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.

[BnBlFlag]

Looks like its time for any freedom loving Jerseyites to get the Hell out of that cesspool of liberalism.

[robertpaulsen]

If passed, this law would only affect New Jersey. You thought it would apply to the entire U.S.?

[publiusF27]

That said, I don't believe the proposed New Jersey law has a snowball's chance. I don't see a nexus between the two (unless the house is used to manufacture or warehouse illegal weapons).

It's the same nexus that was used when my friend's boat was confiscated, and when they briefly seized the yacht Monkey Business, made famous by Gary Hart. The boat was used in the commission of a crime. That's all that is needed for civil forfeiture to kick in in the drug war, and soon, that may be all that is needed for it to kick in in the gungrabbing war.

Involvement by or even knowledge by the owner of the car, house, etc. is not needed. If drugs manage to get around your stuff, look out, you may not own your stuff for very long, whether or not you had anything to do with the drugs. That looks very much like punishing property owners without first charging and convicting them.

It's the same with the New Jersey law. The presence of drugs can taint property. Not the manufacture, not the storage or distribution, the presence. Not surprisingly, someone has applied the same legal reasoning to guns. The presence of illegal guns can taint property. Not manufacture or storage and distribution, just their mere presence.

[robertpaulsen]

There is a clear nexus between drugs and property (house, boat, car).

The assets may have been acquired because of the business of selling drugs. The assets may be used in the business of transporting drugs. The assets may be used in the business of selling drugs. The assets may be used in the business of manufacturing or storing drugs.

Now, certainly, one can try to draw a similar nexus between the owner of an illegal handgun and his property, but I cannot see how they could possibly defend it when standing before 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court without being laughed out of the legal profession.

Much ado about nothing.

[shellshocked]

I bet Assemblyman Louis Manzo has a gun hidden underneath his trash can or maybe under a dresser drawer. (hint, hint)

[publiusF27]

I'd see a clear nexus if you said the assets WERE acquired because of the drug business. Convict the person and seize the assets.

But saying that there is a drug business, and drugs were on this or that piece of property (possibly without the knowledge of the owner), and therefore, because they MAY HAVE BEEN acquired in the drug biz, the property should be seized without first investigating, charging, and convicting a person may seem like a clear nexus to you, but it does not to me. It seems to me like a clear case of using civil asset forfeiture laws as criminal punishment, without the nicety (or should I say, due process) of a conviction.

And I really don't see how the connection would be any less clear if you said that there are illegal guns, and this or that piece of property (possibly without the knowledge of the owner) MAY HAVE BEEN in some way connected to illegal guns, so therefore the property should be seized.

It's the same argument. You know, like when it is said that a homegrown cannabis plant for personal consumption, or a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption are really the same argument about interstate commerce. (Speaking of things that should be laughed out of the Supreme Court...) ;-)

[MileHi]

You continue to be a horses aerier.

[MileHi]

You continue to be a horses aerier.

[MileHi]

wow, tht's strange. I was gonna post but tried to close it and it double posted with the typo...

Oh, well RP will get the message.

[Navy Patriot]

Hate your neighbor? Toss a gun on his property and call the police.

Not necessary, just let the cops know and they'll bring an illegal gun themselves, and save you the trouble.

This even exceeds the machinations of Stalin and the KGB.

[publiusF27]

This even exceeds the machinations of Stalin and the KGB.

Not even close. It's bad mojo, and we should not tolerate it, but nothing we've seen in America comes close to the horrors of communism.

To MileHi, eno, and maybe some others:

Why the personal attacks on robertpaulsen? I don't agree with much he has to say about politics and law, but I don't see how any of that adds anything to the discussion.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'd see a clear nexus if you said the assets WERE acquired because of the drug business. Convict the person and seize the assets"

That would be a clear case of criminal asset forfeiture.

"It seems to me like a clear case of using civil asset forfeiture laws as criminal punishment, without the nicety (or should I say, due process) of a conviction."

It seems the same to me. In some cases, that's the only punishment when a criminal conviction cannot be attained.

"And I really don't see how the connection would be any less clear if you said that ... this or that piece of property ... MAY HAVE BEEN in some way connected to illegal guns"

A car or fast boat used to smuggle/transport shipments of illegal guns should not be seized under civil asset forfeiture laws? Is that what you're saying?

[robertpaulsen]

"I was gonna post but tried to close it and it double posted with the typo..."

That's OK. Two times zero content still equals zero.

[publiusF27]

In some cases, that's the only punishment when a criminal conviction cannot be attained.

Punishment for what? A crime? Don't you need a criminal conviction to punish someone for a crime?

According to the government, my friend was not being punished when they took his boats. How could he be? He was not charged with any crime.

His BOATS were being punished is the only semi-logical answer, but I don't buy that logic.

A car or fast boat used to smuggle/transport shipments of illegal guns should not be seized under civil asset forfeiture laws? Is that what you're saying?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Punish people, not property.

[Know your rights]

Looks like its time for any freedom loving Jerseyites to get the Hell out of that cesspool of liberalism.

And for freedom loving Americans to recognize the War On Drugs for the cesspool of liberalism that it is.

[JudgemAll]

A narc is different than a 2nd amendment holder and supporter.

This is political persecution.

[JudgemAll]

Nice. Now we will have weapons caches all over highways....

[JudgemAll]

Bingo. The conflict of interest between government profit on seizures is glaring.

[Know your rights]

The assets may have been acquired because of the business of selling drugs. [...] The assets may be used in the business of [...] storing drugs.

The assets may have been acquired because of business involving the use of the gun. The property on which the gun was found clearly was used in the business of storing said gun.

There's your nexus.

[surely_you_jest]

"There is a clear nexus between drugs and property (house, boat, car).
The assets may have been acquired because of the business of selling drugs. The assets may be used in the business of transporting drugs. The assets may be used in the business of selling drugs. The assets may be used in the business of manufacturing or storing drugs.

Now, certainly, one can try to draw a similar nexus between the owner of an illegal handgun and his property, but I cannot see how they could possibly defend it when standing before 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court without being laughed out of the legal profession.

Much ado about nothing."

There are two problems with your post.

First, there is the question of the burden of proof. In a criminal prosecution, the government has the burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused person commited the offense charged. In an in rem proceeding, the owner of the property has to prove, by the necessary quantum of proof, that the property (house, boat, whatever) was _not_ involved in the commission of the offense. Proving a negative (that something did _not_ occur) is actually, as a matter of logic and of proof, is quite a lot more difficult than proving that it did.

Second, there is the fact that very few people have the financial resources to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, assuming of course, that the Court accepts jurisdiction. There is one exception to this. And that is that the person involved happens to be a licensed attorney, and even then, this is pretty daunting. So, to get justice, you have to be very wealthy, be an attorney, or be able to attract the attention of some interested, deep-pocketed organization.

Do you want to be in this position? I do not.