Obama's after guns AGAIN

[NYbuck50]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/12/Obama-Expands-Civil-Forfeiture-So-ATF-Can-Seize-Your-Guns

[Felonious_Monk]

Well, it involves controlled substance abuses. So obviously this could only refer to drug dealing criminals and crackheads, right? Certainly the BATFU would grant you a pass because you forgot about that vicodin prescription in your medicine cabinet from after your root canal that's expired now. Nah, they'd never use that as a pretext for civil forfeiture.

[Grouse]

They plan to make ammo a controlled substance.

[greybeard]

I approve of it...100%

What's wrong with forfeiting weapons from narcotics violators ? They're not like us.. the weapons are not for collections, hunting, or target shooting.These weapons were , or will be used in the commission of a crime. Most if not all of the weapons would have probably been purchased illegally anyway.

This law should make it easier and less expensive for the tax payer to eliminate more extensive forfeiture procedures. I see no downside.. . It is what it is.. A more efficient way to deal with criminals.

I hear and read all the time from gun owners who say target the criminal.. WELL, that's what they're doing . Narcotics violators, who carry weapons are among the people who make it bad for us legitimate gun owners.

[ants]

If a person is caught in possession of illegal drugs and that person has a fire arm, either on him or in his house in his car what ever,that weapon would be seized anyway, whether the person possesses the arm legally or not. Trust me on that!!

That article said that the law expands ATF powers to allow them to take guns, from citizens with out due process. If that is correct than an ATF agent can simply say I THINK you're a drug dealer. Im taking your gun. Big difference

[greybeard]

Ants.. I disagree...the law targets narcotics offenders, not law abiding citizens. There is a BIG difference..

.

You are right, in that if someone is possession of ILLEGAL narcotics, their guns will be seized. I doubt that any reasonable person would think that they should keep their weapon while committing a felony. The law does not say that if ATF " THINKS " that you're a drug dealer they can take your weapon.. That is a big stretch. I haven't read the law, but "MY" understanding of what was said is that it applies to forfeiture and not seizure, therefore I ASSUME that the standards for seizure have not changed.. ( I often research laws that I think effect me, but this one does not so I have no interest)

I can't imagine that any American would want a person(s) who smuggles narcotics into the United States,

a meth dealer, a drug supplier, or gang members, etc. to be armed.

Defending a narcotics violator's gun rights is not what gun owners should do. Could you imagine the field day that gun opponents would have if gun owners defended the gun right's of drug offenders.

This is not a liberal thing. Remember Richard Nixon's, Ronald Reagan's and George Bush Sr's stance on narcotics, and conservatives overwhelmingly supported them. Look at their records !! They knew what a curse narcotics were to the U.S. Violence in the drug world is not new, but it has gotten worse. ( Look at the increase in violent gangs across the country, and it's growing). If drug violence was as bad then as it is now I would "EXPECT" similar laws to be signed by them.

[ants]

Greybeard.. I have to admit that I have not read the law either. But if the police, ATF who ever,, already take the guns of proven drug dealers/users why is this expanded law needed.

Can you post a link to a sight that shows the new law? I can't find it. But I'm a computer idiot.

[SteveB]

What is a "narcotic's violator"?

Is it the same as a drug dealer?

Are all "narcotic's violator's" committing felonies?

Does anyone honestly think a person(s) who smuggles narcotics into the United States,

a meth dealer, a drug supplier, or gang members, etc cares about another gun law?

And does this proposed law actually add anything to the 100's of gun laws we currently have?

[Early]

OK...Show of hands: Who here has had any of their guns or gun rights taken away by the Obama administration since his winning the presidential election? My guess is NONE, but I await your tales of woe.

[Grouse]

That's like saying that growling pit bull in front of me hasn't bit me yet, so I don't think it will. I'll just wait and see.

If he gets re-elected you will get plenty of replys. Jim Florio confiscated thousands of guns in NJ when he passed the assault weapons ban there, and he never gave any indication he would do it. The Obama administration has gone on record, and has proven many times, they want to pass a lot of gun laws. Why do you think that is?

[Grouse]

As far as the forfieture law goes, the problem is they can take the guns PRIOR to conviction, and you will never see them again, even if you are found not guilty. That is a BIG problem. It happens already with money and land and property seizures from people who were set up, had drugs planted in their homes, or had a single joint left in their car by the bimbo they picked up in a bar.

Want to see the story? Google Nicholas Bissel, a NJ county prosecutor who eventually fled aprehension and then committed suicide for his abuse of the forfieture laws.

Far too much power for the government and too much incentive for abuse and corruption.

[greybeard]

Ants.. I haven't looked for it. I used to look up many laws and enforcement authority statutes,and regulations, but haven't done it in some time and the one's I read were on the books for longer periods of time... I would try to find it now , but I'm computer illiterate, and it would take me a bit of time. Like I wrote earlier it doesn't effect me so I would never have an interest in spending time looking for it. . I used to look them up in law books.( I still listen to records and tapes ( I use a walkman), so I guess you can see how bad I am with modern technology.)

I realize that it is a gun law,but I don't view it that way. , I look at it as a more efficient way of dealing with violent criminals .

In this case, a violation of the narcotics laws must authorize seizure of the weapons and the seizure would be made according to law. It appears to me that it is the ultimate forfeiture authority is what was changed. I think if the seizure holds up then a less bureaucratic and less costly method of forfeiture is a good thing.

SteveB I think that you're right in that .the drug offender would not care about another law especially since this law does not impose criminal penalties. However, this law only seems to make it more efficient to forfeit the weapons. It's the law abiding tax payers who should be happy with this. I'm all for the United States Government saving time and (my) money. I would bet that in these cases the weapons would be forfeited anyway after judicial, and, or administrative procedures.

Early.. I think if you check the Obama record since he was President you will find that he actually relaxed three federal gun laws, and passed none that would hurt us. I have often been amazed that whether a person likes him, or not that he. or she would not appreciate the changes in OUR favor.

I'm sure everyone who keeps up with both sides of the gun control issues has read that the anti gun people are not happy with the President , or Governor Romney. They think that they're both too soft (my words) on gun control issues.

[ants]

Yeah.. I tried again today but could not find it. I'll keep looking. I'm just stuck on the fact that if a person is caught in possession, using or selling narcotics (crack, coke, heroine or a lot of prescription drugs) he/she would lose that firearm anyway.

Eeeaaarrrllly ...sup?

[d-bone20917]

Who was it that repealed the gun ban on National Park Service (NPS) land and Wildlife Refuges? And who was it that supported the assault weapons ban when they were a Governor?

[ELMER J. FUDD]

It was piggybacked on a credit card reform bill that Obama wanted.

From the Wall Street Journal : the change began in 2005. In May of that year, Mr. Romney declared a “Right to Bear Arms Day,” and the governor’s top aides began meeting almost monthly with the Gun Owners’ Action League. Mr. Romney also signed legislation cutting some red tape detested by gun owners in November 2005, and less than a year later he became a member of the National Rifle Association.

[greybeard]

ANTS...I did some quick checking... so double check me....

If I understand it correctly this delegation to ATF is a trial period of 1 year. In the past they would turn the weapons etc. seized relating to violation of narcotics laws ( Title 21) to DEA for forfeiture, now they can do it themselves, ( ATF is now under the Justice Dept., as is DEA so it's all under the Attorney General anyway)

The forfeiture now can be done administratively and can be done in 60 to 90 days. The cost of JUDICIAL forfeiture can be 100's, or thousands of dollars,( also storage and maintenance).

If I have the right ruling ( I'm pretty sure I do).. .. It does not expand the government's authority as a matter of law, it just authorizes ATF to do the forfeiture..

So,...if I have it right, all this does is give administrative authority to forfeit , the person can still present a defense, so to speak, to the agency..

It would be too lengthy to write the stuff I found, but this is a brief summery without going crazy.

someone's answering this topic as I'm writing this so maybe they put something on this....

[Felonious_Monk]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What exactly even feigns to represent Due Process in this abomination of an executive Directive? It can't even be called a law, since it wasn't voted on by your representatives in the congress. This is executive fiat, depriving citizens of liberty and property without just cause. How can anyone support these policies? For the "Hurr Durr this is for drug dealers" crowd, it says "controlled substance violations". That includes any medications your Dr. May have prescribed you. So come down off your high horse. This DOES affect you. This is a threat to you. But instead you'd rather believe "That can't happen in MY AMERICA.", meanwhile it's going on all around you.

Slightly out of context, but still in and on topic, just what do you think Fast N Furious was about?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Felonious_Monk

[greybeard]

Grouse.. I was addressing Federal forfeiture laws, so when you wrote that the government had too much power, I misunderstood because I thought you meant the Feds. This case was abuse of Local Government authority. So you're right. He worked for a New Jersey prosecutors office and did eventually kill himself.

My understanding of this, was that after an individual was arrested for selling cocaine, the Prosecutor, Bissell, made a deal with him and the violator AGREED to forfeit land rather then be prosecuted, which at auction was sold below market value to members of Bissells office..

So, as I wrote above, this is different then the federal forfeiture laws that I was addressing.

Again, in this case it was a Local prosecution, and it was an agreement reached with the prosecutor. The man who had been arrested, in fact, contacted the federal government who subsequently arrested the New Jersey Prosecutor for Embezzlement, Tax Fraud, and Abuse of Power. He committed suicide after he fled and was about to be apprehended.

The abuse of power was not the Federal Government, and in fact, it was the Federal Government who stepped in and arrested the prosecutor for his violations.

Felonious Monk... We disagree on this.

It must be a lawful seizure and the person is given the opportunity to fight the seizure. Also, a seizure cannot be made on lawful prescriptions, there has to be a violation of law. So it has absolutely no affect on me and I agree with the forfeiture provision.

In my America I want felons prosecuted, and their merchandise seized and forfeited. I want MY government to be HARD on crime.

[ants]

OK...Show of hands: Who here has had any of their guns or gun rights taken away by the Obama administration since his winning the presidential election? My guess is NONE, but I await your tales of woe.

Right ! It could never happen! Teacher smarts

[Early]

Dodged the question, didn't you ants?? You are so narrow-minded, shallow and ignorant....To think that you vote is, indeed, scary!

[ants]

You're easier than a fat drunk chick at 2 am! B.O. is 100% pro gun...right? The reason you think that I'm so "narrow minded, shallow and ignorant" is because you are so much more crazy smarter than me or anyone else.( in your little world) I mean after all you were a teacher. You are a funny little girl!! Don't leave and god bless

[Early]

Ahh...you idiot...Your response does not disappoint: You show your true colors. Your mother should have admonished you..."Stupid people should not lie!" I will have no more conversation with you...for now...but, remember, when Obama wins again....I will be the first to tell you, "I told you so!"

Bye, bye....moron!

[sits in trees]

Obamy wants yer guns, next he will want yer women!!!

[Early]

Ants ain't got now woman...no problem for him. Now...if Obama wants to take his fella...different story!

[wooffer]

Dodged the question, didn't you ants?? You are so narrow-minded, shallow and ignorant....To think that you vote is, indeed, scary!

President O is too busy destabilizing the mideast and campaigning to worry about our guns now, but he has stated that he wants to ban firearms. This would most likely come in a 2nd term if the same dumocrats that fell for his con do so again and vote fpr him.