I LL KEEP MINE..
GHEI: ATF's Latest Gun Grab - agency reduces due process for seizing firearms. Too far?
pdt_ski
2012/09/13 23:19:19
|
|
|||||
|
13 votes
|
|
72% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
17% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
11% | |||
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...
Top Opinion
-
CHUCK 2012/09/14 02:03:42Agree - this goes too far
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!
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
I LL KEEP MINE..