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.

[robertpaulsen]

It was seized (almost 20 years ago - nothing more current?) during a "Zero Tolerance" directive, which no longer exists. After a $1600 fine, it was returned.

We also used to keep slaves years ago. Care to weave that into the discussion?

[robertpaulsen]

"the first Congress outlawed forfeiture ..."

The First Congress allowed slavery, too. They weren't perfect.

[robertpaulsen]

"The first Congress outlawed forfeiture as a consequence of federal criminal conviction."

Wait a minute. I thought you supported asset forfeiture if it is a result of a criminal (not civil) conviction. So you disagree with the First Congress?

[robertpaulsen]

"Where do you draw the line?"

Me? I'm comfortable leaving it up to the jury to decide if the asset were part of the crime. I don't need zero tolerance to be my guide.

[Nov3]

Yeah let's just throw out the 4th amendment.

[publiusF27]

I was referring to the Monkey Business. Surely there was a major news story on it -- Where authorities seized it because of one joint.

Already gave you the reference, from the New York Times, above. You're the one who insists on hearing it from the mainstream media, you pay them for the rest of the article. If you're not convinced that the vessel referenced in that article was the Monkey Business, then fine, let's talk about whatever boat that was that the Times says was worth $2.5 million, and was seized for a paltry amount of weed. There are plenty of similar cases. Want me to start providing them? None of them will make your side look any better, so I'd be glad to do it, just didn't want to clutter the thread with 100 examples of the same behavior, when one or two would suffice.

Getting back to an unanswered question...

So, have you ever seen a court decision with which you disagreed?

[Know your rights]

When it comes to civil asset forfeiture, one illegal gun is not commerce. Neither is one joint. [...] I'm comfortable leaving it up to the jury to decide if the asset were part of the crime.

So if a jury in a civil case decides that one joint justifies asset forfeiture, that's OK with you.

[Know your rights]

The First Congress allowed slavery, too.

Relevant only if they believed themselves Constitutionally empowered to outlaw slavery. Can you provide any reason to think they believed that?

[publiusF27]

Wait a minute. I thought you supported asset forfeiture if it is a result of a criminal (not civil) conviction. So you disagree with the First Congress?

My point there was that your post in which you said they were motivated to seize ships implied that they would have been fine with taking vessels from people who had not been convicted of a crime, as punishment for the said crime. Not only is that not true, but further, they would not even allow it if the person WERE convicted of a crime.

And yes, I do disagree with them on that. I still don't think we should have all the federal crimes that we do, but that's that other thread. But, if someone is convicted of a crime, I don't have a problem in principle with forfeiture of assets as punishment.

[publiusF27]

It was seized (almost 20 years ago - nothing more current?) during a "Zero Tolerance" directive, which no longer exists. After a $1600 fine, it was returned. We also used to keep slaves years ago. Care to weave that into the discussion?

The directive might no longer exist, but we still have the civil asset forfeiture laws being used to punish crimes without bothering with a criminal conviction, now don't we? I'd call the example dated if the authority for it had changed, but not if only the enforcement policies have changed.

[publiusF27]

almost 20 years ago - nothing more current?

Here I found one from 1991, and another from 2000. Same issue, different people, different years.

It did not take long for those in law enforcement to conclude that their best haul would come from seizing goods from citizens who lack the resources to win them back. In one highly publicized case that occurred in 1991, federal authorities at the Nashville airport took more than $9,000 in cash from Willie Jones, a black landscaper who was flying to Houston in order to purchase shrubs. According to the police, that money could have been used to purchase drugs. After spending thousands of dollars and two years on the case, the landscaper was able to convince the courts to return most of the seized cash.

Sam Thach, a Vietnamese immigrant, found himself in a similar situation last year. He was relieved of $147,000 by the DEA while traveling on Amtrak. Thach was investigated because the details of his ticket purchase, which Amtrak shared with the DEA, "fit the profile" of a drug courier. He was not charged with any crime and is now fighting to retrieve his money in federal court. (See "Railway Bandits," Citings, July.)

More to come... ;)

[publiusF27]

James Bovard will helpfully provide me with some examples...

Reason magazine has more. I haven't gotten to the dedicated property rights groups, like the Institute for Justice, nor have I talked about United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms. So many examples, so little time... Be back later with more.

[sweetliberty]

"Don't like your landlord ..."

Or boss....or ex...or teacher....the possibilities for abuse are endless.

[sweetliberty]

"The city wants a nice property? "

A city "official" wants a nice place to keep his mistress.....not that politician types would ever do such a thing. < /sarcasm >

[sweetliberty]

"That's what I was thinking, this really opens the door for corruption."

That happened a long time ago. This is just further legitimizing it.

[R. Scott]

Oh no - never. Ha ha he he (snicker)

[publiusF27]

Govt the new Leviathan

In Pittsburgh, federal prosecutors last year devastated Jane Ward after she had fully cooperated with them in testifying to help solve the murder of her husband, John Ward. Prosecutors decided that John Ward had been a drug dealer and that all of his previous income was drug profits. They proceeded to confiscate almost all of the widow’s assets; federal officials arrived with a truck at the Ward’s home and carted off all the family’s furniture. Prosecutors even sought to confiscate all the proceeds from Ward’s life insurance; Jane Ward and her three children were forced to go on welfare.

If John had been guilty of treason, Article 3 Section 3 would have protected his estate. But suspicion of drug dealing is soooo much worse than conviction for treason...

[robertpaulsen]

Sorry, the U.S. Constitution affords little protection in civil asset forfeiture cases. Especially state civil asset forfeiture.

Different rules apply if the asset is seized as part of a criminal proceeding.

[robertpaulsen]

"So, have you ever seen a court decision with which you disagreed?"

Many. But that's not to say that the decision was unconstitutional, as you seem to be saying in this thread.

[robertpaulsen]

"So if a jury in a civil case decides that one joint justifies asset forfeiture, that's OK with you."

Yeah, right.

There's as much of a chance of that happening as a jury finding OJ innocent ...