Proposed NJ Law: Seize Homes w/Illegal Guns

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

[Travis McGee]

This will be a terrific tool for greedy chiefs of police t use. Want somebody's plane, boat, SUV, house or property? Just leave a "drop gun."

It's yours!

You can add the property to your "equipment list" for your (*wink wink*) undercover operations. You can sell any real estate, and buy new toys with the proceeds!

What a deal!

[Wolfie]

Roosting Chickens Ping

[sionnsar]

we live in "a nation of law". No we don't

We live under the rule of man, not of law.

[robertpaulsen]

If the State of New York chooses to enact civil asset forfeiture laws against drunk drivers, that's up to the citizens of New York to decide.

It has nothing to do with "a nation of law".

Don't you believe in state's rights? 10th amendment and all that? Or do you want the federal government to write your laws?

[robertpaulsen]

"Asset seizure without due process."

None required in a civil action. Are you propposing a change to the constitution?

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Life for the governed becomes maniacal, when the maniacs are put in charge.

Why does Howard Dean leap to mind?

[o_zarkman44]

"But why bother convicting drug dealers when it is soooo much easier to just take their stuff?" you said.

Steal property first, ask questions later. The value of most confiscated property is usually less than the cost of hiring a lawyer to get it back and they know it. If only a group of lawyers would band together and provide low cost Constitutional protection legal aid to fight the siezure mentality? Who defends our Constitution nowadays anyhow?
It isn't the politicians who have violated their oath to defend the Constitution. It isn't the police. This is serious stuff and people are letting it happen.

[robertpaulsen]

Make that New Jersey.

[R. Scott]

Life is not so bad in our socialist paradise. They probably won't seize your house.

What is it that is said about putting a frog in cold water and slowly raising the temperature until it is boiling?

[tahotdog]

I get people calling me about jobs in Californicatia which pay 130K and more and they always act like they're in a state of shock when I tell them I'm not interested.

The thing which is needed here is basically another item in the bill of rights, in other words, a constitutional ammendment stating that the people have a right to believe that they will never be penalized under the law in order to make somebody's quota or for the financial benefit of any person, government agency, or organization.

The ammendment should read that no person or agency at any level of government shall ever benefit or profit from enforcing the law, and that all fines and legal forfeitures shall be given to charity, and a charity in another state than that in which they arose.

[jude24]

"Asset seizure without due process." None required in a civil action. Are you propposing a change to the constitution?

Actually, it is for property rights, Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 354 U.S. 476 (1972) and Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972).

[bdfromlv]

Dont the mexican police use this same tactic with the stolen cars (found) in their areas. A good example for the US governments.

[robertpaulsen]

I hope you have a very good reason for wasting my time with those cases you referenced. They're both "free speech" issues involving tenure. I deserve an explanation.

Civil asset forfeiture is an in rem procedure against “guilty” property rather than against the owner -- the property is arrested. Most of the protections afforded by the Constitution to individuals (eg., due process) don't apply in civil forfeiture cases.

[cajun-jack]

are you really, really sure it won't pass???????? hmmmmmmmm????????

[jude24]

You said, and I quote, "None required in a civil action. Are you propposing a change to the constitution?" I rebutted you by showing that property rights - even to the degree of employment tenure - are protected by procedural Due Process, in direct contravention of your assertion. You said that civil actions did not require Due Process; I showed you were wrong.

"The right to due process 'is conferred, not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee.' While the legislature may elect not to confer a liberty interest in [public] employment, it may not constitutionally authorize deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards." (Cleveland Bd. of Education v. Loudermill)

I've not heard anywhere that in rem forfeiture negates the need for procedural Due Process. Have a cite?

[jude24]

Ah, the sissy crybaby RobertPaulsen (ironic name for a crybaby) has to running to Admin Mod when I point out that people who worship JBTs as ardently as he does probably have fetish issues and likely perform the associated sexual practices.

Inappropriate. You can't address his points, so you have to resort to crude innuendo? You should be ashamed.

I repeat that asset forfeiture laws are themselves a constitutional novelty, circa 1984

That's not true. They've been a part of the common law since well before the American Revolution.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Knock it off please

Thanks,
SB

[robertpaulsen]

"Procedural" due process in a civil case like this is understood to exist-- is the New Jersey law proposing to do away with procedural due process? No, they're not.

Which means that you're just showing off.

I am saying that "substantive" due process concerning the right to property does not exist in a civil case. In a criminal case, yes.