    Agree - this goes too far
    CHUCK
    +5
    I WONDER IF THIS APPLIES TO ERIC S FRIENDS..
    I LL KEEP MINE..

    Photobucket
  • pdt_ski CHUCK 2012/09/14 02:10:00
    pdt_ski
    +2
    That's a Paratus! Very cool! I think they'd have a hard time taking that away.
  • Red_Horse CHUCK 2012/09/14 05:58:48
  • JustCallMeBub 2012/09/13 23:53:17 (edited)
    Agree - this goes too far
    JustCallMeBub
    +2
    You know the Democrats pump up the Obama healthcare like it's the cats meow but I have a thought on this subject to let the air out of some folks balloons." If you apply for welfare because you've hit hard times they will most likely give it to you under one condition, that you don't own any thing like a house, boat, camper, or even a motor bike, but now if you're renting minus any luxuries they will most likely give it to you, even though you make the same amount as the person that is paying on a mortgage. I'd say the Obama healthcare plan will work the same way. Now you have two men each bring the same amount of income in each month, one rents at $600 a month and the other pays on a home loan at $600.00 a month. Now the Government steps in and forces both to buy healthcare, the one who rents his home will either get it for free or at little cost because he has no equity, but now the one who has a mortgage is penalized for owning a home much like the welfare system works; The one who rents his home is safe at the end of the year when he proves he has healthcare, but the one who is paying on a mortgage can't afford it so he couldn't purchase the healthcare, and now he is faced with a fine, but he still has no money to pay even the fine, so now they come to his home and arrest ...
    You know the Democrats pump up the Obama healthcare like it's the cats meow but I have a thought on this subject to let the air out of some folks balloons." If you apply for welfare because you've hit hard times they will most likely give it to you under one condition, that you don't own any thing like a house, boat, camper, or even a motor bike, but now if you're renting minus any luxuries they will most likely give it to you, even though you make the same amount as the person that is paying on a mortgage. I'd say the Obama healthcare plan will work the same way. Now you have two men each bring the same amount of income in each month, one rents at $600 a month and the other pays on a home loan at $600.00 a month. Now the Government steps in and forces both to buy healthcare, the one who rents his home will either get it for free or at little cost because he has no equity, but now the one who has a mortgage is penalized for owning a home much like the welfare system works; The one who rents his home is safe at the end of the year when he proves he has healthcare, but the one who is paying on a mortgage can't afford it so he couldn't purchase the healthcare, and now he is faced with a fine, but he still has no money to pay even the fine, so now they come to his home and arrest him and charge him with a federal offence, but not only that, he isn't allowed to own any firearms in his home because in each state it's illegal to own a firearm when charged with a felony. Why?" Because the Government wants your firearms and what a better way to get some of them knowing very well that people will have a hard time buying this new affordable healthcare plan, at least that is the bull that their feeding every one
    (more)
  • pdt_ski JustCal... 2012/09/13 23:57:59
    pdt_ski
    +1
    It definitely sounds like a setup. They can already seize weapons from people involved in the commission of the crime.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/01 00:28:45

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals