Proposed NJ Law: Seize Homes w/Illegal Guns

[publius42]

This was bound to happen...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44183

Posted: May 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a bill that would allow the government to seize the home or car of anyone whose property contains an illegal firearm.

The legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Louis Manzo, D-Jersey City, authorizes the forfeiture of "motor vehicle, building or premise" if a firearm is found in it that is not possessed legally per state law – "even if the firearm was not possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or premise," states a summary of the bill, A3998. The legislation was introduced Thursday.

Manzo pointed out his bill extends government power now reserved for targeting those in possession of illegal drugs.

"If we will do this when someone is caught with illegal drugs, it only makes sense that we should do it for when someone has an illegal weapon," Manzo told the Hudson Reporter.

"We currently allow this to take place when illegal drugs are found. This is to keep a landlord or someone driving the car from turning a blind eye to the drugs people in an apartment or passenger in the car is doing," he said. "I think if a landlord knows there is an illegal gun in the house, he or she should do something about it. And this may encourage someone driving a car to keep a person from carrying a gun."

Under the proposed law, an unlicensed machine gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun are considered illegal.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, slammed the proposal.

"It looks like [Manzo] is going to have a go at the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment," said Pratt, referring to constitutional rights involving firearms and private property. "Way to go – a 'two-fer'!"

Pratt told WND police skullduggery could cause law-abiding citizens to lose their property.

"So if an officer plants a gun in your home, you lose your house," he said. "It's the same drill they've been using in the war against drugs. Now they want to use the same tactics against people who have a gun for self-defense."

Of the bill, Pratt stated, "I hope it's going nowhere, but you never know with New Jersey."

Manzo compared the cost of his proposal to a current gun buyback program.

"This is one more tool that law enforcement can use in an effort to do away with illegal weapons," he told the Hudson Reporter. "Unlike the buyback program, this doesn't cost the taxpayers money to get rid of illegal guns."

Gee, who could have guessed that once established, the civil asset forfeiture abuse and policing for profit which has characterized the drug war would be expanded to other politically incorrect things, such as guns?

Who could have guessed that precedents matter, and that the fate of a homegrown cannabis plant for personal consumption could wind up affecting homegrown machine guns for personal consumption?

Who would have thought that Thomas Paine was right?

"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

 

[randersonabq]

Bill of Rights

Seems to me that all of these seizure laws violate the the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process.
If you haven't read the Bill of Rights lately, please do so. Those who wrote it back in the late 18th century wrote it to protect citizens against a too powerful national government. These writers were basing these amendments on their experiences in dealing with a government that over rode the natural rights of Englishmen- the British government as it attempted to gain control over its American Colonies.
Read also the "elastic clause", the 18th power given to the legislative branch in Article 2, section 8 of the Constitution.

 

[USP45usp]

*sigh*

Why not? Hell, they already seize without due process money because you have too much (or carrying too much), they already seize anything with the "war on drugs", so what else is new?

Hell, why don't they just come out and seize everyone's assets and then just call it the "war on the People". This is the direction that we're going anyway.

Wayne

 

[mvpel]

If you get tired of New Jersey, check out New Hampshire.

 

[publius42]

Seems to me that all of these seizure laws violate the the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process.

I see a 4th amendment problem as well, though they are really the same problem.

The funky due process dance done by the drug warriors goes like this:

We are not charging a person with a crime, so we do not have to meet criminal law burdens of proof. We are charging property, so why should we be expected to meet a heavy burden of proof which was designed to protect the rights of people?

Declaring property to be guilty in the context we are talking about can only be designed to punish the owner, but there is a little due process problem. The owner need not have been charged with any crime. They are clearly using the civil statutes as a way to sidestep the heavier burdens of proof associated with criminal asset forfeiture.

The 4th amendment problem comes in because, in order for property to be guilty in this context, it must have criminal intent. Did that house or car intend to have those drugs (or guns) inside? Doesn't pass the "reasonable" test, IMHO.

 

[LAK]

Naaaaaah; according to at least one person I have debated on this subject - it's been this way for more than half a century. You guys must be out of the loop or something. This is not unusual or a violation of anyones' rights.