Messages
3,185
Reactions
4,396
Just saw this link on the OFF Facebook page: <broken link removed> .

When we think of combating anti-2A legislation and being proactive, perhaps this is another area where we can do some good. In the case described, it cost the woman $5K in legal fees and another $13.5K in seized cash to retrieve her property. This is another example of liberal lawmakers making sure that "somebody" pays. They really don't care who it is, as long as it's someone that may have some connection, without regard to actual fault.

It's a disease that we're constantly fighting. We'll never completely eradicate it, but we can sure work on slowing it down. Write your legislators now to let them know what you think.
 
Messages
32,113
Reactions
81,256
It isn't "liberal lawmakers" who started the mess of civil forfeiture. Indeed, many of them are actively fighting civil forfeiture laws.

Civil forfeiture has been around as part of our legal system since the inception of our country (and before). Indeed, the USCG (then known as the Revenue Service) was one of the first enforcers and collectors of the assets from civil forfeiture.

But it was really Ronald Reagan who upped the ante with his "war on drugs" (one of the reasons I left the USCG).

That said, civil forfeiture is something worthy to fight against.
 
Messages
3,958
Reactions
9,909
I would love to see "The Book", as in the law and compare it from 1975 to now. How much thicker is "The Book" now and how much better has life become? I said something about knowing how to lose in another thread a while back but the government is the biggest loser. If they can't win a case on merit they just make a broad law covering everything and charge you with it. Conspiracy is a big one. With Forfeiture you have to prove to the same judge (or system) that approved your property that was taken away that they were wrong. That's a hard bar to pass.
 
Messages
11,530
Reactions
26,255
"Prove the property isn't proceeds of crime."

Me: "Okay, but before I do I have one question of you. Surely for the great preponderance you put on me you can indulge me one simple question? ... Prove you're not a child molester or spouse abuser."
 
Messages
32,113
Reactions
81,256
"Prove the property isn't proceeds of crime."

Me: "Okay, but before I do I have one question of you. Surely for the great preponderance you put on me you can indulge me one simple question? ... Prove you're not a child molester or spouse abuser."

The premise of in rem laws is that property doesn't have the rights of a person, and therefore doesn't have the right to be assumed innocent. Property can be assumed to be guilty based either on probable cause or the preponderance of the evidence. This is why you then have to prove it innocent to get your asset returned.
 
Messages
11,530
Reactions
26,255
True... but the point is to plant that first seed of doubt for someone to hear... it's a cheap trick to be sure, but... there's a reason I pick things to ask about that are Guilty Even If Proven Innocent in the Court of Public Opinion.

Seems only fair that if you try to destroy my life and livelihood, I get a shot at returning the favor...
 
Messages
32,113
Reactions
81,256
True... but the point is to plant that first seed of doubt for someone to hear... it's a cheap trick to be sure, but... there's a reason I pick things to ask about that are Guilty Even If Proven Innocent in the Court of Public Opinion.

Seems only fair that if you try to destroy my life and livelihood, I get a shot at returning the favor...

It might work with the public in general - especially since most are used to the principle of innocent until proven guilty (even if they don't practice it most of the time), but I wouldn't try it with a judge - it could possibly get you a contempt of court fine or even jail time.
 
Messages
3,185
Reactions
4,396
Sorry, I have zero sympathy for the woman noted in that article.
That's the same attitude as law enforcement. You're associated with someone that committed a crime, so you should be punished also. If one of your kids committed a crime, do you feel that you should give up your firearms?

Since the firearms in question were eventually returned, it seems the judge felt that the parent was not involved in the crime so should not have property seized. What's wrong with that?
 
That's the same attitude as law enforcement. You're associated with someone that committed a crime, so you should be punished also. If one of your kids committed a crime, do you feel that you should give up your firearms?

Since the firearms in question were eventually returned, it seems the judge felt that the parent was not involved in the crime so should not have property seized. What's wrong with that?
This particular story just seems shady is all. She didn't fight the seizure of near on $14000 cash from her safe, but did fight the seizure of her weapons in the safe. Leads me to believe her son had access to the safe. He got an 18 year sentence, so we're not talking about just a kid doing some recreational smoking.

Seems there is a lot to this story not being told.

So, in short, if a parent lets a criminal child have access to the parents weapons, then yes my opinion is that those weapons should be seized.

If the child did not, nor could not have had access to the weapons, then no they should not be seized.

Does that make a bit more sense?
 
Messages
2,889
Reactions
4,521
This is another example of liberal lawmakers making sure that "somebody" pays.

Actually this was a conservative innovation, not a liberal one, as The Heretic noted. People have the strange idea that a tool they place in the hand of government will never be turned against them.

Oregon passed a law via initiative some years ago to eliminate civil asset forfeiture (just a euphemism for theft) but the legislature watered it down so the prohibition is basically gone now.
 
Messages
17,471
Reactions
36,456
  • Arkansas state police relieve truckers of $579k cash at traffic stop. (No charges filed.) The trucking company asserts ownership of the cash, seeks its return.
  • Eighth Circuit: In other circuits that would be enough to initiate a forfeiture challenge. But here claimants must explain in some detail how they came by the cash, which the company did not do to prosecutors' satisfaction, and thus may not pursue the money.
 

Upcoming Events

2A Rally at the Capitol
Salem, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top