NJ: Bill--Seize homes that contain 'illegal' guns

[publius]

As I understand it, forfeiture laws were origionally intended to deprive drug dealers of the fruits of the forbidden act.

Actually, if you want to talk about the origins of civil asset forfeiture, we'll wind up talking about what a deodand is.

But that was the modern justification for applying civil asset forfeiture instead of criminal asset forfeiture laws in drug cases. It was just too hard to convict drug dealers, and sooo much easier to just take their stuff. Civil asset forfeiture abuse has led to policing for profit in the drug war.

And as this law and the Raich and Stewart cases that I sometimes talk about show once again, tolerating the stretching of the rule of law and civil asset forfeiture abuse in the drug war will lead to the application of those precedents when it comes to your gun rights.

 

[publius]

The problem with using civil asset forfeiture laws instead of criminal asset forfeiture laws to punish drug dealers is that punishment requires guilt, but civil asset forfeiture laws do not require the guilt of any person. They're about guilty property.

An element of guilt is criminal intent, called mens rea by lawyer types. How do you determine the intent of a house or a car? Or a gun?

 

[jefnvk]

This may be common sense, but if someone is found with an illegal gun, why not just arrest that person, and charge them for whatever they did?

 

[thorn726]

this is freaking scary.
really taking gun control too far.

As I understand it, forfeiture laws were origionally intended to deprive drug dealers of the fruits of the forbidden act. The property is siezed and held for a judge to determine if they are either the product of drug money, or if they were used in a substantial manner in the actual drug trade.

yes really, i thought that was the idea. but apperently any way to get more money away from us and to the govt is ok

 

[Dmack_901]

This may be common sense, but if someone is found with an illegal gun, why not just arrest that person, and charge them for whatever they did?

Because this is for cases where the property owner doesn't have the gun, but is allowing it to be on their property.

So if this proposal passes, then all you have to do is throw an "illegal gun" onto Assemblyman Louis Manzo's front yard. Once the DA seizes his home for having an illegal gun on it(eventhough it wasn't in his possesion), I tend to think he'll want to ammend the law. lol

 

[50 Freak]

I hope this bill doesn't go through as it going to lead to a lot of dead cops. Try siezing people's house on a charge like weapons posession and your going to piss off the 60 million gun owners in the US. We're not talking about Joe Crack Head down the street. We're talking about your neighbors you have known for 20 something years who are now homeless because the state wants some money.

I say this because, I just called the CA DOJ on another matter and the DOJ agent and I were talking and the discussion came up about the CA mandatory registration of AW's back in 2000 (or 2001 don't remember). The DOJ agent said not a lot of people registered them, she figure maybe 20% if even that registered their AW's. The agent said people probably confused their 4473 with registration and didn't think they had to register their AW because they were already registered. So now you have about 80% of AW owners in Cali who are considered by law criminals. Try seizing their homes and your going to see a lot of body bags.

 

[publius]

We're not talking about Joe Crack Head down the street.

We never were.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

It should have been obvious back when the gov seized a grandmother's farm because her grandson (without her knowledge) was growing pot. It should be even more obvious now.

Precedents which we tolerate in the name of prohibition will reach back to all of us.

 

[GSB]

Why the people of New Jersey put up with this nonsense is beyond me.

I was born, raised, and spent most of my life in NJ. You'd be surprised at how many people there actually embrace such nonsense. Heck, admitting you owned a gun in "polite" company up there was like admitting to membership in NAMBLA or something, judging by the reactions I'd get (I didn't notice this when I was a kid -- I think it was a creeping Sheeple thing over a couple of decades). When I moved to the South, I was utterly shocked (in a positive way) at the attitude shift regarding firearms. Heck, in polite company down here, people routinely discuss guns as a matter of course. You're almost odd-man-out if you don't have one (and are readily identifiable as a Damn Yankee).

 

[publius]

Nambla?

Is that the North American Master Blasters Longarms Association?

 

[feedthehogs]

Got to have some way of supporting the bloated, blood sucking goverment work force while the rest of us contribute to the productive part of society, unlike the takers.

 

[MountainPeak]

I wonder how many on this board SUPPORTED asset forfeiture laws before someone included firearms as a trigger. I've always felt these laws sucked.

 

[bjbarron]

Here are some relevant sections of NJ gun laws....

I have heard that if you move to this state or inherit guns, you are required to fill out a form with the State Police listing the guns you bring in. I would be interested if anyone has the straight skinny on that one.

(1) A Permit to Purchase or FID shall not be required for the passing of a firearm upon the owner's death to his heir or legatee. Unqualified recipients must dispose of the firearms within 180 days

(2) It is unlawful to sell, give, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of or receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, other than an antique rifle or shotgun, unless the purchaser assignee, donee, receiver, or holder is licensed as a dealer under New Jersey law or possesses a valid FID, and first exhibits the FID to the seller, donor, transferrer, or assignor, and the purchaser assignee, donee, receiver, or holder signs a written certification on a form prescribed by the Superintendent of State Police, which identifies the purchaser, his address and FID or dealer's number, and states he presently is not disqualified from purchase.

Regardless what is said by NJ law, it is illegal to purchase a handgun in the state without the proper forms being kept by the FFL dealer and copies sent to the state. Even long guns are called in to the State Police and records kept by the dealer. I fail to see how that differs from registration. Any gun I buy out of state has to be transferred in to a Jersey FFL.

In 1968 I bought a .357 hogleg in a general store in New Mexico legally over the table with nothing but money passing hands. That's what I call un-registered. Everything they do today is registration.

How can they know if a gun is illegal if you say it was inherited from your Grandfather and you don't know where he got it.

 

[publius]

Unsupervised Ownership? The Horror!

In 1968 I bought a .357 hogleg in a general store in New Mexico legally over the table with nothing but money passing hands. That's what I call un-registered.

Gosh, that must have led to quite a crime spree! Who did you shoot or rob?

 

[bjbarron]

Actually I was in the service doing some training course. I also bought a Beretta shotgun, a 1911, and a .22mag semi-auto rifle...all without registration.

I used the shotgun to make a little money hunting rattlesnakes and the rifle to hunt jackrabbits. There were bounties on both I believe. I was only getting $12 a pint for my blood. The pay wasn't much for squids back then.

We would slide a garden hose down a likely hole and listen for rattles. Pour in a bit of gasoline and the rattlers would come out so pissed that they would be standing on their tails.

A shotgun was necessary.

 

[MarkDido]

I left "Joisey" (Exit 18E) in 1973 when I joined the Navy.

Never looked back, never regreted it.

 

[ralphie98]

This part disturbs me the most:

even if the firearm was not possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or premise

My dad makes a living by renting out houses. The neighborhoods he rents out in are what you might describe as "unsavory", or as the kids say, "Ghetto", so you come to suspect that most people in that area dabble with drugs a bit. He had some renters one time that seemed to be model renters... always paid the rent, kept the house reasonably clean... except when they moved out. While I was over there helping him clean up, we found some blackened spoons in the kitchen. These were likely not from cooking their mac and cheese too long, but rather from heroin or whatever. He had no idea, nor should he be expected to babysit his renters. Point here is that taking property away from a landlord for "letting" a renter stay when they are breaking laws is unreasonable because there is usually no way to prove that the landlord had any clue as to what was going on. What makes this worse is that it's a lot tougher to know whether your renter has "illegal" guns or not. With a druggie you might see them strung out or find the junk around the house, but I don't think my dad should be expected to know the origins and legality of every item in that house.

 

[2nd Amendment]

AF used against landlords:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner09182004.html

http://www.libertarianworld.com/Property-Seizure-Rights.html

http://www.prfamerica.org/Leviathan.html (James Bovard, no less)

http://www.fear.org/AssetPub.pdf

 

[Igloodude]

ralphie98, I think that is the exact point of that NJ legislative whackjob's bill. Obviously the police aren't able to make illegal guns go away, so let's coerce landlords into assisting. Were the bill to pass, landlords would either be forced to monitor their tenants much more, or they'd refuse to rent to the seedier types. Sure both of those options might well be illegal themselves, but that's not the police's problem and it is not the NJ legislator's problem, right?

 

[publius]

Thanks, 2A

I read anything by Bovard.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Please tell me if I am off my rocker.

I am just starting into a book which contains the memiors of those in the Warsaw Ghetto. One of the things that I remember mentioned was that many people did not become involved because they had families that they needed to support, and disobediance would not only destroy them, but those they loved as well. Anyone who harbored fugitives from the law lost everything (up to and including their life).

There are echoes of that in this law, and it makes me uncomfortable.

 

[BADUNAME4]

Thank you for this thread. I shall put it in my "Favorites" and refer to it everytime that I miss New Jersey.

 

[publius]

Is it the use of civil asset forfeiture as a criminal punishment (without the criminal conviction) that troubles you, AL&S, or is it the fact that they are targeting guns this time?

Because if it's the former, I'm afraid you're going to have to leave America to get away from it, at least as long as it is deemed appropriate by drug warriors.

 

[Nightfall]

I think we can now officially call it the War on Guns...

Have an enemy you don't like? Plant a BB gun on his property and call the cops. He'll lose everything in the blink of an eye. :banghead:

 

[publius]

You are not the first in this thread to suggest such further abuses of an already abusive system.

Bad idea, on many levels, not least of which is that there's a pretty good likelihood such a scheme would backfire and turn on you. A decent investigator can identify a plant, and has a shot at figuring out who was the planter.

But the real danger from civil asset forfeiture laws used as criminal punishment is not from cops or citizens planting contraband to seize property or settle scores. No doubt some of that will go on, but the real danger is the precedent it sets.

Allow an argument that says that suspicion of illegal drug involvement with some piece of property is enough to taint property and trigger forfeiture, without the nicety of a charge and conviction against the property owner, and you're likely to allow an argument that says that suspicion of illegal gun involvement...you get the picture.

It is a method of circumventing the standards of proof that we use in our criminal system. We have those standards for a reason, and the government should not be allowed to use the civil system to sidestep criminal standards of proof when punishing crimes.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Wait till Asset Forfeiture has fully settled in for firearms and as an easier method than Imminent Domain of aquiring property for government use. Soon enough it'll be enforcing the expanding concepts of centralized Identification. After all, if you can't prove who you are or won't submit to proper proof then how can you legitimately own anything...?

What's that verse from Revelation...?