Hillary Clinton’s Tactic: Civil Firearms Forfeiture

Politichicks ^ | 8-12-2016 | Steven Maikoski

[Loud Mime]

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, it is likely that your Second Amendment rights will mean nothing. The constitutional protections we have depended on for years have failed when the liberals control a court; and it is likely that Hillary will redefine all courts.

The liberals’ successful record of civil asset forfeitures provides a fine example of how they can get around the constitutional protections provided by the Fifth and Second Amendments. In many civil asset forfeiture cases, the citizen has not been found guilty of any crime, but the government swoops in to seize—pardon me, to force the forfeiture of—their property and cash. This is a civil act on the part of government, not a criminal action. So, fighting their legal teams and sympathetic judges is horribly expensive and often useless.

From the liberal successes we can predict how a Hillary government will use legalities and mutant judgements to seize your firearms, along with your ammunition without touching the Second Amendment. The stage is already set. A search of proposals in Congress shows that there are over 2,000 filings with “gun” & “control” in their bodies. Over two thousand! Each has a new angle on how to restrict gun purchases and possession, all in the name of protection and safety—and it’s getting worse.

On June 27, 2016 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Voisine & Armstrong v. United States, that persons who are convicted of misdemeanor assault may be prohibited by law from possessing a firearm—a misdemeanor! In reading the opinion of Justice Kagan, I was struck by the energy of this ruling. It makes no difference between a person intentionally harming another or a person accidentally causing harm in a domestic dispute. It blurs the distinction between actual and attempted use of physical force; it even includes “offensive touching” as a crime.

Bottom line: This ruling has made it far easier for government to confiscate firearms and ammunition.

The Second Amendment’s clause “shall not be infringed” has meant little to the courts for decades. Now it means almost nothing, because under the right circumstances—such as angering a liberal—touching a person can cause you to lose your Second Amendment rights! The wild rulings have erected a new playground for spirited attorneys and their clients to obtain large settlements and revocations of our constitutional rights, despite our Constitution’s “protections.”

Let’s get back to Hillary Clinton. Her coded speech is interesting. When she stated that she will not repeal the Second Amendment, we should take that as a warning that she will control firearms in another way. It is assured that Hillary and company will employ the liberal tactic of the manipulation and mutation of law to make a repeal unnecessary. Once they set up a corrupted justice system they can use the courts and their attorneys to portray any person who desires a certain type of gun, or more than fifty rounds of ammunition, as a dangerous person. From that point you will see the firearms forfeiture process take wing.

There is a possibility that a massive seizure of firearms may leave the civil arena. The conservative’s straight-line, constitutional thinking has been continuously out-litigated by the liberals’ creative, far-fetched thinking and mutations of justice. So, in the liberals’ next creative application of law, it is reasonable to expect them to use a phrase from the Constitution which gives incredible powers to the government: “the public Safety may require it.”

These words are from Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which gives Congress, under certain circumstances, the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Why should gun control be any different when the public safety may require the new restrictions? If you read the pages of resolutions before Congress, you will see that the “whereas” sections are packed with statistics and examples of how dangerous guns are. The liberals see public safety as a tool to solve the gun problem.

Don’t take the gun grab with indifference. During the Republican Convention, former Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell said “Your war is here! You don’t have to find it!” This war is to keep our nation from losing to two enemies: Islam and Liberalism. We have to get serious about this election. The armchair warriors with their “Molon Labe” bumper stickers are good talk, but they’re just talk. We have to do everything we can to stop Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency. Our republican form of government cannot survive a shot from a Hillary presidency.

I will end this with a note from a great founding father, Samuel Adams:

“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

When our nation’s future is at stake, I advise our patriots to vote with that in mind.

[Grampa Dave]

If Clintoon becomes our Potus, she will disarm us and make us like the poor guy below, running for his life! His crime, being a Trump supporter in San Jose earlier this year. He was run down by a Somali Islamic. The worthless Liberal San Jose Mayor and LaRaza police chief made sure their cops didn’t stop the violence against Trump supporters. San Jose has very strict gun control laws.

‘Rats want guns to kill others. Conservatives need guns to defend themselves from ‘Rat predators.’(Paladin2)

[originalbuckeye]

Good article. But you are preaching to the choir here. The people who need to read this article won’t see it, considering how the Media is all in for Hillary.

[556x45]

‘... but the government swoops in to seize—pardon me, to force the forfeiture of—their property and cash.’

Lets just name it for what it is...armed robbery.

[NonValueAdded]

The last time this was tried, it did not go so well for the government.

Love, Sam Adams

[The Sons of Liberty]

Hillary Clinton’s Tactic: Civil Firearms Forfeiture

Madam Hillary Benghazi will only have to use this tactic in the early part of her regime. She'll pack the SCOTUS so that when she snaps her fingers, they will jump - or else join "The List".

[econjack]

I can’t tell how many idiots use the same argument: The Second Amendment doesn’t allow you to hunt with an assault rifle.

Really?

If you get this kind of argument, ask them to tell you the content of the Third Amendment. When they tell you they don’t know, tell them the Second Amendment was put in place so the People could enforce the Third Amendment.

[kiryandil]

Let’s get back to Hillary Clinton. Her coded speech is interesting. When she stated that she will not repeal the Second Amendment, we should take that as a warning that she will control firearms in another way.

There's ALWAYS an escape hatch, or four, built into any Clinton liestatement...

[disndat]

They sure do a lot of voting in Chicago on weekends.

[PJammers]

Is a police officer considered a soldier? If we nationalize our police force won’t they require garrisons?

[BipolarBob]

http://dcgazette.com/2014/seventy-two-killed-resisting-gun-confiscation-in-boston/

[Uversabound]

Now more than EVER we need to defend ourselves.

And as NY state tax payers and land owners we will not comply.

We have had this discussion in our home if it should come to this...not pretty but maybe we should all be having this conversation at home too.

Sucks and Thank You Founders......
Read article here this morning on Kim Jung un in NK.
The regime is making his people do hard work to keep them from having free time to think about freedom.

Its illegal to use a cell phone in NK!!!!

THank GOD we can still defend ourselves.

[tomkat]

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking:  What would things have been like if every Security operative,
when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city,
people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase,
but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

Solzhenitsyn

[corlorde]

Excellent.

[ConservativeWarrior]

You can use a cell phone in NK, but every text and call is recorded and kept by the government. There are also restrictions on how cell phones may be used.

Interesting report on NK cellphone usage:

http://uskoreainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Kim-Yonho-Cell-Phones-in-North-Korea.pdf

[rockrr]

Here’s a little alphabet soup for Hellery and her fascists:

FMCDH/BITS

Bring it

[Big Red Badger]

Love reading That!

[Psalm 144]

It is better to die in the Warsaw Ghetto than to buy a few wretched months at Auschwitz.

[Ken H]

Give drug war supporters the credit they deserve =>

Asset forfeiture laws allow us to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets and more prosecutors in court.

In the last 5 years alone, the Justice Department shared over half a billion dollars in forfeited assets with State and local law enforcement.

-Pres Bush, March 05, 1991

http://bush41library.tamu.edu/archives/public-papers/2764

[exit82]

You can use a cell phone in NK, but every text and call is recorded and kept by the government.

Just like here, courtesy of the NSA!