Administration Expands ATF’s Power to Seize Property = Your Firearms - Page 2

Administration Expands ATF’s Power to Seize Property = Your Firearms

This is a discussion on Administration Expands ATF’s Power to Seize Property = Your Firearms within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Wow. What a shocker....

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: Administration Expands ATF’s Power to Seize Property = Your Firearms

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array WHEC724's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,617


    Wow. What a shocker.
    __________________________________
    'Clinging to my guns and religion


  2. #17
    Ex Member Array Adrenaline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    138
    I'd like to see the memo that actually says this. I'm not saying it's not true but I'd like to read it myself to determine the validity and context.
    4my sons likes this.

  3. #18
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,524
    I can only find this reported in the Washington Times. I'm not disputing it, but I have found in these atmosphere of media drivel taht all infromation needs to be checked.

    According to the article it does seem that it will become easier to seize firearms from someone who is accused of a drug realted crime, much like they do with money and property.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  4. #19
    Ex Member Array Adrenaline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    138
    Assuming it is true and those here who fear it could occur without cause at all, it would not be difficult for one to obtain injunctive relief (though expensive if one does not possess the ability to represent themselves).

  5. #20
    Member Array xXMens ReaXx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrenaline View Post
    I'd like to see the memo that actually says this. I'm not saying it's not true but I'd like to read it myself to determine the validity and context.
    Agreed. Where is the text of the rule they say the DOJ implemented?
    They don't call him lucky Ned Pepper for nothing

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,508
    Here is a previous thread on the same subject.

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...-firearms.html
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  7. #22
    Ex Member Array Adrenaline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    138
    In other words, just a news article that various pro 2A sites have dovetailed off of as being gospel.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    I can only find this reported in the Washington Times. I'm not disputing it, but I have found in these atmosphere of media drivel taht all infromation needs to be checked.

    According to the article it does seem that it will become easier to seize firearms from someone who is accused of a drug realted crime, much like they do with money and property.
    Even without any new orders there is nothing stopping the Government from expanding the list of items that they can seize without due process. When they seize money they are taking property. If they can do it to one type of property then they can pretty much do it to all.

    When these seizure laws were put into place the majority of citizens were all for them because the Government promised that they would only be used against the other guy. Drug dealers who's lawyers got them off on technicalities. We were told that it was not fair that criminals who could not be convicted should be allowed to keep the things they bought with their drug money. Not enough of us spoke up to question why a person who was never found guilty of a crime should have their property taken from them. How it was that property could be charged with a crime. (This is how they take the cash, they charge the property with a crime not the owner.)

    The people who were all in favor of these get the other guy laws never believe that they would ever be on the receiving end of the laws. That only criminals needed rights. Welcome to the world you asked for is all I can say.

    Michael

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,169
    what happen to due process?

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by tns0038 View Post
    what happen to due process?
    I'm told that it gets in the way of crime/ terrorism prevention.

    Michael

  11. #26
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,524
    I wsn't saying I agree with it, i was just saying that they were already doing it. Now they can hold you indefinitly without charge or trial if thay deem that you are a terrorist, or just take you out with a Hellfire missle here on US soil.


    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Even without any new orders there is nothing stopping the Government from expanding the list of items that they can seize without due process. When they seize money they are taking property. If they can do it to one type of property then they can pretty much do it to all.

    When these seizure laws were put into place the majority of citizens were all for them because the Government promised that they would only be used against the other guy. Drug dealers who's lawyers got them off on technicalities. We were told that it was not fair that criminals who could not be convicted should be allowed to keep the things they bought with their drug money. Not enough of us spoke up to question why a person who was never found guilty of a crime should have their property taken from them. How it was that property could be charged with a crime. (This is how they take the cash, they charge the property with a crime not the owner.)

    The people who were all in favor of these get the other guy laws never believe that they would ever be on the receiving end of the laws. That only criminals needed rights. Welcome to the world you asked for is all I can say.

    Michael
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    I wsn't saying I agree with it, i was just saying that they were already doing it. Now they can hold you indefinitly without charge or trial if thay deem that you are a terrorist, or just take you out with a Hellfire missle here on US soil.
    Understood, I was just attempting to agree with you while adding more information.

    Right now we have some in Law Enforcement wanting to use the new expanded terrorism laws against domestic criminals such as gangs and drug dealers. What is more troubling to me is the support for the idea from ordinary citizens. The idea of allowing the Government to use those laws against us is terrifying to me. Being able to preform secret searches or locking up people indefinitely without any charges or even sending you outside of the country to serve indefinite internment in a CIA holding camp. Warrant-less wiretapping and more. Using the terrorism laws would allow just that. While this happening is hopefully far fetched the idea that people are even considering it as an option should be cause for concern for all freedom loving citizens.

    Michael

  13. #28
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,524
    What was it that Benjamin Franklin said?

    Oh yeah
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
    rocky likes this.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  14. #29
    Distinguished Member Array Jason Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    This is why it's time to abolish the ATF entirely, along with all legislative powers it administers. There should be no NFA, no 1968 GCA, no Hughes Amendment, no nothing. The ATF has no constitutional authority to even exist, and it needs to be gone and replaced with nothing like long ago. Any agency that does something like this should see its directors personally liable for what they've done, and as high as the order came from, all the way down to the agents executing, heads should roll.
    Amen to that, brother!

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrenaline View Post
    I'd like to see the memo that actually says this. I'm not saying it's not true but I'd like to read it myself to determine the validity and context.
    Both the DOJ rule signed by Holder and the EO from 2011 that gave them the power to make their own rule signed by OBummer are linked to on the Federal Register site in the original article.
    DOJ Rule
    https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...iture-2012r-9p
    EO
    https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ulatory-review
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment guns grants pass batf

,

atf executive order

,

atf firearm seizures

,

atf gun seizures

,

atf powers

,
auto forfieture law in illinois
,

did doj grant atf permission to revoke 2nd amendment?

,

doj expands atf

,

doj gives atf power to seize guns

,

executive order atf

,

obama administration expands atf?s power to seize property

,

second amendment guns grants pass forum

Click on a term to search for related topics.