BATFE now allowed to confiscate guns without due process

[NIFT]

Obama's DOJ, translate, Eric Holder, now has the authority to confiscate guns, without any due process, from people not even charged with a crime, much less convicted.

Since inanimate objects have no constitutional rights, LEOs and the feds can, now, confiscate guns and completely bypass that pesky U.S. Constitution, along with Supreme Court decisions, and all other laws. This is just one example of Obama's promise to the Brady Campaign to implement gun control "under the radar," to use Obama's words.

Despite continuing claims to the contrary, it is no secret, and there is no doubt, the goal of the Obama administration, the Brady Campaign, and all other "grabbers" is total confiscation. This is one giant leap in the incremental process of that total confiscation--the Constitution and the people be damned.

Story here:
GHEI: ATF's latest gun grab - Washington Times


Quote from "Final Rule" dated 8-27-12
"The Attorney General has delegated to ATF the authority to investigate, seize, and forfeit property involved in a violation or attempted violation within its investigative jurisdiction."
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...fenses-for-administrative-forfeiture-2012r-9p

 

[RandomName]

This is why I hate the media. They overstate and overhype everything to sell it. If you disagree with civil forfeiture, fine, but its not as presented and this isn't an expansion of it. At least keep the debate honest and let people decide for themselves based on the real situation.

The article says civil forfeiture doesn't include due process. Then it goes on to talk about a person who's hundreds of thousands of dollars were confiscated and says he got it back after legal proceedings. That sure sounds like he got due process. No due process would mean no legal proceedings and no getting it back.

"allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects..." is doctrine that the author is simply making up whole cloth. The 4th amendment reads " in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, " and pretty much every search and seizure involves some inanimate object. If the author's version were true you couldn't contest any seizure of anything but a person. Its been quite awhile since I took a Constitutional law class at college, but even I remember that.

There is no extension of any law, its a 1 year test program to allow the ATF to do the forfeiture process themselves in illegal drug cases instead of farming it out to the DEA. No change in rules, no change in laws, all the same protections apply, just a different department doing the forfeiture with drugs involved.

Anyway, I googled the new rule and come up with this, just to see if this was something to be worried about or not. Like I said, make up your own mind but do it based on facts and not hype.

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...fenses-for-administrative-forfeiture-2012r-9p

 

[NIFT]

There is no extension of any law, its a 1 year test program to allow the ATF to do the forfeiture process themselves in illegal drug cases instead of farming it out to the DEA. No change in rules, no change in laws, all the same protections apply, just a different department doing the forfeiture with drugs involved.

Anyway, I googled the new rule and come up with this, just to see if this was something to be worried about or not. Like I said, make up your own mind but do it based on facts and not hype.

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...fenses-for-administrative-forfeiture-2012r-9p

Yep, nothing at all to be worried about--it's just a one-year test program and only applies to drug cases. No possibility of any Second Amendment or Fourth Amendment infringement. Obama, Holder, DOJ, and BATFE would never violate any laws or constitutional rights. No way!

 

[PistolBob]

...and people still want to re-elect this guy.

 

[Tydeeh22]

this is just a toe testing the water.

 

[cobber]

Have there been any successful challenges of forfeiture laws based on the 4th A or state analogs?

 

[NIFT]

this is just a toe testing the water.

Perhaps. It looks to me more like the ongoing application of the art of the incremental: more and more steps to the goal of confiscation. None of the steps, in and of itself, is a major threat; however, collectively, it results in total disaster. It's the old story of putting a frog into a beaker of water and slowly, in small increments, turning the heat up until it dies. Works every time.

 

[mrjarrell]

Dupe.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...85-batfu_joins_the_asset_forfeiture_game.html

 

[seadoodr.]

this is just a toe testing the water.

I hope something in the water bites the toe off!!

 

[DRob]

No........... wait!

...and people still want to re-elect this guy.

C'mon! Let's be fair. Most people I know don't want Obama re-elected. But....a bunch of them here claim they will vote for some un-electable 3rd or 4th party "candidate" on the basis of "principles" rather than vote for the only guy who has a chance to beat BO. For the record, I defend their right to not even be able to recognize the forest for the trees!

 

[Echelon]

Where is my tin-foil hat?

 

[VN Vet]

this is just a toe testing the water.

I agree. However, that toe is connected to a foot. The foot is connected to a leg. That leg has a twin leg. The two legs attach to the hips and those hips form the buttocks. The buttocks protects the craphole lying between.

Therefore you must understand that sometime the a__hole owning that toe jumps in. Obama will jump-in without looking how deep the water is.

 

[Robgoody6]

How about another knee jerk reaction by politicians and another law that has no hope to be enforced or upheld.

 

[hoosierdoc]

The article says civil forfeiture doesn't include due process. Then it goes on to talk about a person who's hundreds of thousands of dollars were confiscated and says he got it back after legal proceedings. That sure sounds like he got due process. No due process would mean no legal proceedings and no getting it back.

But the forfeiture was done without due process. He reclaimed his property through due process, which involves time and expense. If I have $30,000 on my person, many areas assume it'd drug money and just take it despite me not having been in violation of anything. I then have to sue to get my money back.

 

[malern28us]

C'mon! Let's be fair. Most people I know don't want Obama re-elected. But....a bunch of them here claim they will vote for some un-electable 3rd or 4th party "candidate" on the basis of "principles" rather than vote for the only guy who has a chance to beat BO. For the record, I defend their right to not even be able to recognize the forest for the trees!

Its kindve like chossing whether you want shot til you die or stabbed until you die...not much of a choice. How could you even try to make a case for either?