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.

[publiusF27]

Speaking of questions which have been asked at least twice, what's your comment on mens rea as it relates to "guilty" property? Can property have criminal intent?

[publiusF27]

Fine. Guy robs a bank, they've got it on video, he confesses, his lawyer gets him off because some rookie cop forgets to read him his Miranda rights, and he gets to keep the money -- IN YOUR OPINION, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

Of course, I don't see why the bank couldn't go after their property in the civil courts, but that doesn't have much to do with this discussion of the government using civil asset forfeiture to punish crimes. That would be using the civil courts to settle a debt.

[robertpaulsen]

"Uh huh. And the difference would be...?"

... a matter of interpretation.

Maybe that you thought your interpretation was better or more correct than the one reached by the courts? In other words, that you were right, and they were wrong?"

No. The USSC may interpret the right to a "speedy" trial as one which takes place within one year of the crime. I may interpret that as 6 months. Where's the right and wrong? And again, by whose standards?

[robertpaulsen]

"Taking property is punishment."

Not really. What if that property were acquired with money obtained by an illegal activity? What if the property were stolen? What if the property is used to help commit a crime?

Sorry. But the property would be "guilty" in those instances. I don't consider asset forfeiture in those cases to be punitive.

[publiusF27]

The USSC may interpret the right to a "speedy" trial as one which takes place within one year of the crime. I may interpret that as 6 months. Where's the right and wrong? And again, by whose standards?

You're right, to you, and there's nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that the court got it wrong. That's all I've done on this thread.

[Betteboop]

Excuse me??? There are freepers here and we are doing what we can....please don't condemn the entire state!!!

[publiusF27]

What if that property were acquired with money obtained by an illegal activity? What if the property were stolen? What if the property is used to help commit a crime? Sorry. But the property would be "guilty" in those instances. I don't consider asset forfeiture in those cases to be punitive.

What did IT do? IT didn't do the illegal act, IT didn't get itself stolen, IT didn't commit the crime. IT didn't have any criminal intent. And IT cannot be punished, or if it is, you can't tell. (Where are those BANGLIST people to tell us that guns may help commit crimes, but they can't be guilty, only people can?)

[robertpaulsen]

"... the opinion that the court got it wrong."

I still don't understand where you get "wrong". Wrong by what standard?

You like a particular movie -- I don't. Does that make you "wrong"?

[robertpaulsen]

If an asset was acquired illegally, how are we punishing the illegal owner if we take it away?

[publiusF27]

If an asset was acquired illegally, how are we punishing the illegal owner if we take it away?

If it was acquired illegally, prove it. If it is subject to forfeiture because of illegality that seems obviously a criminal matter, not a civil one. There is a crime to prove, not a dispute or debt to settle.

An illegal owner is punished under criminal asset forfeiture laws, following conviction. But where do you get off calling someone an illegal owner, in effect accusing them of a crime, if no crime has been proven in a court? The whole thing rests on an unproven crime by a person, hiding behind the fiction of a "crime" by "guilty" property. What a buncha BS. Prove the crime or don't punish the crime.

[publiusF27]

A court (which could have been wrong) has recognized the punitive nature of these kinds of in rem forfeitures.

237. See Austin, 509 U.S. at 611-14. But see id. at 618 (stating rather incoherently that "[i]n sum, even though this Court has rejected the "innocence" of the owner as a common-law defense to forfeiture, it consistently has recognized that forfeiture serves, at least in part, to punish the owner.").

That's a footnote from this article:

http://www.fear.org/hadaway.html

Which reminds me, you never did say what you thought was wrong with the actual arguments presented there, or here:

http://www.fear.org/chicago.html

"It's from fear.org, and I'd rather trust the New York Times to be the ones to question government authority" is not an argument... ;-)

[publiusF27]

Oh, and here's what we find at the very top of the page at that "conspiracy site" article:

University of Miami Law Review vol. 55 no. 1 (Oct. 2000) pp. 81-121 (republished on the Forfeiture Endangers American Rights website with special permission from the University of Miami Law Review, which retains all copyrights.)

Wooooo. UM Law Review. Now that's wacky, and I should know, having 3 family members who graduated from UM Law School.

[robertpaulsen]

"If it was acquired illegally, prove it."

We do prove it -- just under a different standard of proof.

[robertpaulsen]

"you never did say what you thought was wrong with the actual arguments"

Just that they are a misrepresentative sample of cases that I do not have the time to address or dispute.

You, on the other hand, seem to consider web sites like these as gospel and indicative of the way things are.

[robertpaulsen]

"you never did say what you thought was wrong with the actual arguments"

Just that they are a misrepresentative sample of cases that I do not have the time to address or dispute.

You, on the other hand, seem to consider web sites like these as gospel and indicative of the way things are.

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen:

If an asset was acquired illegally, how are we punishing the illegal owner if we take it away?

publiusF27:
"If it was acquired illegally, prove it."

We do prove it -- just under a different standard of proof.
253 paulsen

______________________________________

Paulsen uses the prohibitionists 'standard of proof'. - That certain objects are inherently evil, and that society can decree them to be 'illegal'.

[ArmedNReady]

sections of NJ would be totally vacant (of intelligence) if they removed......toadstools.

[publiusF27]

We do prove it -- just under a different standard of proof.

Uh huh, different as in lower. Now, what about that "illegal" owner you were talking about? You remember, the one against whom no charges had been filed? The one never convicted of anything, whose property was taken? Got any comment on the court citation I posted which says he is being punished because of illegality?

[publiusF27]

Just that they are a misrepresentative sample of cases that I do not have the time to address or dispute.

Take all the time you need! I've been discussing that article for 5 years now, and am in no hurry.

Or were you trying to dodge having to present an actual argument?

You, on the other hand, seem to consider web sites like these as gospel and indicative of the way things are.

Ah, I see I have my answer. Insulting one messenger got you called out for saying that a UM Law Review article was a "conspiracy web site" so now you're deflecting by insulting me.

I hadn't mentioned it until now, but you seem to consider anything that increases government power to be heaven-sent, and anything which might threaten government power and thus increase individual liberty as not worth consideration.

Now that I've mentioned it, did it prove anything about your points in this thread? No? Well neither did your personal observation about me, which was way off base, BTW.

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen wrote: Just that they are a misrepresentative sample of cases that I do not have the time to address or dispute.

Take all the time you need! I've been discussing that article for 5 years now, and am in no hurry.
Or were you trying to dodge having to present an actual argument?

Paulsen is incapable of making a Constitutional argument on this subject. -- He is convinced that prohibitional decrees banning weapons, booze, drugs, personal nonviolent behaviors, whatever; -- are all 'legal' under our form of government.
To him, our free republic does not exist, and never did.