CavArms Update: Public Notice on Asset Forfeiture in WSJ


PDA






Bubbles
May 1, 2008, 10:54 PM
Page 8 under legal notices. All claims for property must be made by May 25th or the property will be disposed of according to ..... . Has hundreds of guns listed - machine guns, suppressors, everything from their inventory.

The link to a scan of the notice is in the first post of http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=705115. It runs for almost two complete columns.

If you enjoyed reading about "CavArms Update: Public Notice on Asset Forfeiture in WSJ" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Beagle-zebub
May 1, 2008, 11:35 PM
Are any news outlets even running a story on this?

And call the ACLU! They are the saintly protectors of all tyrannized social pariahs, right?

Ergosphere
May 2, 2008, 01:41 AM
That is absolutely outrageous. Surely this is a violation of the fifth amendment. Has no court ever seen it as such?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Picard
May 2, 2008, 02:52 AM
So what's the story? The ATF just raided and took their guns for no reason? Were they even found guilty of anything?

Ergosphere
May 2, 2008, 03:15 AM
Picard, last I heard they haven't even been charged with anything.

Kharn
May 2, 2008, 06:32 AM
The really stupid part of this announcement is that CavArms' bound book should list who owns the weapons that were on-hand for consignment or repair...

Kharn

Henry Bowman
May 2, 2008, 09:05 AM
This is just the first step in the forfeiture process. CavArms and/or any third-party owners of property in their possession that was taken have to file a claim and then prove that the property was legal and not used criminally. I expect that CavArms will claim all of it since what they did not own was legally in the possession. If it is not "claimed," often because (in other cases), it is stolen or illegal or its value is less than the cost of trying to get it back, then it will be forfeited by default.

We need to pray for a judge who recognizes this as BS.

MakAttak
May 2, 2008, 09:06 AM
This makes me so outraged.

And now I have to decide if it's even worth it to contact my senators. (My congressman is a gun grabber, so it would be a waste of my time).

Perhaps the White House, though.

bogie
May 2, 2008, 09:08 AM
My congressman is a gun grabber, so it would be a waste of my time.


It's never a waste of time. Keep reminding them.

Even Chuck Schumer has to worry about reelection.

Old Fuff
May 2, 2008, 09:49 AM
It is interesting (and outrageous) that we have arrived at the point where private property can be confiscated by the government, without the need to first file criminal or civil charges against the owners, let alone get a conviction. But it should also be remembered that the BATF was a core player in the Clinton White House’s attempt to take over the handgun industry by engineering the filing of superfluous lawsuits in mass to force the companies to either submit to an unconstitutional settlement or be forced into bankruptcy.

Fortunately there are statutes that allow the government, and even their individual agents, to be sued for malicious persecution. Judgments or settlements can be quite large, but unfortunately it is the taxpayers that end up paying them.

Everyone should write they’re Senators and Representatives. Hopefully we still have at least some left that can demand an investigation.

Of course a President Obama would put a stop to all of this… :rolleyes: :banghead:

sqlbullet
May 2, 2008, 10:29 AM
And call the ACLU! They are the saintly protectors of all tyrannized social pariahs, right?

Except, of course, weapons. They interpret the 2nd to protect the right of the government to keep arms, not the people.

Vaarok
May 2, 2008, 10:58 AM
Feel free to use my letter-

Dear senator Clinton,

I write to you with a sense of dread and indignation about the recent illegal and unconstitutional activities of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in regards to the Cavalry Arms corporation in Arizona.

Without grounds or oversight, the BATFE has arbitrarily changed their definitions of lawful activities in regard to the daily business of the company, then used this manufactured violation as grounds to gain a blank and unconstitutional warrant, which they then used to seize all property on the premises, which is now being disposed of via forfeiture law before the company has even been charged or trial arranged.

I find this to be not only an outrageous violation of civil liberties and due process, but a horrifying and dangerous precedent for further abuse of our constitutional rights to legal representation.

I strongly urge you to take whatever action you can in representing my views on this issue to the senate and seeking not only a reasonable resolution for this particular case, but also prevent such ridiculous abuses from happening so easily again in the future.

strat81
May 2, 2008, 12:34 PM
Excellent letter.

mp510
May 2, 2008, 02:29 PM
That is absolutely outrageous. Surely this is a violation of the fifth amendment. Has no court ever seen it as such?


And, notice the key words without due process of law.

This notification is simply a part of the process.

Ergosphere
May 2, 2008, 05:37 PM
This notification is simply a part of the process.

I remain unconvinced. The property has already been seized, and BATFE is now looking to dispose of it... and up to this point there has been no opportunity for Cav Arms to make itself heard in court.

This is not proper due process.

TexKettering
May 2, 2008, 06:19 PM
Feel free to use my letter-

Thanks... I just wrote my Senators. :D

mp510
May 2, 2008, 06:30 PM
I remain unconvinced. The property has already been seized, and BATFE is now looking to dispose of it... and up to this point there has been no opportunity for Cav Arms to make itself heard in court.

This is not proper due process.Now, cav has a choice to make- are they going to submit a claim for the property before the date in the notice, or are they going to not submit a claim and forefeit their rights to the property. If they choose to submit the claim then there will be a contest over whp gets the property. If cav chooses not to submit a claim for whatever reason, they are forbearing their rights to the property, without contest.

hrgrisso
May 2, 2008, 09:53 PM
Mr. Kyle,
Thank you for your service in the United States Senate. I am grateful to have a Senator who, I believe truly represents his constituency and their concerns; it is what led me to volunteer during your last re-election campaign at the State Republican HQ.

I am writing today to ask you to look into a matter I believe is of grave importance. The Mesa, Az. Business, Cavalry Arms has manufactured arms for law enforcement, military and civilian use for the better part of the decade. In what can only be described as a heinous abuse of Federal power, the BATFE in February opened an investigation and confiscated a massive amount of legally owned and manufactured weapons from Cavalry’s place of business. These confiscated arms included inventory for distribution and retail, arms that had been returned for service and or modification and even employees and owners privately owned arms.

SINCE FEBRUARY NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED!

Every day the cost of not doing business further destroys an entrepreneur who has found success amongst a very difficult industry to work in. A multiplied tragedy as the owner and founder served with distinction with our nation’s military during our last foray into the Middle East.

You have been a friend and ally of gun owners throughout your tenure as Senator, and I strongly urge you to contact the Bureau and seek a proper redress of the numerous grievances perpetrated against a legally operating business in our state. I believe this is compounded by the impending Supreme Court Decision in Heller v D.C. Please look into this and do everything within your power to rectify the situation.

The Federal abuse of power over the individual must not go unchallenged. If necessary I strongly urge you on behalf of your constituents to seek redress in the Senate if none is forthcoming from the BATFE. Please urge your fellow Senators that this represents a vile and despicable abuse of federal power over legal industry and most importantly over the rights of the citizenry.

Sincerely and Urgently Yours
Hyrum Grissom

brighamr
May 2, 2008, 11:15 PM
E-mails sent

Ergosphere
May 4, 2008, 02:33 AM
Now, cav has a choice to make- are they going to submit a claim for the property before the date in the notice, or are they going to not submit a claim and forefeit their rights to the property.

You're missing the point. (I think?)

Their property was taken, with a warrant. No charges were filed, no explanation given. Now, BATFE is listing the property to initiate forfeiture proceedings... again, no charges, no explanation. Cav Arms must now petition in order to regain possession of their property. That will cost a great deal of money. And they likely don't have much money, since BATFE essentially put them out of business by confiscating everything.

In other words, their property, and indeed their livelihood, has been taken, with no explanation, no criminal or civil judgment -- not even a hearing. They will lose -- no, they have already lost -- their property, and won't get it back unless they can make a successful argument in court.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? This is not due process, it is simple highway robbery. Surely their entire inventory is not being held as evidence, especially as BATFE is looking to dispose of it. I can understand property being seized with a warrant and held as evidence. On the other hand, civil forfeiture without preceding substantive due process or a trial judgment is... well, the only word that comes to mind at the moment is tyrrany. (Oh, and IMO, substantive due process would require a chance for both sides to be heard.)

guntotinguy
May 4, 2008, 03:32 AM
Thanks... I just wrote my Senators

Me too,and even though 2 are gun grabbers,2 others I e-mailed are not.

Don Gwinn
May 4, 2008, 05:13 PM
I'm guessing this is where they hold a trial in which the various guns and suppressors are accused of a crime of some sort.
Maybe witchcraft.

U.S. vs. 154 AR-15 rifles, 32 AAR suppressors, 987 AR-15 barrels, 3,425 assorted metal springs . . . . .

mp510
May 4, 2008, 11:21 PM
You're missing the point. (I think?)

Their property was taken, with a warrant. No charges were filed, no explanation given. Now, BATFE is listing the property to initiate forfeiture proceedings... again, no charges, no explanation. Cav Arms must now petition in order to regain possession of their property. That will cost a great deal of money. And they likely don't have much money, since BATFE essentially put them out of business by confiscating everything.

In other words, their property, and indeed their livelihood, has been taken, with no explanation, no criminal or civil judgment -- not even a hearing. They will lose -- no, they have already lost -- their property, and won't get it back unless they can make a successful argument in court.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? This is not due process, it is simple highway robbery. Surely their entire inventory is not being held as evidence, especially as BATFE is looking to dispose of it. I can understand property being seized with a warrant and held as evidence. On the other hand, civil forfeiture without preceding substantive due process or a trial judgment is... well, the only word that comes to mind at the moment is tyrrany. (Oh, and IMO, substantive due process would require a chance for both sides to be heard.)
I believe that the difference comes from the perspective we're taking this from. Your looking at this from a more ideological/theoretical position whereas I am looking at it from a more procedural perspective- that it is working its way through the system under the existing frame of due process.

Erik
May 5, 2008, 02:36 PM
I would agree. Confusing types of procedures, criminal, civil, etc, isn't going to help anyone. Your elected officials will pick up the phone, find that due process IS being followed, and hang it up, and most likely stop being interested at that point.

Asking your elected officials to look into things is certianly a good idea, though. The looking process often shines light on things folks didn't realize were in the shadows.

If you enjoyed reading about "CavArms Update: Public Notice on Asset Forfeiture in WSJ" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!