NewMexico Gov Signs Anti Forfiture Bill (Good News) 11th hour

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:24 pm

NewMexico Gov Signs Anti Forfiture Bill (Good News) 11th hour

A few hours ago, Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico signed groundbreaking legislation to strengthen the protection of individual rights in her state. The bill, H.B. 560, requires a criminal conviction in order for law enforcement to be able to use civil asset forfeiture to seize private property.

Civil asset forfeiture is the process by which government agents can take your property if you are suspected of a crime, but without formally filing charges. In effect, the government charges the property itself with a crime, and the burden is then on the citizen to prove his property’s innocence. Such broad powers for law enforcement clearly violate the Fifth Amendment right to due process. Law enforcement can all too easily abuse this procedure as a way to persecute innocent citizens or to self-fund their offices with forfeited assets.

Thank You, Governor Martinez! | FreedomWorks

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:49 am

Urban Dictionary: kathaksung

Decide the connection for yourself.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:06 am

Actually, this is among a rare collection of Katsung's posts that I would applaud.

Asset forfeiture has been a problem for quite a while in this country. The original intent was for it to be used as a tool for fighting drug trafficking and such. but it has been misused by many a police department,

New Mexico is the first in what I hope are a string of states dealing with the problem.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:32 am

How the hell would a state get away with passing a law like that surly even a halfwit could work out what would happen

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:49 pm

gmc;1477822 wrote: How the hell would a state get away with passing a law like that surly even a halfwit could work out what would happen

Not exactly sure what you mean.

The original Asset Forfeiture law was a federal mandate to allow law enforcement at any level to seize any asset from suspected criminals, particularly when they were related to drug trafficking.

It is now up to the individual state governments to decide how they will handle the problems being encountered.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 1:21 am

LarsMac;1477855 wrote: Not exactly sure what you mean.

The original Asset Forfeiture law was a federal mandate to allow law enforcement at any level to seize any asset from suspected criminals, particularly when they were related to drug trafficking.

It is now up to the individual state governments to decide how they will handle the problems being encountered.

You give the authorities the right to seize property from SUSPECTED criminals and you can't see how that would be misused? Right wing politcians like to pretend that the law protects the rights of criminals when in fact they are there to protect the ordinary citizen from the state, especially right wing politicians. Sequestration ALL the assets of criminals after conviction - especially drug dealing and the like - I would agree with but "we think you are a criminal and we are taking all your assets" come on you've got to be kiddiing you can't see where that would go wrong.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:17 am

gmc;1477866 wrote: You give the authorities the right to seize property from SUSPECTED criminals and you can't see how that would be misused? Right wing politcians like to pretend that the law protects the rights of criminals when in fact they are there to protect the ordinary citizen from the state, especially right wing politicians. Sequestration ALL the assets of criminals after conviction - especially drug dealing and the like - I would agree with but "we think you are a criminal and we are taking all your assets" come on you've got to be kiddiing you can't see where that would go wrong.

It was all part of W's Patriot act.

Yes, many people raised objections, but we were shouted down by the "Patriots"

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:23 am

LarsMac;1477871 wrote: It was all part of W's Patriot act.

Yes, many people raised objections, but we were shouted down by the "Patriots"

They shout because they have no argument to persuade reasonable people. If we live in a free country it's no thanks to "patriots".

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:55 am

Had to read that twice to grasp the ridiculousness of it all..........................how does having a firearm on your hip secure your freedom when you have law makers like that ?