I guess that since I dont deal drugs, I am okay.
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; THis is nothing new. Local and federal agencies have been using forfieture laws for years. They can seize anything from a gun to a home. ...
THis is nothing new. Local and federal agencies have been using forfieture laws for years. They can seize anything from a gun to a home.
My question is.... what does the ATF have to do with narcotics investigation?
I guess that since I dont deal drugs, I am okay.
"My question is.... what does the ATF have to do with narcotics investigation? "
Believe it or not... there is a connection between guns and drugs. All of us who say, "if you outlaw guns, only the bad guys will have em". Well... dont we want to stop the bad guys from having them?
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
The Administrative Procedure Act.
The rule change by DOJ states that:
"Notice and comment rulemaking is not required for this final rule. Under the APA, “rules of agency organization, procedure or practice,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), that do not “affect individual rights and obligations,”Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974), are exempt from the general notice and comment requirements of section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code. See JEM Broad. Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (section 553(b)(A) applies to “agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency”) (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The revisions to the regulations in 28 CFR part 0 are purely a matter of agency organization, procedure, and practice that will not affect individual rights and obligations. This rule does not expand the government's ability as a matter of law to effectuate forfeitures; it simply authorizes the Director of ATF to effectuate such forfeitures. Internal delegations of authority such as in this final rule are “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice under the APA”."
The APA determination by DOJ is incorrect in that it does not "affect individual rights and obligations." They are attempting (and successfully so until challenged) to attach forfeiture power to another agency by essentially saying that since forfeitures occur through other agencies the power is simply being executed by another agency as an administrative matter. It is important to note that any victory here would likely be short lived since the law requires a Joint Resolution of Disapproval by Congress in order to stop the rule from being implemented.
DOJ is counting on asset seizures to be uncontested (after all, why would a drug dealer contest a seizure unless said drug dealer has several legitimate businesses in which he may attempt to claim the assets are a part of).
"An uncontested administrative forfeiture can be perfected in 60-90 days for minimal cost, including the statutorily required advertisement and notice by registered mail. Conversely, the costs associated with judicial forfeiture can amount to hundreds or thousands of dollars and the judicial process generally can take anywhere from 6 months to years. In the meantime, the government incurs additional costs if the property requires storage or maintenance until a final order of forfeiture can be obtained."
DOJ is saying this great because we don't have to deal with the courts. We can handle it ourselves (so long as it is uncontested).
DOJ, like the laws in Tennessee, know that the average Joe (drug dealer or true innocent) does not have the intelligence or the means to challenge an asset seizure and thus they more than likely have accurately surmised the law will not be challenged. A state law in Illinois was challenged in Alvarez v Smith but the matter was dismissed as moot when the parties reached agreement and assets were either returned by the State of Illinois or accepted as forfeited by Alvarez, et al. As far as I am aware Alvarez was the recent case that would have directly addressed forfeiture nation wide. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act addresses some remedies for asset forfeiture but it is more than likely an avenue that cannot be navigated until such time as the administrative remedies through DOJ have been exhausted.
While I don't believe most of the posters here would ever come into being impacted by this rule I do have several reservations on asset forfeiture that I hope are resolved by the US Supreme Court sooner than later.
Even if they are 100% wrong you still have to have the cash to take them to court and fight it you will be broke long before it is over.
Read what it says and how it has already been used in other agency's.
You buy a fire arm do everything right 3 years latter they are checking up on the shop they show up grab your weapon. Not a darn thing you can do.
If your weapons are seized without proper justification you can and will prevail. It takes time, a cool head, and resolve.
This goes even further than gun grabbing. While the article talks about guns, in reality any posession can be taken, like cash, your home, car etc.
Obama Administration Passes New Order Making it easier to seize guns without due processThe ATF has been given the authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled substance abuses.” This means that anyone suspected of substance abuse can now have their firearms seized without even being arrested.
According to the Times, this gives the federal government the power to seize the guns of citizens, even if they are merely suspected of substance abuse. These citizens do not have to be officially charged or arrested. Hell they don’t even have to be guilty.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson