Proposed NJ Law: Seize Homes w/Illegal Guns

World Net Daily ^ | May 10, 2005 | Ron Strom

[publiusF27]

A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a bill that would allow the government to seize the home or car of anyone whose property contains an illegal firearm.

The legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Louis Manzo, D-Jersey City, authorizes the forfeiture of "motor vehicle, building or premise" if a firearm is found in it that is not possessed legally per state law – "even if the firearm was not possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or premise," states a summary of the bill, A3998. The legislation was introduced Thursday.

Manzo pointed out his bill extends government power now reserved for targeting those in possession of illegal drugs.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I have read the second ammendment. I think it would be hard to prove an 'illegal gun'.

[robertpaulsen]

Losing one's freedom goes well beyond the ability to play with one's boat.

[an amused spectator]

I've forgotten more about the history of the second amendment than you'll ever learn. Bring it on Mr. "I can generalize but don't ask me to be specific because I don't have a clue".

I don't answer to insolent newbies, jerkweed.

You've been baiting people on this thread long enough with your lame BS.

[an amused spectator]

Losing one's freedom goes well beyond the ability to play with one's boat.

Whatever.

[robertpaulsen]

"No, it doesn't, troll."

What is it? You can't read or you choose to remain ignorant?. The court disagreed. He lost.

Bring on your banglist. You sure as hell don't have a clue. You bore me.

[robertpaulsen]

Get specific or get lost.

[an amused spectator]

Get specific or get lost.

Eschoir tried to make me get lost years ago. As you can see, he didn't succeed. You're not one one-hundreth the troll he was.

[an amused spectator]

What is it? You can't read or you choose to remain ignorant?. The court disagreed. He lost.

Bring on your banglist. You sure as hell don't have a clue. You bore me.

You're certainly the poisonous little twerp, aren't you? People on this thread have been trying to play nice with you, but you aren't having any of it.

publiusF27 has gotten the best of you several times, but you refuse to admit it. I'm calling you on it, and I ain't going to waste any time "debating"" you.

Be warned - I went two weeks with a guy like you once. I'm still here, and he's not. :-)

[Fred Hayek]

I am originally from New Jersey, and about to re-instate my embargo of that state. The place is a pain to do business with. Rude, obnoxious, and of course the customer is always wrong.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm still here, and he's not. :-)"

Yeah, you bored him to death. We're done. You've got nothing to add to this thread but your lame, third grade insults.

[an amused spectator]

Yeah, you bored him to death. We're done. You've got nothing to add to this thread but your lame, third grade insults.

Get up on the wrong side of the pint, bobby?

[publiusF27]

Cool it with your anectdotal friend. As far as I know, it's all made up. Even if true, I have no information other than what you give me.

I didn't come here to lie, and your implication that I did is not appreciated.

His situation is not at all unlike that of the Monkey Business, about which much has been written. So, wherever I've made an argument referencing my friend, just substitute in the Monkey Business (in case you've forgotten, that was the yacht that was seized because of one joint, something you were apparently unaware could and did happen). If you want to know other facts of that case, try searching the net.

[publiusF27]

Your bold text represents the losing side of an argument. Please tell me why I should pay any attention to it.

You missed the bold text in which I noted that the first Congress outlawed forfeiture as a punishment for federal crimes.

They were right to do that. Crimes should be punished under criminal law, debts should be collected under civil law.

[publiusF27]

You have a strange concept of "freedom" -- I'm talking about the generalized concept of personal freedom, not one small and insignificant aspect of it. If your friend's a$$ were thrown in jail, then maybe he'd understand what losing freedom really means.

This man lives to play with his boats. Short of actually tossing him in jail, I can imagine few punishments worse than taking his boats, especially if he knows they are sitting there deteriorating in a Customs yard and he can not stop it.

Being deprived of an asset worth many thousands of dollars, especially if it is an asset with which you have a strong, emotional connection, IS PUNISHMENT. It does take away freedom, and it is not insignificant. Like being thrown in jail, it should be done only following a criminal conviction, not following the suspicion of an agency which stands to profit from that suspicion.

[publiusF27]

Your bold text represents the losing side of an argument. Please tell me why I should pay any attention to it.

Another good reason would be because saying "we won in the courts" is not always the same thing as saying "we were right."

Have you ever seen a Supreme Court case in which the side you favored lost? Should the dissenting opinion in those cases just be tossed in the shredder?

[an amused spectator]

publiusF27: You missed the bold text in which I noted that the first Congress outlawed forfeiture as a punishment for federal crimes.

What is it? You can't read or you choose to remain ignorant?

Perhaps when you slam someone's post, you should read the WHOLE post, not just the parts that you can use for a phony contrarian attack. ;-)

As I said before, you pretended that the bold text in publiusF27's post #144 was merely the losing side. But of course the bolded portions were much more than that. One represented the destruction of your phony argument, so therefore you had to try to neutralize it with a "misdirection gambit".

Your struggles with elementary Net debate tactics on this thread aren't even amusing.

[publiusF27]

Call me a more easily amused spectator... ;)

[an amused spectator]

Call me a more easily amused spectator... ;)

Here's a towel. robertpaulsen, (aka The Black Knight), is bleeding all over you. :-)

You don't really stand a chance here, you know. The Black Knight always triumphs! **grin**

[eno_]

Robart Paulsen is a whinger.

There is a "robertpaulsen" ID that is a prolific poster at DU.

I would also bet that he will turn out to be kind of like Jeff Gannon.

[eno_]

I think it was introduced during the Reagan administration, but not sure of that.

Sadly, in it's current form, it was in fact an Ed Meese "innovation."