Ammo For Sale

« « Quote of the Day | Home | Why would they give their police unsafe guns? » »

Fundamentally transformed

Adam Bates:

A quick glance at the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 37, p. 9987-88) today reveals that Attorney General Eric Holder, who earned cautious praise last month for a small reform to the federal equitable sharing program, has now delegated authority to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to seize and “administratively forfeit” property involved in suspected drug offenses. Holder temporarily delegated this authority to the ATF on a trial basis in 2013, and today made the delegation permanent while lauding the ATF for seizing more than $19.3 million from Americans during the trial period.

Historically, when the ATF uncovered contraband subject to forfeiture under drug statutes, it was required to either refer the property to the DEA for administrative forfeiture proceedings or to a U.S. Attorney in order to initiate a judicial forfeiture action. Under today’s change, the ATF will now be authorized to seize property related to alleged drug offenses and initiate administrative forfeiture proceedings all on its own.

14 Responses to “Fundamentally transformed”

  1. SPQR Says:

    That’s disturbing.

  2. Paul Kisling Says:

    You got to love the government. When they give you hand its to help them bend you over a barrel..

  3. Backwoods Engineer Says:

    As it says in Matt Bracken’s “Enemies Foreign and Domestic” novels, “ATF means ‘Always Think Forfeiture’!”

    The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.

  4. Rob Says:

    As it says in Matt Bracken’s “Enemies Foreign and Domestic” novels, “ATF means ‘Always Think Forfeiture’!”

    You mean, as it was said in ATF’s training programs.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/05/17/37489/atf-drops-slogan-that-offended.html
    http://boingboing.net/2008/06/09/atf-leatherman-tool.html
    http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/09/always-think-forfeiture

  5. DocMerlin Says:

    well fuck.

  6. ankle Says:

    “I’m sorry, sir, but we have reason to believe these firearms of yours are tied to drug operations. We’ll need to confiscate them and send them back to the cartels they came from.”

  7. MAJMike Says:

    A nation of sheep has a government of thieving thugs.

    How far we have fallen.

  8. Stuart the Viking Says:

    Forfeiture is something that REALLY needs to get on the public radar. Most people believe it’s just about taking away from drug dealers so they don’t care. Who cares about a bunch of worthless druggies anyway? (I admit, I sure don’t)

    But that isn’t it. It’s about seizure of property without due process, and it can happen to anyone.

    Don’t believe me? Just lend your car to the wrong person, or give the wrong person a ride. You don’t even have to know they are carrying drugs. For that matter, you don’t even have to know that the person you lent your car to is going to give a ride to someone whom you’ve never even met, who is carrying drugs (yes, this happened to an acquaintance of mine. Her car GONE, seized because her sister borrowed it and gave the wrong person a ride).

    s

  9. Lyle Says:

    This is an ancient tactic. All tyrannical regimes give their lieutenants plundering privileges don’t you know.

    Our current crop of baboons may not know it, but they’re acting out a script that was written thousands of years ago.

  10. Chris Says:

    Rather ironic that one of the main equitably maxims in courts of equity (e.g. Chancery) is that equity loathes forfeiture.

    Animal Farm tactics.

  11. KM Says:

    At least now the BATFEIEIO won’t have to bother a US attorney to use a court.

    This should go well…

  12. DocMerlin Says:

    @MAJMike
    We haven’t fallen anywhere, the government of the US has always been thieving thugs. Every government in history has.

  13. DocMerlin Says:

    s/All tyrannical regimes/All regimes/

    There, fixed it for you, Lyle.

  14. CarlS Says:

    Just two questions:

    The Constitution gives the Pres the authority (not a Right) to delegate certain things. The Congress creates Statute authorizing the setup of certain bureaucratic Departments.

    But . . . does any portion of the Constitution or of Statute specifically, not by “interpretation”, by in actual words grant authority to delegate beyond a certain level?

    Might this be yet another “assumption” of powers not delegated?

    (I’m sure astute readers know that Letters and Court Rulings make it clear that the Federal Government has no rights, only Duties, and that Powers and Authorities are Delegated not Surrendered? Lawfully, if they can do it, so can we; and if they interfere with our Right to Do So, they are the ones committing criminal acts worthy of Self-Defense. ’cause if Words mean anything, they mean what they say, the Clintons and the corrupt court system not withstanding. Just saying . . .)

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives