The left says if you are under investigation by the FBi

Pay attention Eskimos: arm yourselves!

 

The Eskimos got it wrong, They thought The Second Amendment was about The Right to Arm Bears !

 

How is that relevant to "being under investigation" causing you to lose rights?

 

Being indicted is a much higher bar than simply under investigation. Being indicted is being charged with a crime. That is the law at this point. If you are under indictment for any felony (violent or not), you cannot buy a firearm.

 

I am saying it is moot. According to the same law as they use, to take away your cash, out of your wallet, without a SHRED of evidence that it is connected to a crime, will be the one that takes your guns. And the bestest way to fight thems takin away the guns, is to fight the encroachment on the fourth. They will backdoor ya.

 

Clinton is not under investigation by the FBI.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...whats-wrong-jeb-bush-saying-hillary-clinton-/

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

 

A lot has happened since last January when the article was written.
She IS under investigation..... I think the administration will pressure the DOJ, so I don't think anything will become of it.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/14/f...erver-is-a-criminal-investigation-judge-says/

 

only indicted for a violent crimes? how about all those on the no fly list that you libs want to ban from purchasing a gun are they on the no fly list because they have been indicted for a violent crime?

 

Judge Rules Clinton IT Aide’s Immunity Agreement in ‘Criminal Investigation’ Will Be Sealed
On Tuesday morning, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled Bryan Pagliano‘s immunity agreement with the federal government will be sealed. The decision is part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. Interestingly, the judge also made reference that the probe into Clinton’s email server was a “criminal investigation.”
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/judge-rules-clinton-it-aides-immunity-agreement-will-be-sealed/

try to keep up what you posted is 6 months old

 

Well, the current law says that if you are indicted for any felony, you cannot buy guns while under indictment--after indictment, if you are found guilty, this is permanent if found not-guilty, you regain the right to bear arms. The no-fly list is made by bureaucrats, and has nothing to do with indictment.

 

What burden of proof is that? I know civil asset forfeiture has been applied in cases where the victim is not even charged with a crime.

 

and in some cases that is legitimate.

for example, say I am a drug dealer and I have not filed tax returns in 10 years and I have 300K in cash

You are my uncle and you are a prosperous business owner. So I go up to you and say-Hey Uncle Vic, could you hold onto my cash? the cops have been hitting all my friends' places with warrants

and you do

and the cops get a tip from a neighbor that I was seen taking a couple suitcases into Uncle Viks house right before they arrest me on a warrant for trafficking


So the cops get a warrant to search your house

they find 2 suitcases with my prints on them and 300K in cash

a drug dog hits on the suitcases

You claim that the cash is yours

Now you won't get charged with narcotics trafficking

but you most likely will lose the cash-which you never owned in the first place

 

No, it is not. Even in your example, that is a blatant violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. No person may be deprived of their property without due process.

This is why the War on Drugs must be ended, because to prosecute it effectively requires such blatant violations of our Constitutional rights.

 

so if you don't own property and you claim you do, the government has to convict you of a crime to take away the property you don't own. BTW I agree with you on the war on drugs

 

Yes, I am saying the government has to convict you of a crime to seize property from you. I don't understand why you don't agree with me on this.

 

Is there not forfeiture hearings where you get to come and explain why you were in possession of something? Here where I live I assisted a trooper who seized a large quantity of cash "hidden" in a vehicle and the occupants couldn't even tell the same story about where they were going, how long they had been together and both had no idea where the money came from, they were arrested. They were served a forfeiture notice with a date and time they could come explain to a judge why they had it and later they bonded out.....Funny no one showed up to claim the cash and they skipped bail.

Now I as a law abiding citizen might hide a large quantity of cash in my vehicle to prevent losing it by being robbed but I bet my stories would be straight to the cops and so would my wives and if on some odd chance they searched my vehicle, I would be able to show where it came from and if by some odd chance it was seized I would appear at the hearing. However my idea of carrying a large quantity of cash is no where near the 500K the trooper seized.

 

so if a drug dealer gives you property and he denies the property is his when he is being tried and you claim it is yours that means any drug dealers can hide their assets by merely having a friend take possession of the drug dealers' money and claim it is his?

 

case I tried: young lady was pulled over driving erratically. in the front passenger seat in plain view was almost 20,000 dollars (now I had a wire tap and I knew it was drug proceeds but we couldn't reveal that since there was an ongoing investigation that led to the incarceration of the biggest coke ring in the district a couple years later)

She claimed it belonged to her boyfriend (one of the dealers) since it was his car

after she was being questioned, Three people called the police station

1) her boyfriend who said it was his money-he was going to buy a car with it

2) The actual car owner-a legitimate lottery winner-he claimed it was his money that he was going to buy a car with

3) the attorney for the boyfriend who told the cops that the money was "concert proceeds" that the drug dealer had been part of


later the lottery winner was the only one who made a claim-he claimed it was cash to buy a car. The jury denied his claim and gave the US the money. In trial, he and his wife couldn't even agree what account the money came from-he claim he withdrew it from a bank account (I subpoenaed the records-no activity for 4 years in that account), his wife said it had been in a safe for 5 years but could not explain the strong presence of marijuana odor on it

The wiretaps indicated that the girl with the cash, on behest of her boyfriend, had sold another mope almost 20K worth of dope and the money was dope proceeds. she was indicted and convicted of going back with some muscle and killing the doper and taking the dope back. BTW the doper was convicted of cocaine distribution and admitted, after he pled, that the "claimant" was merely trying to help him out. The top guy in the office and I decided not to prosecute the guy for perjury.

Now we were right but using the 'conviction' model, we had nothing to bust the claimant on since the perjury was not known until a couple years later

 

Hmm. Interesting discussion. I'm not really sure how I feel about the cops taking your things just because you were charged with a crime. Sounds like it's something that could be abused, if you know what I mean.

 

its a tough issue Chris. But if you have a drug dealer whose income tax returns show an income of 12,000 last year and he is caught with no drugs but 300K in cash what do you think?

 

True, I guess in THAT case, it would be kind of obvious unless he did actually win the lotto or something. But I've heard of the police confiscating people's cars and things. You know, you can save money to buy things. I'm just an anti-government type of person, I suppose. Lol.

 

Is there not, in fact, a law against that? That sounds a lot like money laundering.

- - - Updated - - -

It absolutely is abused. There are cases with no evidence that the money was illicit, but once the police seize it, they're never going to give it back.

 

In some cases, the government is no better than criminals, IMO.