The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: santahog on September 10, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
-
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-rules-make-it-easier-for-atf-to-seize-guns-without-due-process
New rules make it easier for ATF to seize guns without due process
The Obama administration, apparently by executive decree, has enacted new rules that make it easier for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to seize the guns of citizens without due process of law. A Washington Times report issued on Thursday provides the details.
Under normal circumstances a citizen must be convicted of a crime, or at least charged with a crime, in order for law enforcement to seize their firearms. But the Justice Department granted authority to the ATF to "seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled substance abuses."
According to the Times, this gives the federal government the power to seize the guns of citizens even if they are merely suspected of substance abuse. These citizens do not have to be officially charged or arrested.
Due process of law, under the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, requires among other things that citizens have rights that cannot be violated even if they are suspected of crimes. Historically this has meant that citizens who are not charged but are mere suspects cannot be deprived of any of the rights afforded to any other citizen. And even if they are charged with crimes, they still have certain rights that cannot be violated, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to face one's accusers in a court of law, and the right to qualified legal counsel. Any violation of that person's rights after they are charged must be done according to accepted legal process and not on the whims of prosecutors or law enforcement.
But prior to formal charges being issued, the government has operated under the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution that prevent it from treating citizens as if they are charged prior to actually being charged with crimes.
Gradually these time honored mandates have been under assault as law enforcement has skirted the boundaries of the law by engaging in activity that violates both the spirit and letter of due process. The assault kicked into high gear after the 9/11 terror attacks.
But civil forfeiture of property is a dangerous new step in the assault on due process in that citizens can be deprived of their property, as well as their rights, even if it is never proved that they committed a crime.
The concept behind civil forfeiture of property is simple but baffling. Inanimate objects are placed on trial and treated as persons. And since objects have no rights, prosecutors can simply dispense with constitutional rights in these trials. But the citizen or citizens who are caught in the crosshairs are considered guilty until proven innocent and are burdened with the task of proving their innocence.
In the meantime such citizens are deprived of their Second Amendment rights. And all of this comes as the ATF and the Justice Department operate under a heavy cloud of suspicion in the wake of the biggest political scandal in U.S. history -- Operation Fast and Furious.
-
They've been doing this for 30ish years remember under Reagan the Coast Guard seized a multi million dollar yacht because they found A pot seed in the crew quarters.
And the REALLY good part is that even if you are found not guilty you don't get your guns back.
By the time your case is tried they have already been auctioned or destroyed unless they are evidence.
-
Upset a girlfriend and have her accuse you of domestic violence and they'll make you get rid of your guns, or take them from you, in some parts of the country.
-
Upset a girlfriend and have her accuse you of domestic violence and they'll make you get rid of your guns, or take them from you, in some parts of the country.
If she doesn't tell TSA you are carrying a bomb.
-
If this President can do this while under suspicion himself in the Fast and Furious scandal, just think what he will do if reelected! This is Richard Nixon deja vu all over again. Only he thinks he is smarter than the rest of us. We Romanians have an expression which translates to: Too clever by half! We must not re-elect this bully. I know I'm preaching to the choir.
-
If she doesn't tell TSA you are carrying a bomb.
Yeah, but Tom, yours is a unique sort of charm.. You have the same effect on me sometimes.. ::) (Even I'm not immune.. ;))
-
Yeah, but Tom, yours is a unique sort of charm.. You have the same effect on me sometimes.. ::) (Even I'm not immune.. ;))
They didn't have TSA back when I got divorced. (THANK GOD ! ;D )
It happened to a guy on a flight out of Philly last Friday.
-
I wonder if Mr. Romney gets elected, he'll rescind this ruling by DOJ.
-
I wonder if Mr. Romney gets elected, he'll rescind this ruling by DOJ.
That stack of BHO E.O's is getting thicker by the day. :-\
-
He's probably got two stacks of 'em. One for if he doesn't get re-elected, another for when ...errr... If he gets reelected.
Should be interesting to see who he grants pardons to between November and January.
-
Should be interesting to see who he grants pardons to between November and January.
#1 would be Eric Holder, but can you pardon before trial, conviction and sentencing?
-
They don't even need EO's. it doesn't come from that high up the chain.
Just some lawyer at ATF decides they can get away with a "change of policy".
That is the problem with
Regulatory Agencies". they circumvent the power of Congress to make the laws by saying it isn't a "law", it's just agency policy.
And that is set by some lawyer who was never elected, or vetted by any one.
#1 would be Eric Holder, but can you pardon before trial, conviction and sentencing?
Yes, Nixon was never charged, tried, or convicted of anything. Ford pardoned him for everything he did or may have done.
One thing though.
Obama can pardon everyone, except himself.
-
I wonder if Mr. Romney gets elected, he'll rescind this ruling by DOJ.
You know, I'd like to think so, but I don't have any reason to believe that he would. He wouldn't volunteer it before the election if he had a choice, I'm sure..
-
You know, I'd like to think so, but I don't have any reason to believe that he would. He wouldn't volunteer it before the election if he had a choice, I'm sure..
The best bet for Romney and Ryan until after the election is to just stay on topic and keep hammering Obama where no one can defend him, jobs and the economy.
Just stay on the topic that he's had 4 years and thing are worse than when he started.
Keep it simple and leave the things that require the voters to think until after he's elected.
-
The best bet for Romney and Ryan until after the election is to just stay on topic and keep hammering Obama where no one can defend him, jobs and the economy.
Just stay on the topic that he's had 4 years and thing are worse than when he started.
Keep it simple and leave the things that require the voters to think until after he's elected.
Yepper, this election is NOT about Mitt/Ryan it IS about BHO's record and they need to hammer on it until Nov 2nd-oh wait that's Dem voting day according to Michelle my Belle-November 6th for the rest of us ;D