TexasCHLforum.com

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

Read more: GHEI: ATF's latest gun grab - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/ ... z25qXEBlGH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly but it reads as if you're not involved in some way with an alleged crime then they still can't arbitrarily come take your property...

But then a year ago I'd have said the Feds wouldn't take a Vet and hold him without charging him or reading him his rights either...

I've worked on many civil forfeiture cases. They are extremely hard to win. Often the presumption is actually upon the claimant (the "defendant" or person who has had property seized) to prove that the items or monies seized are NOT related to contraband. There is also NO right to a jury trial!

It can take many months and thousands to fight even a completely frivolous civil forfeiture charge.

Here is an example of the misuse in Texas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Te ... ontroversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RSJ wrote:I've worked on many civil forfeiture cases. They are extremely hard to win. Often the presumption is actually upon the claimant (the "defendant" or person who has had property seized) to prove that the items or monies seized are NOT related to contraband. There is also NO right to a jury trial!

It can take many months and thousands to fight even a completely frivolous civil forfeiture charge.

Here is an example of the misuse in Texas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Te ... ontroversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So essentially with this enhanced forfeiture ability it can arguably be expanded to be used in combination with the NDAA and the Patriot Act to formulate a trumped up/or not charge and take your property ie... Guns etc... Without any actual proof, just a supposition of wrongdoing ...And good luck fighting to get them back.

Nice

Medic624 wrote:

RSJ wrote:I've worked on many civil forfeiture cases. They are extremely hard to win. Often the presumption is actually upon the claimant (the "defendant" or person who has had property seized) to prove that the items or monies seized are NOT related to contraband. There is also NO right to a jury trial!

It can take many months and thousands to fight even a completely frivolous civil forfeiture charge.

Here is an example of the misuse in Texas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Te ... ontroversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So essentially with this enhanced forfeiture ability it can arguably be expanded to be used in combination with the NDAA and the Patriot Act to formulate a trumped up/or not charge and take your property ie... Guns etc... Without any actual proof, just a supposition of wrongdoing ...And good luck fighting to get them back.
g
Nice

I have been pulled over multiple times in Tenaha over the years. I drive thru Tenaha a couple of times a year when I fly my boss to Shrevport for 3 or more days. I will rent a car and drive back home to Pearland rather than hang out in a hotel.
I always set the cruise on no more than speed limit +5. Each time I have been stopped the Officer looks at my TDL and CHL, hands it back and tells me to be careful. He never takes it back to the car and runs it.
Maybe because I am in a rented vehicle? I dont know but I am always careful driving thru that town.

It's time this department is dissolved and brought down to the state level.

Seriously such a blatant rape of the "interstate commerce clause".

APynckel wrote:It's time this department is dissolved and brought down to the state level.

Seriously such a blatant rape of the "interstate commerce clause".

Any presidential candidate who reads and understands the United States Constitution could easily justify dissolving at least half the agencies in the executive branch, sending the employees packing, and making a nice dent in spending.

Voting for any presidential candidate who doesn't realize this is voting for the status quo.

tacticool wrote:

APynckel wrote:It's time this department is dissolved and brought down to the state level.

Seriously such a blatant rape of the "interstate commerce clause".

Any presidential candidate who reads and understands the United States Constitution could easily justify dissolving at least half the agencies in the executive branch, sending the employees packing, and making a nice dent in spending.

Voting for any presidential candidate who doesn't realize this is voting for the status quo.

Which is why Paul got my vote in the primaries.