AG Holder Gives ATF Power to Confiscate Property


Did you know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (and Really Big Fires) has the power to seize and “administratively forfeit” property involved in suspected drug offenses? Neither did I. “[U.S. Attorney General Eric] Holder temporarily delegated this authority to the ATF on a trial basis in 2013,” reports, “and today made the delegation permanent while lauding the ATF for seizing more than $19.3 million from Americans during the trial period.” Wait. Can he do that? The Department of Justice certainly (and obviously) thinks so . . .

The DOJ claims this rule change doesn’t affect individual rights (and was thus exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act) and that the change is simply an effort to streamline the federal government’s forfeiture process.  Those who now stand more likely to have their property taken without even a criminal charge may beg to differ.

Further, the department claims that forcing the ATF to go through a judicial process in order to seize property requires too much time and money.  Whereas an “uncontested administrative forfeiture can be perfected in 60-90 days for minimal cost […] 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 other words, affording judicial process to Americans suspected of engaging in criminal activity takes too long and costs too much.

Same goes for the process of recovering the booty. This does not bode well for gun owners who may have a bit of weed on them if and when the ATF comes a-calling re: a firearms offense. [Pro-tip: don’t hide a joint in your PDW brace.) Meanwhile, Cato is not happy.

At a time when Attorney General Holder himself has acknowledged the need for asset forfeiture reform, the authorization to take the property of American citizens should be shrinking, not expanding. A country that spoke itself into existence with assertions of the rights to life, liberty, and property can ill afford yet another government agency with the power to seize your property without so much as a criminal charge.

If a Republican takes the White House in 2016, Mister or Madame President should spike the ATF ASAP IMHO. These are the jack-booted thugs the NRA’s been warning you about. [h/t RA]


  1. avatar CHOtto says:

    Jack booted thugs indeed!

    When are these so called officials going to be held in contempt for their blatant disregard for the constitutionand their oath of office? Whats next? Their working on the second and fourth and they can’t wait to sack the third amendment so they can just move in and watch you at all times. slippery slope indeed…

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      It’s as if Ameicans still don’t get it… Who’s going to hold them accountable? YOU! US! You can’t expect the government to hold itself accountable… Are you stupid? “Somebody should do something!” No sh!t? Are you somebody? No?

      When will these people be held accountable? When the American People pull their heads out of their asses and put the 2nd Amendment to the one and only use it ever had…

    2. avatar Gary McClenny says:

      This came about years ago when RICO laws were passed and no one stood up to challenge them. The property is held “in Rem” as if it has committed a crime all by itself. Get a copy of the statutes on RICO—it will scare the daylight a out of you!

      1. avatar CT Resident says:

        I looked at the RICO statute but it would help if you could point to specific parts and the negative implications. I am not a lawyer but if someone is that could concretely explain the negative aspects related to specific parts that would be really great.

  2. avatar Rich K. says:

    BATF = Bureau for the Absolute Termination of Freedom

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      F- firebomb
      E- Everyone

      B- Bureau (that is)
      A- Absolutely

  3. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    Can they do that? Who is going to stop them?

    1. avatar Raed says:

      This is really old news.

      It used to be any police department could take your stuff now it’s just the Federal government.

      1. avatar B says:

        In Texas they can do it too. Cops just steal peoples crap. The law lets them use drug related seizures to fund their departments.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Wrong. Skimming these links, most of the references go back only to 2010, some to 2006 and 2004. In fairness, I did see one dated 1995, but that one didn’t make the warning which you allege. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. From that 1995 article “ATF Under Siege”:

      “The ATF may be the most hated federal agency in America today, surpassing even the IRS in its notoriety. Gun-rights advocates have demonized the agency as a dark legion of storm troopers who trample the rights of ordinary citizens. Critics have gone so far as to compare its treatment of gun owners to Nazi persecution of Jews during World War II. In a best-selling book published last year, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association described ATF’s disastrous raid at Waco, which began the 51-day siege that ended in conflagration, as ‘reminiscent of the standoff at the Warsaw ghetto.’ The bureau is not the jackbooted monolith of N.R.A. lore, however. Far from it [….]”

      It was the NRA which famously labeled the feds as jackbooted thugs. It was the NRA whose giant microphone spread that message, not the JPFO. The JPFO initially disagreed with the NRA’s assessment and only eventually, belatedly, by a decade+, apparently came around to agree with the NRA.

      Hey, welcome to the tribe, I say, howsoever late JPFO finally arrived; but let’s not rewrite history and cast JPFO as the leader in this regard.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I didn’t re-up with the NRA in the 1990s because they have been complicit with gun control measures. Too many NRA reps complaining about us calling BATFE out as “jack-booted thugs.” I was there. It was disgusting.

        I would rather have the NRA than not have the NRA. I don’t fault anyone for supporting the NRA. However, I know what I know from experience.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I owe you an apology. I did some fact checking with some others of the day and it seems like the NRA was probably first of the organizations to use the term. In the late 1980s and early 1990s it was common for us to use such terms for the ATF and one could hear it on shortwave. It seems time has clouded my memory. Mea culpa.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          We’re cool, John. No worries.

      3. avatar David B. says:

        The NRA did not label the ATF as jack booted thugs. It was Democratic Congressman John Dingell. The NRA just repeated what he said in fund raising letters.

  4. avatar SAS 2008 says:

    So its cheaper and faster for the government to just take your stuff and ignore due process. That’s all the justification I need. Go ATF Go!

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      Cheaper for the government is right.

      1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        some part of me believes that the only way to slow down big government is increase the money they have to spend while flouting their unconstitutional powers to the point where we can have a revolt based on excessive taxation. That is what it took last time around.

        disclaimer: this may also be the Bacardi and Rockstar speaking. past a certain point, it is hard to tell.

        1. avatar LongBeach says:

          I hope a revolt is not the answer, but sadly, our options seem to diminish with each passing day.

          Unrelated: I will have to try this Bacardi and Rockstar concoction you speak of. Sounds promising.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I subscribe to the “boil the frog fast so it jumps out of the pot” theory. I think that the slow erosion of individual liberties allows for a new normal to establish itself. Each round of tyranny is judged based upon the last new normal. ‘Tis better to let the chef turn the heat all the way up so the frog realizes he is being boiled alive. Maybe he will jump and maybe he won’t. But, rest assured that if it is a slow increase, he will never jump and shall be boiled alive.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Absolutely! I’ll be waiting for you!

    3. avatar CT Resident says:

      Immediate confiscation isn’t “cheaper” it is a Profit Center! It is akin to a Tax on the drug trade and backdoor to bigger revenues through the pretext of “because drugs”. This is the same Eric Holder that is giving Connecticut a pass on breaking federal law on “Medical Marijuana”, which as implemented is not so much about getting medical marijuana to people that would benefit because of health reasons as a revenue generation scheme.

      DEA has been using the license plate scanning technology to assist in confiscation of property. Confiscation could be the largest growing segment of government next to Military Drones, if there was transparency on what the financials were /sarc.

  5. avatar defensor fortismo says:

    Well, I guess if they really have their hearts set on confiscation, they can start with the weapons they gave to the cartels.

  6. avatar Sam says:

    So, if you live in a state that has legalized weed, and ATF comes calling….and they find your stash of weed, you can say goodby to your gun collection – and whatever else they want to grab. Maybe your car, your house, and your cash, too. Good luck getting it back!

    If any of this sounds familiar, remember the KGB? Stasi? Gestapo?

    As Yakov Smirnoff likes to say, “What a country!”

  7. avatar Eric says:


    We’re making it into a full post.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I wish I was shocked.

  8. avatar Lurker_of_Lurkiness says:

    “administratively forfeit” property involved in suspected drug offenses?

    Suspected crimes? Sooooo due process is where?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      We don’t need that any more.

  9. avatar JohnF says:

    I saw where one state, I forget which one, just passed a law prohibiting the state from committing any resources to enforce new federal gun regulations that violate the state constitution’s RTKABA. I wonder if this would count. BAFTE has only about 2,000 sworn agents and they have to cover alcohol, tobacco and explosives as well as firearms. States can’t overrule a federal law, but they can refuse to help and I doubt BAFTE could get a lot done with the state and locals.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      States can overrule any federal law whenever they get their act together and do so.

      To begin with, simply ignore it! They are INCOMPETENT! It may be decades before they even notice your noncompliance!

    2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      You might be talking about Prop 122 in Arizona, “Arizona Rejection of Unconstitutional Federal Actions Amendment” which was actually an amendment to the State Constitution. The measure was actually a response to several specific issues that came up as a result of encroaching Federal authority (both real and perceived). One was an issue where Tombstone water line was cut off during a summer fire, and the efforts to restore the line was slow and costly due to requirements from the 1964 Wilderness Act, because part of the line snaked through a Federally “protected” wildlife area. Another case involved the now defunct state child welfare service agency, that did not or could not release information regarding it’s failed cases, even if the case resulted in a child’s death. This was apparently due to a litany of both State and Federal laws. The measure passed in the last election by the voters, but was opposed largely by the Democrats and supported mostly by the Republicans.

  10. avatar davidx says:

    I dunno why this sorta thing is a surprise to anyone anymore; this regime, and by “this regime” I mean not just Obola’s, but also his predecessors’ regimes, simply do whatever they want. The Constitution has been birdcage liner here since the aristocrats cooked it up in the secret proceedings of that famous Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The anti-Federalists were thrown a crumb with the Bill of Rights, but that’s now birdcage liner, too.

    These people rule by dictatorial fiat, while pretending to a democratic fig leaf, and we have seen the results in our history many, many times by now. It behooves an acquaintance with U.S. history as it existed prior to one’s birth, for instance, but most Americans haven’t got a clue.

    So now we see they can not only ban ammo when they feel like it, they can also cook up or rely on what informants and spies have cooked up, “evidence” of drugs at a property and just go ahead and seize it forthwith. Our various “law enforcement” organizations have been doing this for decades and no one noticed? You see, when they suspend constitutional protections to go after the big bad dope dealer, they’ll also suspend it just as fast in your case when they decide to come after YOU.

    It should be quite entertaining in this country over the next few years, as the regime tries to figure out what to do with a country of 330-million people, third-largest in the world, after China and India, by the way, and anywhere from half a billion to a billion firearms. Many of whom are trained and experienced veterans of the various wars the country has fought, roughly for all but a handful of years during its entire history. To protect our freedom and liberty, of course.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I don’t agree with all, but generally I can’t disagree.

  11. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Not to worry! It’s OK because the Federal government says so!! Go back to bed.

  12. avatar JackieO says:

    Jean and the kids down at the school tell me I should learn to control my temper.

  13. I would like to take this opportunity to semi-publicly apologize to everyone in the past that I have debated over the issue of drug legalization. I have “evolved” on this issue. No F that, I was flat out wrong. The drug war is a complete waste of humanity. This change of heart and mind is still not going to make me pledge Libertarian. This article and past debates had nothing to do with my enlightenment. I watched a video from VICE News called “Guns In Puerto Rico: Locked And Loaded In The Tropics”.
    Bottom line: Freedom is and Freedom isn’t.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Welcome, brother. Excellent video so far (still watching it).

      1. Your going to get pissed off like I did when you see the vault in the basement of the police department.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Saw it and yuuuup. 🙁

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The drug war is a complete waste of humanity. Oh, it is more than that; it is a giant waste of money and resources. The War on Drugs has also lead to lots of Government Incrementalism and loss of Liberties.

      1. avatar JohnF says:

        I have to respectfully disagree. I don’t actually care about the drugs themselves and I also am also against the loss of liberty. And I’m not talking about marijuana. But the so-called drug trade is not about drugs. It is about smuggling contraband and lots of other organized crime. Drugs are just the current line of business.

        Legalize drugs? You will have an illegal, ruthless supply chain looking to replace that lost business with something and quick. Might be human trafficking, terrorism for hire, whatever. We will be having to hunt down the same people for something else the day after drugs are legalized. And it will probably be something worse.

        1. Well it is a lot harder to smuggle a teen age girl by shoving her up your ass than 20 capsules of cocaine…not that I have tried.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          The important part is that you will no longer be putting people into jail for victimless crimes (like deciding what to put in their own body). That alone should be sufficient to be for legalization, that it also disrupts drug cartels is icing on a cake.

          And yes, they won’t go away, obviously, but it’s also not true that it’ll be the same but with something else. They really did expand in the era of drug prohibition (and before that, alcohol prohibition) because of the sheer demand. If you don’t ban things that millions of people want, criminal organizations will still find something to trade in, but that something will be much more low key, and their revenue stream (and hence scale) will be that much smaller.

    3. avatar JohnF says:

      The reporter calls PR “an island nation.” Did they declare independence and I missed it, or did the reporter not do his homework?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Nation != state.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Welcome aboard. 40 years of massive expenditures and imprisonments, lives ruined and criminal cartels empowered, and today you can buy any drug you want on any streetcorner in America. Why are we pretending to do this, it is our money that makes the smuggling happen, that makes the murders happen, that gives the power to the cartels. Everybody just quit buying drugs and it is over. Until that happens we will NEVER stop drugs, we need to stop trying.

      1. avatar davidx says:

        There it is. The War on Some Drugs. When we all know full well that alcohol and nicotine do far more damage to us on a geometric order of magnitude. But the war goes on anyway. Cui bono? That’s all we have to ask. Who makes out from this?

        And just as that war will never end unless we stop buying the chit, so the other wars will never end until we quit signing up for them. When I bring this up, though, at the vets combat group I’m part of at the VA up here, I get dead silence, crickets. They don’t wanna hear that.

        So let’s keep buying dope and signing up for the banking and oil company wars and being told we’re all heroes, soldiers and cops, all heroes. I’ve done both gigs in my time and I’m pretty far from being any kind of hero.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          ” When we all know full well that alcohol and nicotine do far more damage to us on a geometric order of magnitude.”

          David, when I read that, I got the picture you think I am talking about pot only. Heroin is certainly more damaging than tobacco, never mind meth. But I am talking about ALL illegal drugs, the ones you can have in your hand in 15 minutes from a standing start most anywhere in the country, given money and transport. We have lost the “war” decades back, why are we adding to the misery by putting the victims in jail?

        2. avatar davidx says:

          I realize you’re not talking about pot only; I’m familiar with the whole War on Some Drugs from both sides of the legal border over several decades, and with the toll of alcohol damage in this country likewise. Firsthand.

          I agree with you, in fact; it’s a lost war, and most of the peeps in jails and prisons are nonviolent offenders and don’t belong there at all. But it’s a big industry now, and it has heavy hitters batting for it.

          We need to end it and get Our Nanny the Almighty State out of it as they’ve botched it badly, like so much else they’ve meddled in. But hell, what am I saying; Our Nanny just got the green light to regulate the net like any other public utility. What could possibly go wrong?

  14. This is a man who once said in a speech to students at Northwestern University in Chicago that “due process is not neccesarily judicial process.”

    He actually believes that.

  15. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Hey, we are from the Government and we can do whatever we want. Whatever, whatever, I do what I want!

  16. avatar Ryan says:

    An Article Five convention is our only hope. The constitution is dead.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      IMHO, a convention at this time would finish off our liberties for good. I hope that I’m wrong but I don’t trust these rats… a Con-Con would give them a completely unfettered hand to do anything to the Constitution. Besides, how does one write better than freakin’ shall not be infringed? The courts will continue to “interpret” anything written. More words=more wiggle room. The 9th really closes everything up but even it doesn’t stop the courts.

      1. avatar JohnF says:

        Yeah, don’t assume a new constitution would turn out the way you would like. It may go the other way. I think the one we have is pretty good. We just need to follow it.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          Liberals would want to socialize it and conservatives would want to Christianize it. Either way, it won’t be based around freedom for all.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I think that if we ever actually have a Con-Con, it should be preannounced as a free-fire zone. And if you are not bringing a loaded gun, you’d be well advised to stay home. What I’m saying is that murder is legal, if you want a civil war it will be right here.

          First time some of these totally false talking points comes up, challenge it with a simple “prove it!” You say it’s not possible to protect yourself with a gun? BANG. Anybody else think that? No? Then we can disregard that assertion.

          I will listen carefully to your proposals, and you will damn sure listen to mine!

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You say it’s not possible to protect yourself with a gun? BANG. Anybody else think that? No? Then we can disregard that assertion.

          ROTFL! That was an awesome comment. 🙂

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        You are totally wrong as, like most Americans, you have know idea what an Article 5 Convention is. It is no accident that not taught in gov’t schools.

        Get Levin’s book on the subject. The only peaceful resolution.

        An Art 5 Convention is NOT empowered to write a new Constitution. I may only prepare and send to the state Amendments. Our betters included the mechanism so as to shortcut an illegal, corrupt, or immoral legislature who otherwise might prepare such amendments. Think this is the case today?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I have friends that support a convention and an uncle who buys lots of Levin’s books to pass out to people. There are plenty of articles out there refuting some of the claims. In the early 1990s we argued against a convention for the same reasons. I could be wrong but it still looks to me that, once called, a convention could not be controlled. It’s not worth the risk to me. Besides, as I wrote previously, more words=more wiggle room.

  17. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Gee I knew they could do whatever the hejj they wanted to. And why isn’t holder in prison? Please don’t expect the “war on drugs” republitards to rescue anyone. Molan Labe.

  18. avatar smackdabonurass says:

    Why is that maggot still in office? He’s way past his time, he needs the Ceausescu treatment ASAP!

  19. avatar barnbwt says:

    Always Think Confiscate. Print up some mugs so your agents won’t forget…

  20. avatar JSIII says:

    We won’t get anywhere unless this is made a campaign issue; odds are an establishment candidate in either party. Unless we force the republicans to roll this back by threatening to vote for Nader or sit out the election nothing will be done.

  21. avatar gemalo says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep apologizing for it; but I should have kicked his butt off the platform, in front of a subway train, when we were in high school. What can I say; hindsight is 20-20.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I don’t care if it’s true, it made me laugh.

    2. avatar James69 says:

      You could have just done some “cowboy tricks” and walked.

  22. avatar Grindstone says:

    Drugs and terrorism. The boogeymen that are the catalyst of stripping our rights and freedoms today and the near future.

    Oh, but surely it won’t happen to me so therefore I have nothing to worry about!

    1. Don’t know if you are an Anne Coulter fan. I am. She just published an article explaining that the ISIS threat is being covered so enthusiastically to overshadow the amount of killings committed right here in the United States by illegal aliens.

    2. I don’t know if you are a fan of Ann Coulter, I am. She published an article today that is right along those lines.

      1. avatar DickG says:

        Ann nails it. Again!

      2. avatar Grindstone says:

        I am not a fan of her due to her support of Christian theocracy. She is part of the problem.

        1. So you don’t support the 1st amendment? She does and I assure you, she is a Christian and does not support theocracy.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Right, because “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity” is totally in line with the 1st Amendment.

          She has said tons of things that are clearly anti-freedom, especially when it comes how she’d like to treat her political opponents. No thanks.

        3. You do realize that Ann is as much a satirist as a political pundit? I believe you take her words more literally than she does the Bible.

        4. avatar doesky2 says:

          Christian theocracy

          Please stop parroting your leftist indoctrination.

          The stupidity of it is just astounding.
          The level of Christianity of this country has been a continuous downhill slope since July 1776 and then fell off a cliff in the 1960’s.

          Stop being an idiot.

        5. avatar Grindstone says:

          Congratulations on not only being ignorant of history but also lacking in such substance that you have to resort to ad hominem personal attacks.

          Religiousness has been a rollercoaster in the us, most notably the “Great Awakenings”. The idea that it has been a steady decline or that people in the past were always very religious is just rosy retrospection.

          Further, in the 1980s, religious hard-right wingers took power in the GOP and have turned it from being a truly conservative party into the theocratic-leaning mess it is today.

          Of course it’s far easier to label me names than it is to confront history and facts. Traits more suiting to a member of MDA or Bloomberg than a pro-2A supporter.

        6. avatar neiowa says:

          Grindstone – we got it. Several times. You worship yourself, your stinky left shoe, your Doberman, green rocks, whatever. Free country. Get over yourself.

          There are bigger issues at play than your bigoted (and moronic) libtardish prejudices. Perhaps you’d be happier at

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If she did not support theocracy, YOU would not know or care whether she was a christian or not. Try introspection, here.

          And as opposed to worshipping a stinky shoe, you would have us worship an invisible space alien child raper, correct?

        8. avatar Grindstone says:

          neiowa – I see not stepping in line with the echo chamber upsets you. I worship nothing and I don’t see how that is relevant to the conversation at all. You have contributed nothing. Perhaps you’d be happier over at moms demand action? Since you like to be ignorant and call people names.

          LarryinTX – I don’t care if she’s Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Asatru, Pastafarian, whatever. What I care about is revisionism and the enshrinement of religion, any religion, within government. I wouldn’t have you worship anything because your religion is your business. I don’t see how that’s an alien concept.

          But that is all beside the point. The point is I do not care for Ann Coulter because she does nothing but use trashy rhetoric to appeal to social conservative right-wingers.

        9. avatar int19h says:

          “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine” – Ann Coulter

          Such a champion of rights and freedoms she is.

        10. avatar davidx says:

          She’s right, though; women tend to vote for the Evil Half of the War Party, and men tend to vote for the Stupid Half.

          Case in point: if HILLARY!, a.k.a. The Heroine of Tripoli and Benghazi, a.k.a. Lady MacBeth of Little Rock, a.k.a. Field Marshal Rodham, runs for Prez, she has the American woman vote LOCKED UP, period. Regardless of any horrific baggage she’s toting from her chiseling, mean-spirited, nasty life on the planet thus far.

          I’d give it right back to Coulter; if we took away the mens’ vote in this country we’d never again elect a RINO p.o.s. or Pee Party buffoon ever again.

          And if we just quit voting entirely, we’d no longer validate their depredations and violations while they laugh at us for believing in their charade.

        11. She is right. And as a woman, she could say that. For you to claim that proves she is anti voter rights only proves that you have no comprehension of the English language delivered in a creative fashion.

          She could have just said “more women support Democrats”. But is that interesting?

          It is a perverse reach to say her comments are in actual support for barring women from voting.

      3. avatar James69 says:

        Anne Coulter needs to lay off the Meth and eat a sandwich.

      4. avatar Grindstone says:

        And I completely left out the irony of her saying that ISIS isn’t a threat yet fully supported the war in Iraq, not to mention her support of the “war on drugs”. Did I say irony? I should’ve said hypocrisy. I’ll give this to her, she knows how to exploit her audience to remain relevant and make money.

        1. She does have a talent for making a convincing argument. Something most of us lack.

  23. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Fourth Amendment? We don’t need no stinkin’ Fourth Amendment!

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Sometimes it seems like the People are just bringing words to a gun fight.

  24. avatar BDF says:

    The real quote, not the myth.

    Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.

    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so

    Adolf Hitler, 1942
    Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier
    Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters
    Leader of German Socialism

    1. avatar James69 says:

      I think that’s their bedside reader.

  25. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I admit I did not peruse the other posts, but really … Eric Holder thinks he has the authority to declare such a thing? Without even invoking the authority of that other moron with the identical qualifications that he has? No one who has legitimately passed 12th grade could possibly think this was constitutional, who is running this country?

  26. avatar James69 says:

    Old news. The states and countys here have been doing it for YEARS. The USG just want’s their CUT. If they do take your $$$ you’ll never see it again. Awhile back a guy was headed to buy a car off efey or craglist he got stopped and the cops took his money cause there was “no reason” for him to be travling with that much cash……… really, really? Guess what they kept it. The guy even had printouts of the car/deal and was headed to pick it up with a friend in the car as well. Amerkia welcome!

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      Here in OK, there was a private company that was doing drug interdiction “training” for the HP and they were extra-judicially confiscating property and cash left and right. Of course now they’ve been kicked to the curb and only the “real” LEOs can do that sort of thing now.

  27. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    Wait, didn’t he resign months ago?

  28. avatar Vitsaus says:

    How about if you’re a gun owner, don’t have “a little bit of weed” on you? How about don’t pick which laws you follow and which you don’t.

  29. avatar Joe R. says:

    5 steps to Dictatorship
    1) Lobby for a position of public service
    2) Upon obtaining position, claim it’s a position of power
    3) Exercise power
    4) Demand more power
    5) Get Overthrown, hunted

    “When forming interactive societies one maxim maintains the balance of individuals when
    commingled pairs form larger groups.
    That maxim is simply:


    [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012 pg. 35]

  30. avatar Pat says:

    It would be your patriotic duty to go “Randy Weaver” with an M1A or similar tool, upon their entry. Tree of liberty, and all that.

  31. avatar Jon says:

    Aparrently neither the 2nd or 4th ammendments matter to the government now.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email