Feds target illegal sales of firearms

[beerslurpy]

I understand how it works and I'm saying it is unjust. You disagree that it is unjust. You claim only that "the possibility for abuse exists."

How generous of you! I didnt realize that the past 30 years were merely the "possibility for abuse." At what point does abuse become more than a possibility?

Tell me, does your job in some way depend on revenue from confiscations?

 

[Father Knows Best]

Thank you for telling me what I believe. I'm not sure what I ever would have done without you.

For your information, I believe that the question of whether a civil forfeiture proceeding is "unjust" depends on the facts of the case. The process is subject to abuse. When it is abused, it results in an injustice. When it is not abused, there is no injustice.

Over the last 20 years, the process has been abused a lot. A particularly egregious case took place recently when a man was detained at an airport with $9,000 in cash that was discovered at a routine security screening. The agents who found it suspected he was involved in the drug trade, and seized it. They wouldn't even give him a receipt. They later instituted civil forfeiture proceedings. It turns out that he was just a landscaper who was flying to another state to buy some rare plants. He knew that the seller would not take an out of town check, so he got cash. He ended up having to post a bond just for the right to appear in court and get his money back. That was clearly abusive, and it's the reason that bills are pending on Congress to put limits on the government's use of these proceedings.

And no, my job doesn't depend on "revenue from confiscations." Unlike you, I'm just trying to contribute to a discussion of a complicated issue by sharing information that many readers may not know. I don't have a particular agenda to push. I'm just a simple country lawyer who thought others might actually be interested in hearing from someone who actually knows a little about the subject matter.

Satisfied?

 

[beerslurpy]

Yeah, I am satisfied. We just have different perspectives of the same problem.

Your job puts you amongst the trees, so reasoning from the standpoint of the forest probably isnt going to make much sense. You probably feel that my understanding of the subject is too coarse, while I feel that yours focuses too much on coping with things as they are and less on changing them for the better. Then again, your job consists of arguing the law, not making it, so I cant really fault you.

It sort of saddens me that lawyers rarely have an agenda to push unless it happens to be Socialism.

edit: oh yeah, sorry for being unpleasant.

 

[Father Knows Best]

What makes you think I'm more interested in "coping with things as they are and less on changing them for the better"? I was merely explaining the situation. I went on to say that I agree it needs to be changed. And yet you insist on trying to paint me as someone who is satisfied with the status quo, and even go on to imply that I'm either apathetic or a socialist. Try reading what I write -- every part of it -- and considering it with an open mind. I think you'll find that you and I are expressing the same position. You merely did it via hyperbole and expressions of outrage, while I tried to provide some factual background. Maybe if I screamed and yelled you would have been satisfied. The fact that I didn't doesn't mean I was disagreeing with you.

Enough is enough. Good night.

 

[beerslurpy]

The socialist bit wasnt directed at you. The last post wasnt even intended as an attack.

 

[publius]

Civil asset forfeiture actions are indeed well established in our legal history, but they have until recently been used in the collection of taxes or the satisfaction of other debts.

The abuse of civil asset forfeiture began in the 80s, when the Reagan administration, joined by many state and local governments, started using civil asset forfeiture as both a source of revenue and a means of punishment in the drug war, all without that whole messy criminal trial. It got so bad by the 90s that the Republican Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, which did provide more protection for property owners, but has mostly altered the form of the practice, which continues.

Further reform us unlikely, unfortunately. Democrats like anything that further empowers government while bringing in lots of loot. Republicans like anything that's used to fight the futile drug war. That pretty much leaves libertarians to argue against the use of civil asset forfeiture laws instead of criminal asset forfeiture laws to punish crimes, and we're probably not going to get the job done. I'd recommend not carrying much cash or looking too suspicious.

 

[carebear]

I'd recommend not carrying much cash or looking too suspicious.

But try not to look TOO not too suspicious, cause that looks suspicious.