search
top

ATF Given Expanded Forfeiture Powers

Apparently Holder thinks it’s fine for ATF to try out being able to seize large amounts of cash under the assumption that it’s clearly to be used for an illegal transaction. What could possibly go wrong? Are gun owners who take their money out of the bank and stuff it under the mattress going to find it at risk now? I mean, clearly they were going to use it to buy guns illegally.

13 Responses to “ATF Given Expanded Forfeiture Powers”

  1. Oranje Mike says:

    It’s a shame I have to visit blogs for such important information. Thank you for the efforts and linking me to more blogs.

  2. Sage Thrasher says:

    Another good reason to disband the ATF and the War on Drugs all at the same time.

  3. Phssthpok says:

    Actually… I’m thinking this may work to our advantage.

    See, Holder, as head of the DOJ, got paid his salary for while illegally providing guns to Mexican drug cartels. Ergo, the logic follows that ALL of his personal assets (house, cars, money, etc…anything he ever bought while employed by DOJ.gov) should be seized as ‘suspected proceeds’ from his gun running as being material aid to/complicity with drug suppliers.

  4. persiflage says:

    Large amounts of cash (to be defined ad hoc by the PTB) are the clearest evidence of precrime, for which the severest penalties must apply. The precedent was already established in 1984.

    • ProdigalSon says:

      1984. Interesting.

      Also frightening, if that’s true. How have we gone for 28 years without realizing that we can be considered criminals for having cash?

  5. Mike Gordon says:

    Just imagine a President Romney waiving extradition and allowing Eric Holder to be shipped off to Mexico to stand trial for his criminal activity in the Fast and Furious fiasco.

  6. ProdigalSon says:

    As I read the the law, it seems to say that once your property is seized, you lose all rights to it and cannot ever get it back.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    • gattsuru says:

      That’s not entirely true, although the reality isn’t much more comforting. There generally must be a hearing where the owner of a forfeited asset can contest the matter, although it’s not clear how long the police can delay such a hearing (see the Alvarez mess). Even better, it’s not the property owner on trial: the state is technically suing the property itself, leading to such fun cases as United States vs. A Hotel. And because it’s a property thing, the case can go through internal arbitration or other court systems where there’s a presumption of guilt.

      So, you can get it back, it’s just very difficult and very time-consuming.

      • Jack Nunn says:

        These cases where property is on trial always get me wondering. Isn’t intent part of almost all crimes. How can an inanimate object have intent?

      • Sage Thrasher says:

        It’s hard to retain a competent lawyer when all your money has already been seized, too. Bit of a catch 22.

  7. Nathaniel says:

    “Asset forfeiture” is a pretty funny way of spelling “theft”.

  8. Jim says:

    So, showing up at one’s favorite Evil Loophole Gunshow, with $10k in pocket, hoping to score a deal on that hard-to-find Merkel .45-70 double, is now a crime?

    Hell, and here I was, thinking that a $199 potmetal Hi-Point was more the definition of fraud.

    Jim
    Sunk New Dawn
    Galveston, TX

    • Harold says:

      It’s a crime only for the cash. This is all about seizing assets, generally no action is taken against the person holding it (except of course the taking of their cash), based on some very old and suspect presidents.

top