Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Our ancestors knew what to do with overreaching bureaucrats.
Posted by DarthVader 2012-09-08 00:26||
#2 This administration has turned a blind eye to our markets. Previous prosecutions were over a thousand even under Clinton. None so far with O. Madoff for example had connections that never paid a price as he did. They all knew but made great sums of money. Like a home or business appraisal or loan. Everyone pushed the bubble.
They take the little guy and push him around.
Posted by Dale 2012-09-08 07:10||
#3 When milk and bread become "controlled-substances" we may have a problem.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-09-08 08:07||
#4 Milk IS a controlled substance - at least infant formula is - in some hospitals it is now dispensed like prescription medicine. To encourage breast feeding ( a fine thing) they make the new mother listen to her baby cry for 1-3 hours until the counselor can come lecture her on feeding and the appropriately licensed person can open the locked formula cabinet.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-09-08 08:29||
#5 And there you have it Glenmore. Families with infants or small children should not have firearms anyway, right? What additional justification could possibly be required?
Posted by Besoeker 2012-09-08 08:38||
Posted by Water Modem 2012-09-08 09:21||
#7 When milk and bread become "controlled-substances" we may have a problem.
Read the Food Safety Act or whatever it was called, I think it was passed last year or 2010. Very scary, it can be interpreted in so many ways. I expect they will try and tell people soon enough, that they cannot eat anything they have grown themselves. TSA and VIPR checkpoints on the highways.
Oof. I guess we're going to have to 'Go Wolverines' on the oppressors.
Posted by Secret Asian Man 2012-09-08 09:37||
#8 Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it's extremely lucrative.
I call it government over-reaching greed and a suspension of due process. Our founding fathers created the Constitution to protect citizens when government runs amok. They had experienced such losses of freedom and came to the America to escape tyranny.
You can bring about any result you desire if you ignore the law, suspend rights, or redefine the law to suit your ideological desires. There is not such a far distance between this gun grab and gun grabs in Nazi Germany. It was not very long before Nazi Germany had a ruthless totalitarian regime that did as it pleased at a great cost to whatever groups they decreed enemies of the state.
"Fast and Furious" is an example of government gone wild. I am still waiting for people to be impeached or go to jail over that one.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-09-08 10:24||
#9 "It is time to stand up, to be counted, and to make waves--no, to make tsunamis."
You cannot replace God with government without replacing good with evil, light with darkness, justice with murder, freedom and liberty with regulations.
Posted by Omomorong Jaiger4498 2012-09-08 11:01||
#10 I'll give an Amen to that!
Posted by JohnQC 2012-09-08 11:13||
#11 I've been toying with the idea of setting up a trust to own firearms for the benefit of my family. Don't think it would prevent criminal forfeiture, but it should be able to defeat civil forfeiture.
Posted by Iblis 2012-09-08 12:24||
#12 Iblis, what would be accomplished? What legal protections are available when government acts arbitrarily and lawlessly?
Posted by SR-71 2012-09-08 12:50||
#13 My first narcotics task force meeting to plan a major raid on a smugling and distribution operation in Southern California in the early 90s was eye opening. After a description of the trafficking organization structure and its three disparate operational sites and personnel, what followed as a very detailed and well researched inventory of property, bank accounts, vehicles, and major assets that would be seized at each site and their value. Then, as the operation plan was discussed, agency contribution to the task force in terms of personnel and manhours, and % share of seizures were defined,. The the op was timed so the most lucrative site was taken down first, while the other two were monitored and containment planned, clearly making the point that assest forfeiture wasw a major component in decision making. This is nothing new, just sad.
Posted by NoMoreBS 2012-09-08 13:47||
#14 In this case Lieto used an armored car service which was under investigation (I doubt he would know this even if he did due diligence on the company) to haul money from his business. The assets of the armored car service as well as his money in the armored car were confiscated.
This latest gun grab gives authority to "seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses." I hope this doesn't mean elders could get their guns confiscated because they may (or may not)abuse pain medications. Abuse could be defined broadly as whatever the ATF decides? Suppose some old guy has a great firearm collection and the ATF decides to kick down his door, plant some drugs, and confiscate his collection? Some people got their gun collections confiscated at the time of Katrina because someone thought that would be a good idea. They played hell getting them back.
It seems that guilt is assumed and one has to prove they are innocent.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-09-08 14:18||
The only real recourse anyone has when the government ignores the law is to start using their guns.
The trust idea is really just about not being the low lying fruit. When corrupt officials start looking around for goodies to grab, a thin layer of insulation is better than nothing.
If the guns are owned by a trust, then a beneficiary losing his ownership rights doesn't forfeit the gun. If the cops demand all his guns, he can truthfully say he doesn't own any. The trust might also help with grandfathering ownership rights when gun laws change.
Civil/criminal forfeiture is an ugly aspect of US law, though we don't hear about it much. Henry Hyde used to be a champion against these laws, but since he retired I don't know that anyone else has taken up the cause. The essential idea is that the property is guilty. This idea comes to us from admiralty law and has been upheld by the SCT, sadly.
Property doesn't have any Constitutional rights whatsoever. No probable cause, No due process. No innocent until proven guilty. No right to an attorney. No beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the cops are not liable for any damage / loss to property they have seized, so after you spend money on lawyers and years in court to get your illegally seized property back, they hand you junk. Every time. Cops hate having their acts questioned. They will make sure you pay.
Posted by Iblis 2012-09-08 16:19||
#16 The problem - as usual - is the misuse of tools. These laws are legal tools that have legitimate purposes if used PROPERLY and with common sense. For example, it's a good idea to seize weapons belonging real drug cartels. The PROBLEM, however, is ambitious and over-reaching Gov't officials who are trying to make a personal name for themselves. Those kinds of people can do enormous harm.
Laws are like firearms ... they are effective when used properly and responsibly.
Posted by Raider 2012-09-08 17:35||
#17 GEORGE WASHINGTON
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."