View Full Version : ATF seizure rules change.
Destrier
09-08-2012, 06:40
http://www.guns.com/obama-administration-atf-power-seize-property-10900.html
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/21/2011-1385/improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review
Nothing new but a clarafication of some grey area.......
Do not do drugs or you can lose your property.
Oldrotorhead
09-08-2012, 08:16
Nothing new but a clarafication of some grey area.......
Do not do drugs or you can lose your property.
I disagree. This Executive Order seems to allow the ATF to take property if they think you might buy drugs. There is no proof, nor is there due process. If the purpose is to stop drug trade why the ATF and not the DEA? Is the Fourth Amendment still part of the Constitution?
I do not support drug trade, but this action seems to subvert the Constitution. :munchin
I disagree. This Executive Order seems to allow the ATF to take property if they think you might buy drugs. There is no proof, nor is there due process. If the purpose is to stop drug trade why the ATF and not the DEA? Is the Fourth Amendment still part of the Constitution?
I do not support drug trade, but this action seems to subvert the Constitution. :munchin
Your right to disagree but the DOJ guide lines do not allow it. The executive order is a broad stroke.
If they could just say I think you are buying drugs and arrest you and start the process to seize property they would never get out of the office because they would be doing so much paperwork.
Take off the tin foil and smell the fresh air.
Oldrotorhead
09-08-2012, 09:31
Your right to disagree but the DOJ guide lines do not allow it. The executive order is a broad stroke.
If they could just say I think you are buying drugs and arrest you and start the process to seize property they would never get out of the office because they would be doing so much paperwork.
Take off the tin foil and smell the fresh air.
No tin foil sir.
I don't see how this does not damage people that have not violated any law and have no intention of violating any law.
This is an example taken from the article from the newspaper.
"Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back."
Due process would have saved this man unnecessary expense. What about the Fourth Amendment? Basically the are arresting your money and they you need a lawyer to get your money back. You must proof innocence rather them the government proving a crime has been committed.
Again I don't advocate crime just due process. We disagree and I will drop my argument at this point.
No tin foil sir.
I don't see how this does not damage people that have not violated any law and have no intention of violating any law.
This is an example taken from the article from the newspaper.
"Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back."
Due process would have saved this man unnecessary expense. What about the Fourth Amendment? Basically the are arresting your money and they you need a lawyer to get your money back. You must proof innocence rather them the government proving a crime has been committed.
Again I don't advocate crime just due process. We disagree and I will drop my argument at this point.
You are quoting a news article that uses a possible abuse by the FBI not DEA or ATF which is what this thread is about. Next thing we will have an example using the NYPD or LAPD ot the FL State police........ Apples or Oranges.
Use examples of ATF abuse that is inline with the quoted Executive order that will prove your point or do not comment more on this.
The Reaper
09-08-2012, 17:21
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Slippery slope, when it comes to it.
TR